to imagine that they should all go once a week from the most distant places to Jerusalem unless they had very little business at home or were extraordinary Travellers They had their Proseuchae and Synagogues for publick worship and their private devotions which might be said any where All inferior Altars and places of worship were in communion with the supream one and the persons who did legally and regularly communicate at them were likewise understood to partake thereby of that one Altar and therefore if the Synagogues be certainly the patterns of our Christian Assemblies Ibid. pray Sir assign us an Altar with which we must hold communion which will surely be that of the Bishop according to the sentiments of the primitive Church Nor was the precept of offering only upon one Altar so purely ceremonial but that it was founded upon very rational tho mystical principles according to tne sense and interpretation of the Hellenistical Jews the end of it was to distinguish the Segullah or peculiar people those that were in special Union and Covenant with the Deity from those that were not or had broken off from it The principle and archetypal head of that Union was God himself to whom none but the Segullah were united The Segullah were united by Sacraments which were the legal Symbols and Ratifications of that Union the High Priest was the representative of the Archetypal head so that none could be in Union with God unless united to the High Priest None united to the High Priest unless they did partake of that Altar where he offered and those which were dependant upon it And therefore the Sacraments belonging to Schismatical Altars viz. that of Samaria and its dependents erected in opposition to that of the true High Priest did not unite them to God neither consequently were the Worshippers at that Altar to be reckoned of the Segullah or peculiar people but rather as the Altar of Samariah was against the Altar of Jerusalem so were the Samaritan worshippers against the true Israelites Now the Christians I hope are as well united to the Father and the Son as ever the Jews were They are as truly the Segullah or peculiar people and the ways of transacting that Union by the Evangelical Sacraments and Priesthood as certain And therefore have been maintained by the Primitive Fathers and Mr. Dodwell upon the same manner of reasonings which the Jews used See his one Altar And if this way of reasoning be good there are two other Texts in the old Testament which will help to discover the notion of Schism one relating to that Altar of the Tribes beyond Jordan Joshuah 22. the other to those of Jeroboam 2 Kings 17. Nor is any thing in this foolish paragraph conclusive against these reasonings which it was either designed to Answer or else it is very impertinent No man ever denied that Christians might pray every where in any Kingdom City or place wheresoever they come only we desire it may be remembred that the Jews had the same liberty And if private Christians may pay their devotion to Almighty God any where in the Church in their Families in their Closets in the Fields and any other place they certainly have the liberty to pray every where and yet this cannot vacate the obligation of holding communion with one Altar for the Jews themselves had the very same liberty while they were under that obligation If Christians have a liberty to build their Oratories and Churches for the public service of Almighty God wheresoever they please without being excluded or confined to any place they may certainly fulfil the Gospel rule of praying every where and yet this will be no prejudice to their holding Communion with the Bishop of the Diocess For if Uniting our Selves to a Congregation in communion with the Bishop be any violation of that Gospel rule because they meet in a particular Church and the Bishop lives in a particular City I cannot see how Mr. H. and his Vindicator will acquit themselves from the same guilt whose Congregations are confined to a particular house or a particular stable Their people must be with their Teacher where ever he assembles ours with their Priest at the place of publick worship And if we are to be condemned for breaking this Gospel rule I can see no reason why Mr. H. and his followers should plead not guilty 'T is true we are not confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem the obligation was taken away by the authority of our Saviour Joh. 4.21 in his answer to the woman of Samaria The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father Not that it was forbidden to worship at either of those places in the times of the Gospel but the true Evangelical worship should not be confin'd to either the Jewish dispensation was to be laid aside and a more spiritual one introduc'd the literal to be exchanged for the mystical Israel The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth v. 23 24. That which under the Gospel was to answer the High Priesthood should not be confined to one City or one Mountain and that which corresponded to the worship she then discoursed of namely the sharing in the same Sacrifices should be henceforth so spiritual and free that all people might partake and communicate in it however distant their residences were which they could not do before This as it is the genuine sense of our Saviours discourse so methinks these following observations may be drawn from it 1st That there is something under the Gospel which does really correspond to that solemn worship at Jerusalem for it being that only which the woman discoursed of to our Saviour his answer must necessarily bear a relation to it And therefore the worship at Jerusalem and the spiritual worship were a type and antitype one of another So that as all the Jews did communicate at one Altar in the like manner Christians must partake in the same spiritual Sacrifices 2dly That as the design of those anniversaries was to keep 'em in the same Communion so that spiritual worship here spoken of is for the very same end 3dly That as the Priesthood and Altar were the principles of unity amongst them so there is a mystical Priesthood and Altar which do the same thing among us 4thly That as he who broke the communion with that Altar was off from the Church of the Jews So he who separates from ours is divided from the body of Christians And 5thly That as in one case they forfeited the Jewish priviledges so they do likewise the Christian in another These two last observations were included in the discourse as is plain from our Saviours confining Salvation to the Jews For the conclusion bearing a
may be collected from the next verse out of countenance and ashamed 'T is pretty to see Mr. H. bringing in his little things here again as tho Heresies v. 10. to violate the pious design of a feast of Charity v. 20. to be drunken themselves and starve the Poor v. 21. to expose their poverty and put them out of countenance and all this in the Church at their Agapae or feasts of charity were to pass under the title of little things If there had been any quarrels among 'em these according to the Apostle must have been the occasions which surely cannot be little things in the opinion of any man who has not himself a very large Conscience The reason why the Apostle bids them tarry one for another ver 33. was that they might have communion by eating together and not according to their rude and irregular practice take every one before other his own Supper But it is unreasonable to conclude That they quarrelled about the time of their meeting For altho' the time were fully agreed on by every mans consent yet unless all Clocks c. went alike in those days and all mens speed were equal some would come sooner and others later as well as they do now and the first might devour what they themselves brought before such times as the rest could be there to partake with them I shall observe only two things more before I pass to the next Scripture 1. That Mr. H. in his account of this very ingeniously passes over the next and immediate Context ver 21. For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you Now suppose that any man should infer hence that the Schism mentioned ver 20. was occasioned by their Heresies that their Divisions were only into Sects and Parties some being orthodox and some otherwise as it is among us and that hence proceeded the other irregular practices I would fain know what he has to say to the contrary And 2dly It may perhaps try the wit of Mr. H. and his Brethren to give a clear account how St. Paul's reasonings ver 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 and 32 can any way quadrate or be reconciled to his Notion And yet they must be all brought in or else the 33d verse quoted and urg'd by him will bear no manner of relation to the 18th which he designs it to interpret The last place Mr. H. mentions is 1 Cor. 12.25 That there be no Schism in the body I shall pass over his Remarks p. 14. it being sufficient for us that he is pleased to acknowledge pag. 15. that to be Schism which breaks or stockens the bond by which the members are knit together which thing is so notoriously done by separation and breach of communion that whoever is guilty of that may according to Mr. H's Assertion justly be charged with Schism That Bond he tells us is not an Act of Uniformity neither say I is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence And therefore notwithstanding the late Act nay tho' we should have no Act of Vniformity yet all this would not excuse Mr. H. and his Vindicator from being Schismatics according to his own Argument True Love and Charity in point of Affection as Mr. H. assures us is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together And Schism is that which breaks that Bond. That Schism does usually break Charity no man will deny Mr. H. and his Party are sufficient instances of this truth as those persons who have the zeal and courage to oppose their Faction do always find when ever they fall into their hands And that Love and Charity is likewise a means to prevent Schisms as it always pays a just deference to all spiritual Governors cools and abates the violence of Faction makes People humble obedient and docible and causes all to endeavor after peace and unity we do readily acknowledge and for this reason both the Apostles and others have all along in their discourses about Schism pressed men to Charity as a necessary means to bring them over to conformity and unity with a sound and orthodox Church But to infer hence That Charity in point of Affection is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together and that Schism consequently is nothing else but Vncharitableness are Positions only fit for Mr. H. to assert and the Vindicator to justify St. Paul does not say as Mr. H. falsly quotes him That it is the unity of the Spirit that is the bond of peace Eph. 4.3 but exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace so that the bond of peace must needs be something more than barely the unity of the Spirit And by the unity of the Spirit more is certainly to be understood than only Charity as appears by the References made to it in the Context ver 4.7 11 c. which thorowly considered makes this Text little or nothing to Mr. H's purpose And withal it is to be remembred that the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together besides Charity viz. they are incorporated into one society one body as well as animated by one spirit ver 4. united in one hope of their blessed calling ibid. united as Subjects to the same Lord as Professors of one and the same Faith initiated into the same Mysteries and Partners in the same Covenant by one and the same Baptism and united by our union and communion with the orthodox Governors and Pastors of the Church which St. Paul tells us were given us for the perfecting of the Saints or according to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the compacting or knitting together of the Saints ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the edifying or building up of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith c. unto a perfect man c. that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive ver 13 14. From all which it appears that Mr. H. is for one Doctrine and St. Paul for another and therefore having laid both opinions before the Reader I freely leave it to his own choice whether of the two he will follow Charity is certainly the bond of perfectness but what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 3.14 Mr. H. has not informed us which surely he ought to have done before he had made any inference from these words whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mercifulness Hammond in loc as it does Luke 6.36 or perfectness in all the duties of Christianity Charity may either way be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bond of it for Charity is a very large and comprehensive virtue The Apostle tells us it is the fulfilling
great Incendiaries as any of the former Mr. H. already is not without grains of malice too often sprinkled among his Charity And as for the Vindicator he is all o're spite and from the beginning of his Book throughout by his false and malicious Suggestions he breaks the Laws of Charity and shews himself a Schismatick according to his own Notion Nay at last when he draws towards a Conclusion lest his Readers should not have noted his many spiteful Reflections he takes care to put them in mind with a great deal of boasting Insolence how roughly i. e. how maliciously he has treated T. W. p. 90. From such Men who are so uncharitable even while they pretend the contrary and such Notions which introduce Anarchy Confusion and Licentiousness little Peace is to be expected whatever is design'd We know it is too much the custom of Politicians to cry Peace Peace even when they mean nothing less and every Man that has but the sense of the Kid in the Fable will easily perceive in the present Case that altho' it may be the voice of the Goat which we hear yet it is really the Wolf that stands at the door Nor is Mr. H. more unfortunate in his Methods of peace than he is in the description of Schism It is certainly the latest that has been coined and perhaps the wildest that ever any man father'd upon the Scriptures or offer'd to set up in contradiction to the received opinion of Sixteen hundred years He tells us p. 15. that Schism is an uncharitable distance division or alienation of affections among those who are called Christians and agree in the fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things From which description of Schism if I understand it right these following particulars may be regularly drawn First of all That he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian For Mr. H. tells us that Schism is among those who are called Christians Secondly Thaâ—… Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. supposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the fundamentals of Religion So that the grossest Hereticks are excus'd from Schism which falls heaviest upon those who differ about the smallest things which is all one as if he should have said the less the fault is the greater the crime For instance If people diviâ—…e from the Church because they will not own the divinity of our Saviour or the doctrine of the Trinity these people are no Schismaticks because they differ in fundamentals but if two Gentlewomen of his own Congregation should happen to fall out and carry at a distance because they could not agree about the upper end of a Seat in Mr. H's Meeting-house this would be the horrid crime of Schism the Arch rebel against God according to every branch of the aforesaid description Thirdly Another inference to be made from it is that alienation of affections is Schism but a division and alienation of Communion is not And consequently no one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his heart It being impossible to know according to this description that people are really Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in charity except we could make enquiry into the secrets of their hearts and discover every thing transacted there And on the contrary people may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward professions of Charity and yet no body can accuse them with that fault If these propositions be duly inferr'd from Mr. H's description I believe he will not find many that will join with the Vindicator in his commendation of it And as for the clearness he talks of there are so many ambiguities still remaining as perhaps may trouble another inquirer to explain to us As 1st Whether the uncharitable distance must really be among those who are Christians or them that are none for people many times call things by wrong names Secondly What he means by fundamentals of Religion Whether salutis or theologicae veritatis Whether those that are so to every man in his private capacity Or those which are the fundamentals of Church Communion Thirdly What he means by little things Whether division of affection about all manner of little things be Schism Or only about Ecclesiastical little things the trifles and Religious impertinencies which the Vindicator so frequently despises The clearing of these particulars had been of no small importance in this controversy and therefore if the describer had been pleased to have explained them to us his notion might have been abundantly clearer than it is But perhaps the Vindicator does not take this description for the clear account and that may be the reason why he minces and alters it himself p. 80. Whether for the better or the worse I shall not say Perhaps the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does the business and the import of those words is the only thing of which he has given us a clear account Vind. p. 4. Let us therefore take a review of that enquiry and see whether there be any just occasion for such mighty boasting Mr. H. tells us p. 4. that there is but one Scripture in the old Testament relating to this affair viz. Numb 11.26 When I observe that if this Text be nothing to the purpose then there is none and consequently either the Jewish Church was in no danger of Schism at least wise not infested with it Or else the inspired writings are seemingly defective that have not one word relating to it And furthermore it is to be noted that in this text there is no mention of any division or alienation of affections and therefore unless it is to be found in some other place which Mr. H. denies there is not one old Testament Schismatick in the whole Bible Or lastly if there were any such guilt among them it could not be of the same nature with that which Mr. H. determines to be the only Schism among Christians But if all or most of these consequences be false or absurd they will give us some occasion to suspect the ingenuity and truth of his first account As to the instance he gives us about Eldad and Medad prophesying in the Camp it is methinks extreamly forreign to this controversy They were to bear the weight of government with Moses under God and to assure both Moses and the people of their Commission from Heaven had the miraculous impulse of prophesie before the Congregation as a full and certain evidence of their newly received authority This prophecying was intended for a sign as appears v. 23 24. and therefore how either the Enquirer or Vindicator can make it a repraesentutive of their preachings I cannot imagine These * Theodoretus ad quaestionem undenam evenirit Septuaginta statui ut praefecti sunt prophetasse postea vero minime
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
Tartary or as T. W. advis'd them the grand Signior if he pleases if the sanctity of the Preachers the Spirituality and simplicity of Doctrine and Worship after the Congregational way If zeal against Ceremonies without adoring any sort of Religion will do the business We shall soon see whether the Independent or the Jesuit are more successful for there lies the controversie the Divines of the Church of England are no way concern'd having not been much accustomed to travel upon that errand It seems he never heard that the Apostles did actually preach the Gospel to all nations neither do I believe they did to all Countries and to every person in every Nation But if he will give us leave to expound it of some persons out of all Nations which I suppose was all that T. W. meant and the thing is true for St. Peter we read preach'd Acts 2. and his Congregation consisted of people in all probability out of every nation under heaven Acts 2.5 That the primitive Bishops had the power of ordination and government whereby their authority did exceed that of meer Presbyters and that the Churches of several Presbyters were united under the government and care of one Bishop has been sufficiently evinc'd by divers learned Pens particularly that of Ephesus one of the famous Seven in Asia has been again and again prov'd to be so govern'd And this is all that we need to contend for but if nothing less will satisfie him than having every Diocese acred that he may know exactly the extent which he so briskly calls for p. 13. let him be at the charge of it himself we for our parts are well contented with less ado unless it were to more purpose The primitive Dioceses being never suppos'd to be all equal but some greater and some less as well as the modern Neither is it necessary to shew that their modes of worship were exactly the same with ours the Vindicator himself assures us that they did not agree among themselves about the circumstances of worship and then how can he expect that they should all agree with us That they us'd and impos'd things of the same nature with what he calls our modes and that our Governors are warranted in doing the like by their example and Authority is all we need to shew and that has been done often enough already by divers hands We confess that Bishop and Angel are not convertible terms and yet suppose St. John had said Angels of each Church in the plural number instead of Angel in the Singular I would know how any man could prove Episcopacy from those texts And surely where an Argument may be made from the number in which a word is us'd he is not far amiss that should say such a thing is plain from that word He triumphs in the next paragraph p. 14.15 as if he had found the Independent notion in one of T. W's assertions Nay he cannot see how there should be a multiplication or plurality of Churches till the increase of believers according to the Episcopal model If the Gentleman will be pleased to put on his spectacles I will endeavour to shew him how Suppose then that one parcel of converts were made at Jerusalem another at Corinth another at Ephesus another at Antioch and another at Rome and a Bishop and Presbyters constituted over each particular Church I desire him to consider whether this will not be the thing which T. W. spoke of viz. A multiplication or plurality of Churches by the increase of believers without any necessity of supposing that Churches must multiply like Bees only by sending out a Colony when the Hive is too full And suppose a Colony were sent out under the conduct of a Presbyter and he still under the government of the same or another Bishop I suppose this would do the business without any great service to the Congregational way But why did not the Vindicator give us some Scriptue-instances of this famous notion For if a Colony must needs be sent out under independent Officers when ever believers grow too numerous for one Assembly it may surely be proved that some time or other it was so And therefore I must call upon Mr. Vindicator for matter of fact which unless he can produce and I am pretty sure he cannot he must not expect that much credit should be given to him It being a little too much for him to impose his notions upon us as if they were all according to Scripture and yet not one Text to be found for them I would fain know how many Congregations there were in the Church of Jerusalem when the believers increased to so vast a number in so short a time Three thousand you meet with converted Acts 2.41 More daily added v. 47. Five thousand you find mentioned Acts 4.4 Multitudes both of men and women added c. 5.14 And yet still the word of God increased and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith c. 6.7 Now I desire him to give me his Answer to these following Queries Whether all this number of Believers did make one Congregation or more Whether or no they were under the Government of only one Bishop Whether each of them was known to his Bishop and to one another Whether they could not be Members of the same Church till they were all personally acquainted Did they all ordinarily meet in one place to worship God And if so where was it Were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so capacious Or did the Jews lend the Temple for an ordinary Meeting-place to the Christians How the Preacher could be heard by all this Multitude at once Whether the vigor and strength of his Lungs or the thinness of Jerusalem air did enable and qualifie him for that loud Performance Or whether he had the Conqueror's Engine or Sir Samuel Morland's Speaking Trumpet Or a peculiar sort of voice like Mr. Baxters Friend who preach'd to a Congregation of ten thousand men so that they could all hear him and yet his voice was none of the loudest I desire his information in these particulars that we may see whether it be likely that the Church of Jerusalem did increase and multiply in the Congregational way but we hope he will not stir a syllable from the sacred Text that being no way proper for a man that receives nothing but express Scripture In the next Paragraph he falls foul upon one of his own blunders And because T. W. affirms that all other Churches were one with that of Jerusalem all united in one body under one head Christ Jesus thinks he confounds him mightily by proving a variety in circumstances of worship as if to say that those Churches were united in one body and that all Members agreed in every circumstance of worship were the same thing and he that confutes the latter confutes the former also He might have consider'd that even in that variety
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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