〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Vid. Dodw. in Irenae Dis 1. Sect. XVII and that there were no Subordinate Presbyters to do the same thing by the Bishops Order in other Congregations within his Diocess And that there were more Congregations than one under the Bishop of Smyrna is evident from that Passâ—…ge of Ignatius in his Epistle to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ig. ad Smyrn Let no man perform any of those things which belong to Publick Assemblies without the Bishop That Eucharist is to be thought valid which is either under him or at least which he allowed What had he to do to allow the Eucharist in Congregations Independent upon him and to talk of giving allowance to himself in his own is to great a Blunder for Ignatius to be charged with So that all the distinction here made is betwixt a Congregation under the Bishop viz. that where he was Personally present and another Congregation Assembled by his permission and allowance and must consequently imply that in the Church of Smyrna there were several Congregations under one Bishop what relates to Servants is nothing to this purpose in Ignatius whatever it was in our Authors Head Nor is the Second Alligation more regular or just than the former Antistitis manu in Tertullian for thence it came Originally by way of Mr. Baxter to our Author referring not to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistitâ—… manu contestamur nos Renunciare Diaibolo c. Eucharistiae Sacramentum in Tempore victus Omnibus mandatum a Domino etiam antelucanis Caetizbus nec de Aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus Tert. De Cor. Milit. c. 3. but to the Form of Renouncing the Devil c. which was preparatory to Baptism and the persons to be Baptized did it sub Antistitis manu for ex as this Man quotes it would have made it Non-sence Tertullian does indeed speak of the Lords Supper not to be Received nisi de Praesidentium manu But this will do our Author no Service The word Praesidentium including the Bench of Presbyters as well as the Bishop in Cathedra Vid. Pears Vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Assert 2. Dod. in Iren. Dis 1. Sect. VII Nor will the Passage out of Irenaeus which he so hastily misapplies if fully cited and understood afford any advantage to his cause Presbyters in that Father oftentimes denoting the Age rather than the Office of those Persons meant by it as divers Learned Men have already observed And in that Sence not only Presbyters but likewise Bishops Deacons and Laymen might be comprehended under that Title And accordingly Irenaeus distinguishes by divers Characters telling them what sort of Elders they were to hearken to Qua propter eis qui in Eccles sunt Pres obaudire oportet hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episc Successione charisma veritatis Certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Iren. l. 4. c. 4 3. Iren. l. 4. c. 43 viz. First Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt those who are within the Pale of the Church Secondly Hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis c. those who had the Succession from the Apostles and who together with the Succession in their Episcopal Charge did receive the sure Gift of Truth according to the Will of the Father Whence it is plain that Irenaeus in this place means Bishops only when he talks of the Apostles Successors And therefore our Authors Inference in behalf of Presbyters having their Succession from the Apostles as well as Bishops is out of Doors Irenaeus reckons up the Bishops of Rome in order as they Succeeded to Eleutherius then Bishop who was the Twelfth from the Apostles concluding Hac Ordinaâ—…ione Successione c. by this Ordination and Succession that Tradition which is in the Church from the Apostlâ—…s and the Preaching of the Truth is handed down to us From which it is plain that Succession in their days was more than bare Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship For they Succeedded the Apostles First In Power and Authority So Irenaeus quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias Committebant quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum Locum Magisterii tradentes Secondly In Place So Linus was constituted the Successor of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome and Irenaeus tells us further that they made him Bishop And therefore if his Successors afterwards mentioned kept up to the Apostles Model they must likewise derive their Office as he did from Persons invested wâ—…th the same Character and Consequently as Linus was Ordained by the Apostles who had that Episcopal Authority in themselves which they conferred upon him So the rest down to Eleutherius must be Ordained by Bishops And if so let our Author consider with himself whether his Notion or ours is nearer in all Points to the sense of those Times When I consider how nice and strict this Gentleman was in the Notion of Succession P. 19. 20 that he could not allow Two Bishops to Succeed One Apostle nor One to Succeed Two I cannot but wonder that in the Writing of 16 Pages his Head should grow so loose as to make it no more than Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship Surely if this be the truest Sence as the Gentleman affirms One Bishop may Succeed Two Apostles or One Apostle be Succeeded by Twenty Bishops without any such absurdity or Blunder as our Author cries out against in the fore-quoted Pages We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such particular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules and impose no new or needless Terms is to Act Schismatically because such willfull Separation when nâ—… cause is giuen cannot be without breach of Charity with our fellow Christians Page 37. Yes it may through the prejudices of Education or for want of understanding People may take that to be New which is very Old and that which is very Decent and Fit to be Imposed to be altogether Needless and withdraw themselves from particular Churches fram'd according to Scripture Rules when purely out of mistake they think them otherwise They may be led by Interest or won over by perswasion to a new Communion and yet have no hard thoughts of that Church or its Members which they left I cannot believe that every Dissenter at his first going off from the Church of England does immediately hate us I find several of 'em very Kind aâ—…d Affable Persons And yet if our Author has granted Right all their Charity though a very good and commendable thing cannot excuse 'em from the Guilt of acting schismatically And because our Author has granted this I shall grant likewise That Schism is frequently the Effect of Uncharitableness which perhaps was all that honest Mr. H. meant when he call d it formalis ratio People
the first-fruits of Achaia who having addicted themselves unto the Ministry of the Saints I beseech you brethren says he that you submit your selves unto such 1 Cor. 16.15 16. Therefore acknowledge ye them that are such v. 18. Hereby plainly directing them which side to choose viz. those that were of Stephanas Fortunatuâ—… and Achaâ—…cus's party who took part with the Apostles and consequently were Orthodox So likewise he magnifies his own authority as prior and greater than that of the first-fruits telling them that he planted Cap. 3.6 as the wise Master-builder he had laid the foundation v. 10. That although they had ten thousand Instructors in Christ yet not many Fathers for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the Gospel c. 4.15 So that having received their Christianity originally from him they ought not to gainsay his doctrines they might not oppose their first-fruits to his authority The Colledge of their Prophets could not judge him And as for those who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore said they were of Christ i. e. had heard our Saviour themselves and therefore pretended to have received their Doctrine from him and were consequently of greater authority than the first-fruits who received theirs only from the Apostles yet these were not to be credited in opposition to St. Paul who being chosen into the number of the select witnesses no other witness that was not one of that number could be equal to him Or if any man should oppose the authority of an Apostle St. Peter or any of the rest against St. Paul's yet the Answer is easy Is Christ divided Can he make two men the Apostles of contrary doctrines The Apostles and all other Orthodox Teachers must necessarily speak the same thing They being labourers together with God c. â—… 9 Ministers of Christ Stewards of the mysteries c. 4.1 but can lay no other foundation than that is laid in Jesus Christ c. 3.11 So that if men pretend the authority of St. Peter against those Doctrines that are really St. Paul's their pretences by this very argument are proved fictitious and St. Peter could never be the Author of any such thing Or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who say they are of Christ should pretend his authority against that which is trâ—…ly St. Paul's yet the answer is the same Is Christ divided He chose oâ—…t Paul and gave him his Spirit to preach these doctrines and therefore those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily belye our Saviour who cannot be supposed to make the Apostles Preachers of one Doctrine and himself preach the contrary And yet if any man should set up Paul against the true Doctrine of Christ so as to make him the patron of their new Doctrines because he had the authority of an Apostle yet the answer is easy Is Christ divided He cannot have the authority of Christ to preach two contrary Doctrines neither ought he to set up any Doctrine of his own against the Doctrine and Authority of Christ which is the ground of that farther reasoning Was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name c. 1. v. 13 14 15. Tho we are Stewards of the mysteries have the authority of Apostles and are accountable to no man save only to the Lord c. 4.4 yet this authority does not impower us to be the patrons of contrary doctrines that we should preach to you one doctrine formerly and now the contrary be obtruded upon ye under our names It is required of Stewards that a man be found faithful c. 4.2 and therefore we who are such ought to be true to our Master and consistent to our selves So that if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 And that they might take the greater notice he ingeminates the sentence as we said before so say I now again If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed Ibid. v. 9. Now for the Orthodox to say they were of Paul or Apollos c. i. e. that they received their doctrines from them was the same thing then as to quote Scripture now i. e. it was the utmost authority they could alledge But when the Hereticks pretended to the same authority the Orthodox had no way left but to appeal to the Apostle himself that it might appear under his own hand what his doctrine really was and which party was in the right and accordingly they dispatched their Letters to him by Stephanas c. by whom likewise they received his answer in this Epistle concerning the things in debate So that it was the Heretical Gnostics only not the Orthodox party who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying I am of Paul c. 'T was necessary for them to alledge these great authorities that they might counterpoize the Orthodox who justly pretended to the same this being one of the best ways of proof in an age of inspirations while there was little or nothing written And accordingly we find it made use of by the succeeding Heretics till such times as the Canon of Scripture was collected and made up which was the best part of a Century at least after the writing of this Epistle And when that was done they could not easily forget the same artifice but still vented their doctrines under the patronage of great names so the Ebionites pretended to be the followers of St. James the Basilidans of St. Matthias Basilides himself of Glaucias the hearer of St. Peter Valentinus of Theodades who was conversant with St. Paul c. Sometimes they opposed the truth by pretended and false traditions otherwhiles by spurious and supposititious writings and at last by corrupting the very Text it self by their base interpolations Nor is it to be supposed that this was the practice only of the latter Heretics you may trace it in St. Paul's second Epistle to the Thessalonians written several years before this 1st to the Corinthians That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by Spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand Let no man deceive you by any means c. 2 Thess 2.2 3. Herein alluding to the pretended revelations the false and spurious traditions of Heretical Teachers and either some counterfeit Epistle urged under the Apostles name or at least their corrupt glosses and interpretations of those words in the 1st Epistle c. 5.2 and perhaps it may not be unreasonably conjectured that it was a counterfeit Epistle or at least that such practices were then in use because the Apostle is so careful to give 'em a certain token in the close of this Epistle whereby they might distinguish
ever liv'd in the world were expresly against him Leg. 12. Tab. Separatim nemo habessit Deos neve novos neve advenas nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto constrâ—…cta à Patribus delubra habento Ritus Familiae Patriaeque servanto So that I know no Patron either Christian or Heathen the Gentleman has to appeal to unless it be his own scattered Party or some of his Friends the New Whigg Atheists And as for their Judgment and Approbation much good may it do him I know no Man of ours that envies his happiness There is a wonderful vein of Argument not to say Discretion in his management of T. W.'s Honours pag. 7. If he supposes any weakness in himself he does not pretend to be infallible Suppose he makes but a slip in style which he hopes a Friend will pardon the performance must necessarily be all vicious But on the contrary if he allows a Dissenter the least grain of Christian temper humility or consideration so as not to be totally divested of all three it is enough to saint him he needs trouble himself no further for his condition is very hopeful and cannot be desperate pag. 8. But above all the Address to the Sceptic does most afflict him especially that T. W. should suppose any Sceptic to be obstinate pag. 9. Now for my part I cannot perceive that ever he supposed any such thing his words are these If thou be Sceptical a slighter of our Religion obstinate and perverse a despiser and reviler of the Clergy By which it is plain T. W. intended four several Characters of those who are Enemies to the Church now there is no necessity that they should all be united in the same person but if they are all found among the members of the same Faction as certainly they are it is abundantly sufficient to acquit the Alderman However the witty Vindicator by changing Sceptical into Sceptic and putting obstinate to it takes care to make Nonsense where otherwise it is not to be found This being a part of the Ingenuity of these Gentlemen to make Faults where they cannot find them and to raise Blunders out of their own imagination and then confute them which surely is the worst tho' one of the easiest ways of arguing that a man can chuse He is mightily offended with the Alderman for making the Ninth Article of the Apostles Creed the Standard whereby to discover Schism as if it were a most heinous Crime no less than declining the Authority of Scripture to make use of it The profession of that Creed has been the badge and symbol of all orthodox Christians for many past Centuries which certainly it would not have been if they had not all believed it to be agreeable to the Scriprure And unless these Gentlemen have a mind to extinguish all the former sentiments of the Christian Church that they may the better impose upon the World what ever Notions they please I know no reason why it should now be laid aside 'T is plain T. W. never intended to rival the Scripture with this Article for he goes on immediately to explain it by the sacred Text tho in this Case he cannot be so happy as to please our peevish Author He quarrels with him likewise about the Origination of the Catholic Church and is angry that he does not date it from the Creation of Angels or from the Beginning of the Jewish Church As if the Gentleman had never heard of the distinctions betwixt the Church Visible and Mystical Jewish and Christian or some body or other had put it into his head that the Angels are Christian it being the Catholic Church under that denomination only that T. W. spoke of When our Saviour uttered those words Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church I desire to know of the Vindicator whether he did not speak of the Church de futuro and as yet unbuilt And when St. Luke says And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved whether he did not speak of it as already begun so that the Christian Church must have its beginning betwixt the time of that first saying to St. Peter and that other in St. Luke If the Gentleman will try his Chronology and assign us the year and day we shall gladly hear him but if he will still derive its Epocha from the Creation of Angels we are ready to assert the contrary In the mean time he ought to be a little sparing in his Reflections upon T. W. for if he were a Dunce and a Blockhead or a ridiculous Trifler for this account of the Origination of the Catholic Christian Church both * Probantibus actis Apostolorum descensum Spiritus Sancti quam Scripturam qui non recipiunt nec Spiritus Sancti esse possunt Qui necdum Spiritum possint agnoscere discentibus missum sed nec ecclesiam defendere qui quando quibus incunabulis institutum est Hoc corpus probare non habent Tertull. de Prae. cap. 22. Tertullian and St. Jerome †Acta Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur Historiam nascentis Ecclesiae infantiam â—…xere Hieron Ep. 103. not to say our Saviour and St. Luke must equally be comprehended in the same charge Nay the Vindicator himself grants in the next Paragraph that the Apostles and Disciples were the Church without either Jews or Angels And therefore if T. W. were a Fool for passing them by I hope the Gentleman will not disdain to bear him company He is mightily troubled pag. 11. about the admission of Church-Members that it cannot be done barely upon their profession of Faith without complying with some significant Rites that are alien to Scripture-Rules If he had but told us plainly what he had meant I could have given a more direct Answer in the mean time let him know that we decline the Charge The Disciples and Believers submitted to the authority of the Apostles in things indifferent And if our English Dissenters would be as just to their Successors according to the rules and examples recorded in Scripture no body would require more from ' em As for the saying of the Bishop of Worcester which I suppose he durst not quote because he was conscious to himself that it was nothing to his purpose it concerns the Papists only and for what belongs to us I refer him to many other excellent sayings of the aforesaid Bishop in his Unreasonableness of Separation In the next paragraph he complains that Christianity does not make a greater progress in the world and immediately charges the failure upon needless ceremonies and want of worth in the managers Now whether this be so or not he may easily try if he will either send Mr. H. or go himself for I do not question but he will allow both to be exceedingly well qualified and give a call to the unconverted Let 'em try the Emperor of China or the Cham of
the dignity of a Doctor And altho' some of those ancient Heretics could dispense with Fornication yet they dissuaded People from Marriage teaching them that it was of the Devil That we ought to own our Saviour in times of the greatest persecution is a great Gospel-Truth Luke 12.9 and yet the Corinthian Schismatics taught and practis'd otherwise which Doctrin and Practice St. Paul is likewise thought to oppose chap. 3. ver 11 c. and went so far as to partake of the Idol Sacrifices according to their worldly wisdom that they might escape persecution which made the Apostle argue that point cap. 8. and to determin so peremptorily and severely cap. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils I might give you several other instances of the Gnostick heresy too rife at that time in the Corinthian Church but these surely are sufficient to prove against Mr. H. that they were not all agreed in the great Gospel-Truths Now Heresy includes Schism as it breaks the unity of the Faith one of the indispensible requisites to the unity of the Church And therefore the Corinthian Hereticks being Schismatics likewise i.e. disjointed and loose from the body of the Church the Apostle bids 'em be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well-jointed and compacted in the Church Again in the same mind and in the same judgment i. e by uniting themselves to it both in affection and principles a work surely to be done while men are in this world and if it be not Mr. H. will find it too late when he enters into another I have only two things further to note under this particular First That the Apostle charging the Corinthians to be perfectly join'd together in the same mind and in the same judgment or opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is strange how Mr. H. could observe that they were not obliged to think the same thing And secondly That this Text relating so plainly to difference in apprehension even according to his own exposition it is no less unaccountable to me why it might not as well have been reduced under that head as any one of those which he alledged to that purpose Secondly We must enquire into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this caution which he tells us we have v. 11 12. There were contentions among them v. 11. Now the contention was about their Ministers as Mr. H. assures us p. 11. But I would ask him first of all was there no miscarriage antecedent to that contnetion Yes surely their heretical and wicked opinions which occasioned the antecedent caution viz. That ye all speak the same things In these the Schism was founded and they were probably the occasion of their ascribing themselves to Paul and Apollos and Cephas and Christ For where difference in opinion occasions debates among people not only the merits of the cause but likewise the original of each party and the means of knowing what they pretend to teach others are very frequently enquired into Thus it was in our Saviour's case when he taught something new and extraordinary beyond the common rate of their ordinary Scribes Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works Is not this the Carpenters son Is not his Mother called Mary c And are not his Sisters all with us Whence then hath this man all these things Mat. 13.54 55 56. And there seems to be abundantly more occasion for the like enquiry in the case of the Corinthians as will appear if we consider the circumstances of those early times when this Epistle was written especially what means of knowledge the Corinthians then had and what proofs they might make use of to evince the truth or falshood of any Doctrine in debate They could not have the writings of the New Testament this Epistle being one of the first And it may reasonably be conjectured perhaps proved that of that little which was then written they had seen nothing For neither in their Epistle to St. Paul so far as St. Paul alludes to it neither in his to them is there the least intimation of any such thing And yet in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Gospel of St. Matthew which were of a prior date had they been in their hands they might have found the resolution of some of those cases which they put to the Apostle and therefore saved themselves the labour of that part of their appeal And as for the writings of the Old Testament there were two sorts of errors not to mention any more which were not easily confuted by their authority One was touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection which altho it might be proved from the Old Testament yet the Gnostics who denyed it may reasonably be supposed to have learnt from the Sadduces some of their first Masters how to evade those proofs and as for the other Judaizing Doctrines the Old Testament did so far seem to countenance them that it was not likely that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be able to prove it otherwise And therefore it might become the skill and authority of the great Apostle himself to shew the contrary And as the Corinthians had not the assistance of the written rule either for information or proof in these cases so both must be derived from their Teachers either in word or writing For instruction besides what they had learned from our Saviour and his Apostles they had their Prophets and Evangelists continually among them who being endued with the Spirit were thereby qualified to instruct and educate the younger converts in the Doctrines of the Gospel and from these the Corinthians received their common Instructions But as the Orthodox Prophets had their true inspirations so the Heretical Teachers pretended to the same and as the former had their true miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrines so the latter had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their lying wonders for the confirmation of theirs to deceive if it were possible the very elect And that which made it still more difficult for the ordinary Corinthians to judge betwixt them was because both parties continued in the same communion the Heretics not daring to go out i. e. to separate from the Church till a considerable time after this when many of the Apostles were dead Now where both sides were equal in order pretended to the same inspirations the same miracles and lived in the same communion the proof of each Doctrine must depend upon the credit and authority of those persons from whom it was derived If from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts well learned in the Christian doctrines highly approved and dignified by the Apostles as Apollos was it was of the last great authority Thus St. Paul recommends the authority of the houshold of Stephanas as being the most early Converts in that Region
Apostle's authority and order 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. to be delivered unto Satan by being excommunicated out of the Church for the destruction of the flesh that Satan having him in his power might torment his body with diseases and pains For such a power as this the Apostles had whereby they were more especially enabled to convict Heretics of Imposture who pretending to Miracles as well as the Apostles it was not easy for the common People to see which were in the right unless something extraordinary appeared on the one side more than the other And in this case nothing could be so proper as that power of inflicting punishments upon the very persons of the Wonder-workers They might equal the Apostles themselves in their pretences to Inspirations to Mystery and Knowledge Their Tricks and Conjurations might perhaps seem as strange to the common People as any true Miracles But when the Apostles inflicted miraculous punishments and yet they could neither save nor avenge themselves by all their power it would be plain enough to every one who it was that acted by the power of God and consequently which side were in the right and which Cheats and Impostors Thus St. Paul threatens the elated Gnostics to know their power 1 Cor. 4.19 For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power i. e. it will not be so easy for you to judge by disputations c. who are the orthodox members of God's Church as by these more evident demonstrations of power which make the case plain to every man And yet the Apostle was always tender how he used those rigorous methods this power being given for edification and not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 it was only to be exerted upon the most notorious and incorrigible Offenders And this is the reason why we meet with so few instances of it and why the Apostle leaves it to their choice how he should deal with them What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love and in the spirit of meekness 1 Cor. 4.21 And this power seems to be appropriate to the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops of that early Age For why else does the Apostle in the case of the incestuous Corinthian affirm himself to be present in spirit at the meeting of the inferior Ministers of the Church When ye are gathered together 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. What matter whether the Apostle were present any way or not if his presence were no way necessary why should his spirit with the power of Christ be so emphatically mentioned ver 4. if the Assembly had that power of Christ so as to do it without him perhaps one reason might be because the Corinthian was a Doctor And we find the same authority over persons of that degree appropriated to the succeeding Bishops So Timothy might bestow the marks of Honour and likewise receive Accusations against an Elder and rebuke them that sinned before all so as to terrify others 1 Tim. 5.17 19 20. Titus was to rebuke sharply the Gnostic Prophets those who bore the like character in the Christian Church to that of Epimenides among the Heathen i. e. were Priests and Diviners to stop their mouths which was surely to silence them Tit. 1.11 12 13. So that the Apostles and Bishops who succeeded them in Authority had power to silence the schismatical Teachers which is all we contend for But neither they nor we are for silencing those Ministers that being duly ordain'd are sound and orthodox according to Mr. H's Supposition and whether he and his Vindicator belong to the former or the latter sort we are willing at any time to stand a fair Tryal As for his instance of Apollos it will do him but little service if Antiquity is to be credited which makes this very Apollos the first Bishop of Corinth and it is to be noted that there were Teachers and Ministers before and therefore if Apollos was the first Bishop he was of another Order And their boasted Father St. Jerome expresly tells us that upon this very Schism of the Corinthians * Hiâ—…ron in Comment ad Tiâ—…um In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Not that there was no Episcopal Authority before this time it was lodged in the Apostles till now and this was the first time they communicated it to any other person With the like ingenuity Mr. H. expounds the second place in this Epistle where he finds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling us First That it could not be meant of breach of Communion because they all came together into one place v. 20. Secondly That the Schisms were Quarrels and Contentions about some little things relating to the circumstances of public worship Thirdly That the quarrel seems to be obout the time of beginning their worship in every of which conjectures Mr. H. is grosly mistaken and seems not to have understood St. Paul's meaning as will appear if we consider First That altho it is true as I noted before that Schismatics did not as yet hold any separate Conventicles yet there was a most notorious breach of communion even at the Communion-Table and their miscarriages were so great and of such a kind as were scarcely reconcileable with the nature of a Sacramental Feast Insomuch that the Apostle tells 'em v. 20. When ye come together into one place This is not to eat the Lord's Supper and the reason was because they did not communicate one with another For in eating every one taketh before other his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken i. e. The rich who contributed more plentifully to the common feast did not suffer the poor to be sharers with them but snatcht up their own oblation and eat and drank it themselves So that those who by reason of their poverty brought little or nothing went away hungry and ashamed v. 21 22. Now this was so much a breach of communion that according to this practice there was really no communion at all The rich lookt upon what they brought as their own Supper to which no man else had any right and for this reason were so hasty to eat it up themselves that the poor had nothing So that while one party had nothing to eat and the rest ate every man his own without communicating one with another there was so great a violation of the designed communion that really they made it no communion at all And yet I can find no quarrels or contentions among them The rich who fed so plentifully had no reason to quarrel for they had their full share even to excess And altho the poor had really a just cause of complaint yet perhaps because they brought nothing they thought it not seemly to mutiny All the Apostle mentions concerning their behaviour is that they were hungry v. 21. and as
many other Apostolical Churches were the same The Churches of Rome and Corinth and most others were made out of Jews and Gentiles who had the same different apprehensions about Jewish Ceremonies as well as that at Jerusalem And therefore the difference was not betwixt Church and Church but betwixt the Members of the same Churches who were left at liberty by the Apostolical Synod except in three things And for that Reason the Gentile Dissenters cannot possibly be the Patrons of ours unless the Vindicator can shew that the Jewish Ceremonies were impos'd as ours are by some Christian Church If he can prove that Rules were given and Matters of Decence impos'd and that any Christians in that Age refus'd to submit to 'em let him name 'em as the Precedents of his Cause and Party I dare say That every Churchman will allow 'em to be so In the next Paragraph he is fond of the Notion which he quarrell'd with in the last so inconstant are those people that know not what they would have It fits the Independents as exactly as if it had been made for 'em for they hold a Vnity for Substance tho not for Circumstances they are united to all true Churches tho for condemning Bishops who are doubtless the principal and most necessary Members they partake of the same Table tho they set up Altar against Altar they are the same with us in the External Worship and Service of God tho in Covenant against us and they refuse to communicate with us either in Sacraments or Prayers They are all united to the Head tho not into one Body either among themselves or with others For that part of Unity I observe the Gent. passes over and with a great deal of Reason it being hard to find several Members united into One Body and yet still remaining all independent That wherein they differ from others is according to the Apostolical Mode That wherein others differ from them is nothing but Innovation Otherwise they are the same with all true Churches if you will believe this Gent. To all which I shall only apply and argue in the plain words of St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 John 2 1â—… Touching the Continuance of the Church he agrees with us p. 17. Only about the Authority of the Apostles he is pleas'd to fall out not apprehending how any Man can succeed the Apostles in their Apostolical Power If he means the Authority they had in the Church i. e. over the Presbyters and other Members we affirm Bishops to be their Succ ssors it being not reasonable to suppose that any Branch of Auth rity given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them for if their Authority over the Presbyters expir'd with their Persons why should that over the People continue after 'em unless the Gentleman will suppose which I suppose he will not that the Laity are the only persons that need the Regulation of Superiours All Multitudes must have Governours and the common Presbyters are certainly oo Numerou a Populace to be all independent Let 'em submit therefore to Bishops their Successors as they did to the Apostles themselves especially till such times as you can find a Text to prove That the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life it being a Matter of such Consequence in the Vniversal Church that few will believe you upon your own bare Word As the Authority of the Apostles was Vniversal and extended to the whole World and was the same in all Churches p. 18. so Bishops do succeed them in the same Authority And if it were not for those Humane Agreements which the Vindicator cannot disallow the Government Ecclesiastical must be so exercised And I could wish the Gentleman would be pleas'd to consider whether a Bishop is not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as much a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocess or Parish as he is in his own Is he suspended or deprived when he 's out of his own bounds If not I hope he may be a Minister like the Apostles all the World over And yet the exercise of his Ministry confin'd within certain limits Nor do's this Notion give the Pope any greater power in England than it do's the Archbishop of Canterbury at Rome which is none at all On the contrary if Ordinary Pastors are Pastors only within their own Precincts Mr. H. and his Vindicator tho Ordain'd can be none because they exercise their pretended Ministry in other Mens Parishes He will not dispute the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus but he tells us it signifies nothing till the nature and extent of that Office be first determin'd out of Scripture p. 18. As if the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were no Scripture We find Timothy appointed by St. Paul to examine the Qualifications of such as were to be Ordain'd to lay hands suddenly on no Man to receive Accusations and proceed judicially and to rebuke before all even Elders themselves if there were occasion Titus was to ordain Elders in every City to set things in order to rebuke with all authority to admonish and reject heretics And this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction wherewith Timothy and Titus were invested is what the Bishops have all along exercised and do still challenge at this day and therefore we justify the present Episcopal Authority by these two Scripture-Instances And as the Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most Ordinary Pastors call 'em Bishops or Presbyters or what you will being all independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to supervise and govern 'em by the same Scripture it stands condemn'd and is plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And if the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant by reason of their frequent Removes from place to place as the Gent. supposes p. 19. our Bishops are extreamly like 'em in that particular their Office being always very itinerant in their Episcopal Visitations But this is an idle Fancy which he probably learn'd from Mr. Baxter an idle one I call it for if the Office of Timothy and Titus was really itinerant they were certainly out of their Office while they staid at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete tho doing that very business for which the Apostles plac'd 'em there which how well it agrees with Scripture and common Sence let every discerning Reader judge If none besides St. Paul were concern'd in the Ordination of Timothy and Titus Sed quod ab uno Apostolo gestum est id ab omnibus simul Apostolis gestum esse dicitur ob Collegium Consortium Apostolatus Vales Annot. in Philosâ—…org H. E. l. 3. c. 15. Sub imperatore Claudio loco duorum unicus Praefectus Praetorio Constitutus
est Burrhus Afranius Sub Nerone Burrho mortuo duo praefecti praetorio constituti suâ—…t ut unius successores Pears de success Diss 1. C.IX. ubi plura in hujus argumenti fidem allata legas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos l. 11. c. ult Augustus Constantinus in suburbana villa Nicomediâ—… tricessimo primo Imperii sui anno diem functus est liberis de successione 〈◊〉 Orbis testamento Haeredibus scriptis Ruffin H. E. l. 1. c. 11. it surely justifies the present Ordinations by a single Bishop but if others joyn'd with him in Imposition of Hands as the Gent. supposes in the following p. T. W. was not much out several of the Primitive Bishops being Styl'd Apostles by the Ancients as well as the Twelve And therefore before he had condemn'd T.W. he ought to have told us who those were that laid on hands with St. Paul and to demonstrate 'em Unworthy of that Title But it is sufficient to justifie T. W. that what is done only by one has been commonly said to be done by the Apostles by reason of their being Colleagues and Partners in the same Apostleship I dare answer for T. W. That this Man's Notion of a proper Succession never enter'd into his head No Man besides Blondel and his quarrelsome Brethren ever reckoning it improper to call Two persons the Successors of One when really they are so When Two Persons are Heirs to One in the same Estate or succeed him in his Authority they are call'd by Civilians and I believe not improperly Haeredes or Successores partiarii When the Roman Empire became divided I would fain know whether Constantine the Great and Jovian c. had no Successors And I hope the Gent. will allow Their Majesties K. W. and Q. M. to be call'd the Successors of K. J. without any great Absurdity And as there are Instances enough to be given of Two Persons succeeding One in his Secular Estate and Authority so I know no Reason why Two Bishops may not as well succeed One Apostle in the Ecclesiastical The larger the Apostles Province was the more Divisions it was capable of and consequently the more Successors he might have Timothy might succeed him at Ephesus Titus in Crete c. Nor does this succeeding of the Apostle in these Two Provinces give 'em an equal Power in one another's Diocesses as the Vindicator supposes p. 19. any more than the King of Spain has Power at Rome or Constantinople because the Roman Emperors are number'd amongst his Predecessors by Franciscus Taraphâ—… and other Spanish Historians Nor is there any necessity to suppose as the Gent. would insinuate that the Apostle must either be suspended or degraded or translated to an higher Seat to make room for the Succession of Timothy and Titus in the Sees of Ephesus and Crete For it is evident the Apostle himseâ—…f gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserv'd to himself So that they had the full Ordering and Government of those Two Churches and did therefore succeed the Apostle in it even while he was alive But if the Vindicator will needs call 'em the Apostle's Coadjutors while he was alive and give 'em the Title of Successors only after his Decease I know T. W. will not quarrel with him it being no way contrary to any thing he hath said In the mean time I must desire him to forbear making wry Faces If any one shall still assert That St. Paul Ordain'd his Successors at Ephesus and Crete for as it is impossible that the Apostle should have any Successors unless ordain'd by themselves nor very probable that they ordain'd 'em when they were dead So according to the Opinion of the Ancients and common Sense they are said by T. W. to ordain 'em while they were alive Thus Irenaeus Iren. adv Haeres l. 3. c. 3. Ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes And a little after speaking concerning the Bishops of the Church of Rome Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt From which Two Passages it is plain That the Apostles ordain'd Bishops their Successors while they were alive and that Linus a single Person succeeded the Apostles in the plural which is the double blunder in express terms wherewith our nimble-sighted Author charges T.W. p. 20. Nor will Tertullion easily free himself from our Author's Censure if he ever hears of that Passage de Praescript c. 32. Evolvant Ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ad initia decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit habuerit Autotem Antecessorem Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census sâ—…os deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne Collocatum sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum itidem perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum Constitutos Apostolici Seminis traduces habeant So that according to Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Antioch c. 23. the Apostles ordain'd the first Bishops in each Church and were their Predecessors and they the Apostles Successors Nor was it ever thought so great a Mystery by Men of Sence either in Ancient or Latter Ages for a Bishop or other Person to ordain or constitute his Successor as this Man makes it The Council of Antioch deâ—…rees it Unlawful for a Bishop to constitute his Successor But if according to the Opinion of our Author they had thought it a thing impossible they would certainly have spar'd their Paiâ—…s it being not very usual for Wise Men to make Laws against Impossibilities Valerius ordained St. Augustine his Successor and he Heraclius Augustine of Canterbury ordained Laurentius to succeed him in that See according to Bede Bedae Ec. Hist. l. 2. c. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 20. who says he did it after the Example of St. Peter who is said to have consecrated Clemens evangelizandi adjutorem simul Successorem And Epiphanius gives the Reason why other Persons were made Bishops in the Life-time of St. Peter and St. Paul even because the Apostles did frequently travel into other Countries to preach the Gospel and the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop To which I might add That Severus Bishop of Milevis and Boniface Archbishop of Mentz did after the Example of the Apostles ordain Persons to succeed 'em in those Sees And now surely nothing but that Faculty of Ignorance if there be such a Faculty wherewith he reproaches T. W. p. 21. cou'd have embolden'd this Vindicator to charge a Man with Nonsence and Blunder for asserting plain Matter of Fact when there are so many Instances to be found of the same Nature according to the Sence and Practice of several Ages I fancy few
for it But in some Greek Copies the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are left out So that upon the whole matter the Eastern Churches have no quarrel against either of those * Combefis ad Man Calec not 59. Creeds All their contention with the Western in this case is about the true Reading of them †Symbolum fidei quod ipsi profitentur idem est atque illud quod Latini in Missa recitant Differunt in eo à Latinis quod ipsi de Spir. Sancto dicunt qui ex Patre procedit Latini qui ex Patre filioque procedit id cum Graeci non negent idem cum Latinis dicere existimandi sunt Leo All. de Cons l. 3. c. 10. Sect. 1. And therefore unless he had been more particular about that this first Branch of T. W's description may stand and yet neither the Greek or any Eastern Church be excluded Secondly To partake of the same Table 't is true T. W. did not mean the same individual Table as the Gentleman rightly supposes and yet he meant somthing more than barely the same Eucharist in Specie Hereticks and Schismaticks may deliver the same Eucharist in Specie and yet he that Communicates with either is not thereby in the Communion of the Saints Thirdly To joyn all in the same Holy Prayers and Supplications and giving of Thanks T. W. does not hereby Excommunicate all the rest of the World For although the Forms of Holy Prayer c. are different in several Countreys yet people joyning with the Church where they live in its Holy Devotions do answer this Branch of the Description and those Christians who refuse and separate from them are certainly Schismaticks Fourthly To be Subject and Obedient to our Spiritual Rulers and Governors who have derived their Authority from the Apostles by a due Succession in all things pertaining to godly Life Decency and Order He cannot except against this They are desirous to give due Honour and Obedience to their Spiritual Governors who derive their Authority from Christ but still he endeavours to justifie their Separation upon two accounts Vind. p. 32. First Because he thinks the Bishop ought not to Govern so many Congregations nor by such Rules and Officers as they do Neither Secondly By the nomination of the Civil Magistrate without the consent of the People or the Ministers within the Diocess and while he does so he is a Creature not to be found either in Scripture or in the Primitive Times and therefore can be no Spiritual Governor of theirs by Divine Right As to the Government of so many Congregations we think it not Essential to the Office of a Bishop It being not the greatness of the City he lives in or the extent of his Diocess or the Number of Congregations but the Ordination that makes him a Bishop We acknowledg with St. Ep. ad Evagr. Jerome that the poor Bishop of Eugubium had the same Order and Authority with him of Rome and that he of Tanis was equal in that respect to him of Alexandria Soz. l. 2. c. 14. and that Milles the Martyr in Sozomen who had never a Christian within his Diocess Ibid. l. 7. c. 19. was as truly a Bishop as he who had all Scythia under his care On the other hand to persuade us that the great Extent of a Bishops Diocess does make void his Office will be a task I am afraid too difficult for our Author to manage We have no such Doctrine in Sc ipture And this conceit as it is beyond the malice so it is below the Sence of all Hereticks and Schismaticks in former Times And if it were true the Apostles themselves must have been the greatest Usurpers They having a larger extent of Jurisdiction even according to this Author than any of their Successors But this Argument has been so Copiously and so lately managed by Doctor Maurice in his Learned Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy that I shall only need to refer the Reader thither Secondly As for the Officers used by our English Prelacy we think them such as are extreamly useful in order to the more regular and easy management of the Episcopal Charge The Chancellor is a Person well learned in the Canon and Civil Laws and consequently able to judg or assist the Bishop in his Judicial Proceedings Nor is it any great exception against him in my Opinion that he is a Layman while there is no Necessity for him Personally to perform any of those things which belong only to the Clergy Lyndew de Constit q. incontin Dec. Rural vid plura de judiciis c. 1. Dec. Rural The Dean Rural is a Temporary Officer under the Archbishop or Bishop ad aliquod ministerium exeâ—…cendum Constitutus Cujus Officium est in Causis ecclesiasticis citationes ei transmissas exequi cujus sigillum in talibus erit auctenticum The Rules they go by are the Canon and Civil Laws where the Laws and Canons of our own Kingdom have not expresly directed The Authority they have is from the Bishop and the Law So that he who disobeys them in the just and legal Exercise of their Authority disobeys both How Sacred and Certain that Authority is I wish these Gentlemen may consider And if it were purely a matter of Choice yet methinks Church-Affairs are more likely to be well manag'd under our English Prelacy by such Officers and Rulers than after the Independent Fashion by the Sudden and Arbitrary Determination of every Mean and Ordinary Pastâ—…r perhaps in a Consistory of Clowns who must Pole for that Truth and Equity which they do not understand And if either the Pastor or any body else happens to be wiser than the rest so as to judge right have Power to over-rule his Sence and Arguments either by Votes or Tumult Neither Thirdly Do we think the Consent of the People or of the Ministers of the Diocess Essential to thâ—… Office of a Bishop Our Saviour Constituted his Apostles without it We have no Command in Scripture for any such Consent The Practice of the Primitive Times was various and therefore we think it a Matter left wholly to the Discretion of the Church Matthias and Justus seem to be appointed by the People as well as the Apostles Acts 1.15 c. But the Apostleship was not determined by that Election but by the Lot which fell upon Matthias For Justus who was equally Sharer with him in that Act of the People was thereby no more an Apostle than he was before And perhaps the same way of Chusing by Lots might be us'd by St. John as Mr. Dodwell conjectures but was never Diss Cyp. p. 12. probably in Use after the Apostles Days though if it had been Necessary we cannot believe it would have been omitted in the following Ages The Seven Deacons we read were Elected by the People but receiv'd their Authorities and Office from the Apostles by imposition of Hands And these are I believe all