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
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
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
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
besides this confident Author will deny Linus to be the Successor of the Apostles and yet that he died before 'em is maintain'd by Bishop * Pears de success Diss 2. c. 2. Vid. etiam Vendelin de Clementis Temp. Pearson who tho he was a Learn'd as â—…rotius yet he is as positive as T. W. that Linus immediately succeeded the Apostles in the Roman Chair And therefore I cannot but wonder that our Author should pretend That all the Learned Men in the World deliver ' emselves timorously and uncertainly about this matter It is a Caution that Reeb the Jesuit gives all young Students to beware how they assert a thing to be the Opinion of All Authors For says he if any one happen to be of a contrary mind you are quite sham'd Now here 's some Modesty in a Jesuit but such is the Confidence of this Nonconformist that he pretends to tell you the Sence of all the Learned Men in the World tho he never heard of their Names as readily as if he himself had been one of 'em or at least they had been his Familiars and most intimate Acquaintance With the same Gaiety he affirms in the same page That to say the Line of Apostolick Succession of Bishops hath continued in all Ages to this present time is an Assertion without the least shadow of Proof yea contrary to the Acknowledgment of all Church-Historians p. 21. Pray Sir what Church-Historians ever acknowledg'd the contrary A Man would imagine that he meant only those of his Party who have been a Scandal to their Undertaking Nihil clarius in â—…ota veterum Doctrina successione Romanorum Pontificum Phil. le Pr. in not ad Tert. de â—…re c. 32. or else if otherwise â—…t could be done he needed not to have been asham'd to have given us their Names but I am afraid he is no better acquainted with Church-Historians than with other Learned Men. Only as to the Papists so lately his Cronies we may I suppose take his word that they own insuperable Difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See p. 22. But what is this to the purpose they neither deny nor doubt that there was a Succession altho for want of Writings they cannot determine the Order wherein those Bishops succeeded There are Difficulties concerning the Succession of Monarchs in several Kingdoms not easily solv'd for want of Authors And yet to say All Catalogues are false because we cannot tell certainly which is true or because through distance of time and want of Authors we cannot tell who first succeeded To conclude that there was no Succession at all is a way of arguing peculiar to its Author If Irenaeus could Name all the Successors in the Apostolick Churches as the Gent. grants in the fore-cited page I presume he could not be mistaken in the Succession of Linus And if this Vindicator had been but so learn'd aâ—… to be acquainted with that Father he would not have been so Angry with T. W. p. 21. for Asserting the same thing that Irenaeus does L. 3. c. 3. I shall not trouble my self with his Mistake about the Year of that Father's Death for tho he disputed about the business of Easter Seven Years after that in which as some body told this Gent. he died yet it is no great matter since hear-says will serve a Nonconformist instead of Chronology With the same Skill he proceeds to enquire how it came to pass that the Apostolical Succession was propagated in so few Churches as the Patriarchal were As if it were the Opinion of any body that no Bishop besides the Patriarchs did any where succeed the Apostles If he ever met with such an Assertion let him tell us whose it is In the mean time if for want of Argument and Understanding in these Controversies he quarrels with his own Chimoera's I hope it is not to be call'd a Confutation of T. W. We have a Catalogue of our English Bishops so that we can name 'em as they succeeded so far as we have History to inform us which is for many Centuries And as we find the Succession Regular where we have a clear Account so we have no Reason to doubt of the like Care in former Ages which is satisfaction enough to us that our present Ministry is regularly deriv'd from the Apostles And he that shall Assert the contrary so as to make us doubt of it must bring proof from good Authors That the Succession was interrupted or else he will be but a feeble Exposer of our Principles It is not sufficient to say we are uncertain whether we have any true Ministry or Ordinance p. 23. we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors for a Right Succession of Ministers as well as pure and genuine Scriptures And altho we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the one not intire Fasti in the other case yet no Man shall bereave us of our Confidence unless he can produce Matter of Fact and shew that we are deceiv'd upon either Account I fancy the Vindicator does verily believe that he came regularly from Adam and yet suppose any one should object that he cannot tell his own Pedigree and give a Series of his Ancestors down from Adam to himself and conclude that the Succession might therefore be broken some one of his Progenitors might have ne're a Father and since he has not History to inform him perfectly in the Case he ought not positively to affirm That he is of the Seed of Adam Would the Gent. take this way of Arguing to be strong and conclusive if not I would fain know what occasion we have given him to impose it upon us But that he may not seem to talk wildly and without any manner of Ground he puts Two Cases which I presume were all he could think of wherein the Line of Succession might be broken p 24. The first is If there should happen a Vacancy in any of the Apostolical Churches and Sees for some Years and the succeeding Incumbent be a Person ordain'd by an Abbot who is no Bishop as the Northumbrian Bishops were by the Abbot of Hy says the Margine as is allowed in the Roman Church through which this Authority must be convey'd to us Does not this make an Intercision in the Line of Episcopal Ordination so indispensible It must do so if you will believe this Author p. 25. But I say there is no Neceâ—…y of the Line being broken tho we grant the whole Case For suppose that all that Succession of pretended Bishops deriv'd from the Abbot should be at last extinct and the true Bishops of that or a Neighbouring Province called in to consecrate the Line of Episcopal Ordination would be right enough notwithstanding the Abbot and all his Usurpers Or suppose that after the Bishop was ordain'd by the Abbot One or Two Rightful Bishops should joyn with him in the Consecration of the next in
this Case the Line would be right enough and all that can be said is That there was One Vsurper in the Line of Jurisdiction who never was within the Line of Order and consequently could make no intercision in it And perhaps to prevent any Irregularity in the Succession of that Order the Apostles gave the Example and the Church enjoyn'd That a Bishop should be ordain'd by Three at least Apâ—…st c. 1. Con. Nican c. 4. Con. Areâ—… c. 21. Con. Laodic c. 12. Con. Paris 1. c. 6 c. and likewise that he should be Constituted with the Approbation of his Metropolitan and Com-Provincials which practices were certainly a very great security to the Right Succession it being not very likely That all the Bishops of a Province should be so extreamly careless to suffer an irregular Ordination and the Persons concern'd to Consecrate all void of that Character which they pretended to bestow After all That ever any Abbot that was no Bishop did ordain Bishops I do utterly deny Adamnanuâ—… in his Life of Columba Adamn Vit. Col. Vsh Primorâ—… makes mention of a Bishop in the Abby of Hy and that there was always one residing there is confirmed by Bishop Vsher out of the Vlsleâ—… Annals And perhaps the Bishop of Dâ—…nkeld as the Learned Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures joyn'd in the Consecration of Bishop Aldan Finan Bp. of St. Asaph of â—…h Gov. p. 102. and Colman had the like Ordination But Tuda the next in Succession was ordain'd a Bishop among the South Scots in Ireland So that should we allow his Instance true viz. That Aâ—…dan Finan and Colman were ordained by the Abbot yet that Succession at Lindisfarn in all likelihood fail'd in Colman and the Line of Order was right in Tuda and consequently his Marginal Instance is nothing to the purpose an Instance that has been frequently urg'd by the Nonconformists against Episcopacy and as often confuted from the most Authentick History of those Times by divers Learned Men Vind. C. E. cap. 9. Vind. Ignat. par 1. c. 10. Orig. Brit. Ch. Gov. c. 5. Barbos Past p. 2. All. 3. Num. 3.4 c. Maur. de Alz. de Prac. Episc Dig. p. 2. c. 5. Num. 6 7 8 9. Aquin. Sup. q. 38. ar 1. Res ad ter Vid. Victor in Sum. Num. 216. Sect. de Sac. Ord. Non facile credeâ—…em Victor in sum Num. 237. quem seq Vivald in Candel aureo p. 1. tit de Sacram. Ordin Num. 17. In fine asserenti se vidisse quandam Bullam Papae concedentem facultatem sacerdoti conferendi Diac. Sub. Diac. Barbos Past p. 2. Al. 3. N. 4. Ap. c. 67. Nicaen c. 19. Con. C. P. c. 4 Bishop Bramhâ—…ll Bishop Pearson the present Bishop of Worcester and St. Asaph and Mr. Dodwell have so fully Answer'd this business of Hy that a Man would wonder at the Confidence of this Gent. that he should still hope to impose the same Mistake upon the World Nor does the Church of Rome allow that an Abbot who is no Bishop should Consecrate a Bishop They are so far from allowing it that their Canonists generally declare that the Pope himself cannot impower any Presbyter to Ordain so much as a Deacon An Abbot who has Jus Mitrae Bacuâ—… a Cardinal or an Ordinary Presbyter by Commission from the Pope may confer the lesser Orders but not the greater or those which are called Sacred viz. those of Bishop Priest and Deacon nay even as to the lesser Thomas Aquinas Joh. Major and Paludanus Affirm that it is safer to receive the Order of Sub-Deacon from another than from such a priviledged Presbyter And altho Anguianus and some few more are of opinion that the Pope might Impower a Presbyter to confer the Higer Orders yet it never was the allowed practice of that Church And I challenge him to produce so much as one instance of any Abb t that was no Bishop who ever Consecrated a Bishop As for Sub-Deacons and such people who are sometimes Ordainâ—…d by Abbots the Gentileman knows well enough we have no occasion for 'em in England and therefore the Succession of our Bishops may be just and regular notwithstanding this first Case As to the Second viz. Whether this line of Ordina ion may be continued in a Schismatical Church We Answer 1st That such was the care of the Primitive Church so great a regard they had to a right Succâ—…ssion that they who thought the Ordination of certain Hereticks void such as the Paâ—…lianists and Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. decreed 'em to be Ordained by a Catholick Bishop And it is likewise determin'd by the first Council of Constantinople concerning the Ordinations made by Maximus Cymicus that they are all null they neither allowing him to be a Bishop not those Ordained by him to enjoy any Function among the Clergy And in the Roman Church Bâ—â—n Tâ—m 9. p. 2â—4 Pâ—â—tin dâ— Vâ— Pont. p. 22.4 Contra â—â—ephanum III. alâ—s IV. Mabill in Ordiâ— Rom. Com. p. cxix particularly those ordain'd by Constantine the Lay-Invader of the Papal Chair were by a Council under Stephen the Third or Fourth to return to their former Orders unless they were in great Esteem with the People and in that Case they were to be re-ordain'd by the Church and for fear of laying the Foundations of a future Schism it was further decreed That none of 'em should be promoted to any higher degrees By these and many other Instances it is plain what Care the Church has taken to re-ordain or utterly silence those whose Orders they thought void And lest any such persons should creep into strange places and there invade that Office to which they had no Right No Man either of the Clergy or Laity Ap. 〈◊〉 12. con 〈◊〉 30 con 〈◊〉 c. 33. 〈…〉 C. 〈◊〉 c. 7. con 〈◊〉 c. 12. con Elizbeâ—â— c. 51. was to hold Communion with 'em under pain of incurring the Ecclesiastical Censures No Clergy Man was to go abroad without Commendatory Letters no bishop to be ordain'd without the Knowledge and Consent of his Metropolitan and the Neighbouring Bishops No Heretick to be admitted into Orders and if ordain'd to be depos'd No Man to ordain in another's Province By which and seveâ—â—l other Canons it became extreamly difficult for any such Hereticks or Schismaticks whose Orders they thought void to make any considerable intercision in the Line of Succession But I can see no Reason why the Line of Ordination may not pass through a Schismatical Church For although by Schism People are out of the Church and while they continue so cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments yet to say That â—â—â—h are absolutely destroy'd and nullify'd so that a â—â—â—â—…matick lâ—â—â— the Characters and can neither be a Christian 〈…〉 i. e. not the Subject of Apostolical Power 'till he be 〈◊〉 â—â—â— baptiz'd and ordain'd is an Assertion beyond all that I câ—â—â—…d ever yet meet with The
of that Nation and when he refus'd to be Ordain'd by Lucius of Alexandria the Bloody Arian the Roman Magistrates we find carried him to the banished Bishops for Orders which they needed not have done if they had been of the Mind of our Author For if Ordination be nothing more but a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by the most competent Judges Moses was really Ordain'd before ever he came at those Bishops his Ministerial Abilities being publickly Approv'd by the Roman Magistrates and the Queen before he left his own Country Ang. sac p. 423. Tho. Chesterf de Episc Cov. Lich. Ibid. p. 425. So when Peada King of the Mid-Angles was Converted and Baptiz'd in Northumbria he brought Home with him four Presbyters viz. Cedda and Adda and Betti and Duma that he might Propagate the Christian Religion among his own Subjects and Diuma was afterward Consecrated the first Bishop of the Mercians and Mid Angles by Finan Bishop of Northumbria and yet I doubt not but his fellow Presbyters were competent Judges and might have made him a Bishop as well as Finan if our Author's way of Ordaining had been then found out But as the Church never dream'd of any such rare Inventions so it is plain they thought Episcopal Ordination necessary that the only way of deriving that Authority from our Saviour was by Succession and that no Man might Administer in Sacred things unless he were thus Admitted And for this Reason the Councel of Celichyth under Wulfred Archbishop of Canterbury were so wary that they would not admit an Stranger of the Scotch Nation to perform any Sacred Office quia incertum est nobis unde an ab aliquo Ordinentur Spelm. Concâ—… Ang. Tom. 1. 329. because it was uncertain to them by whom and whether they were ordain'd by any body at all Now as it is plain from all these Instances that the Christians of several Countries and Ages were of a quite contrary Opinion to that of our Author so I might add several more were I not to deal with Persons who rather than lay aside that Scheme of Government which they have lately espous'd will despise all Antiquity insomuch that the practice of the very Apostles themselves cannot escape their Censure Vind. p. 27. witness that unseemly Jest wherewith the Vindicator endeavours to Ridicule that Sacred Ceremony viz. Imposition of Hands which being used by St. Paul in the Ordination of Timothy what is here said against it in General Terms is no less a Libel upon him than it is upon us I wonder who taught him the Notion of an uninterrupted Succession of our English Monarchs from the Eldest Son of Noah Ibid. If he can produce it from any Author I shall then believe that he can speak truth for once In the mean time I cannot but admire that a Man who disputes with so much Pertness as if every thing that he says were all Oracle should want either the Sence to understand or Integrity to report so plain a Notion If our Loyalty to English Monarchs is so great a Trouble to these Gentlemen that they cannot hear it asserted without torturing their Ears we cannot help it I confess it is no more than what I always thought and since the Gent. so freely owns it I hope it will be taken notice of For the Government which Gâ—…d be thanked is not yet quite a Commonwealth must needs be concern'd in that Grievance And he that can libel the Grandfather with so much Impudence Vind. p. 57 c. and triumph in the Subversion of those Principles which lately supported the Monarchy cannot be thought to wish very auspiciously to the present Reign And yet notwithstanding their Natural Aversation and Spight against Monarchy so easie and flexible are those Gentlemen to any thing of their own Interest that when King James the Second afforded 'em a Tolerat on No Complements were too high for him Subversion of Religion and cutting of Throats the dangerous Consequences of a Popish Successor were absolutely forgotten The Monarch was no Bugbear nor the Papists neither Prerogative and Dispensing Power were harmless innocent things His Leige-People the Dissenters Leads Address June 25. 87. were vying who should most feelingly express a Thankful Heart They magnified him as the Generous Leading Pattern to the Princes of other People and a Father to his own The Assertor and Restorer of God's immediate Dominion over Conscience the covering Cherub under whose refreshing Shadow they promis'd themselves Rest The First and Happy Instrument Independ and Bipt in the County of Glou. May 87. Dissent of Maldon Great Coghall c. July 9. 87. Dissenters in Leathward in Cumberl Aug. 87. Presbyter of Colchester Aug. â—… 87. under God of the present and future Peace and Prosperity of his Dominions One designed for great Services the blossoming whereof was then made visible in his Celebrated Wisdom in happening upon the most melodous Harp to charm all evil Spirits that many other Princes had no Skill to use though according to others Concarring herein with many Noble Princes before him But as others thought fit to express themselves Of all that ever sate upon the English Throne It shall only be said of Your Maiesties Reign That from the Western Ocean even to the Frozen Thule then had the Churches Rest and were multiplied no one forbidding them Your Royal Indulgence like the Sound of the Jubilee Trumpet has so exhilarated the Hearts of your Dissenting Subjects that they want Words to express their Gratitude and Tongues to Celebrate your Clemency c. So dear was that Unhappy Prince to these People upon the Account of the Indulgence though at the same time they knew well enough that he inte ded hereby the Ruine of the Establish'd Church that they follow'd him with Acclamations and Shouts beyond all others wherever he came The Flattery of their Addresses had no other Bounds but want of Wit You have hereby ecchoed to the angelical song which brought him into the World who at his ingress into it brought peace and at his egress out of it bought peace and thereby immolated that Resignation of a narrow interest for the Divinity of a more general Preservation and so tuned the strings of your auspicious Government as to make melody over your whole Empire Presbyt of Hull Octob. 87. And a little after they call him plainly their Redeemer and that Defect was oftentimes supply'd with Fustian and Blasphemy He that reads 'em wou'd think many parts of 'em to have been taken out of their Prayers insomuch that God Almighty and King James the Second had in many instances the very same Complements Nay if the Prophets did any where magnifie the Divine Clemency by a most extraordinary flight of Expression it was presently got into the Addresses and apply'd most ingenuously to King James to enhaunce the Dissenters Gratitude for that Illegal Act. So that methinks there is little Room for this Gentleman to
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
the Instances of Popular Elections that can be found in Scripture but from none of 'em is it evident that the Election of the People did contribute any thing that was Essential to Holy Orders The Reason why it was admitted was that they might confer the Power and Character upon the Best and most Unexceptionable Persons such as were of Honest Report which could not so easily be known without consulting the Multitude Cyp. Ep. LXVIII Ed. Oxon. And this is all the Use that St Cyprian makes of the aforementioned Instances who tells us That it was so order'd in the Case of Eleazar the Son of Aaron and ought to be so that the Crimes of ill Men may be Detected and the Deserts of Good Men Extoll'd And that the Apostles proceeded so diligently and warily in the Choice of Matthias and the Seven Deacons lest any Unworthy Person should creep into the Service of the Altar or obtain the Degree of Priesthood And he adds further That in his Time it was the Custom for the Neighbouring Bishops of the same Province to Meet and Chuse a Bishop in the presence of the People who fully understood each Man's Life And after this manner they advanced Sabinus into the Place of Basilide All this seems to be plainly allow'd by the Council of Laodicea which will have none to be made Bishops but such as are of Known and Approved Conversation Con. Laod. Can. 12. and provides that they should be constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Discretion of the Metropolitans and Neighbouring Bishops In which Poâ—…nts it agrees exactly with St. Cyprian s Model Can. 13. anâ—… yet the Canon immediat ly following will not allow the People to chuse those that are to be advanced to the Priesthood and therefore surely their Consent was not then thought Essentially Necessary to the making of a Bishop Nay so far was the Church from the Opin on of this Author that upon the Death of Auxentius Theod. H. E. l. 4 c. 7. the Arian Bish p of Milan the Synod petition'd the Emperour That he would chuse one to suc eed him in that See which certainly they would not have done if they had thought that his Nomination would have made him such a Monster as our Author speaks of viz. A Creature not to be found in Scripture or the Primitive Times I might add several other Instances of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs chosen to their respective Charges by the Discretion of the Emperour and other Princes but I suppose it is not necessary As to the Nomination of our English Prelacy suppose it had been of right Originally in the Clergy and People yet they by their Representatives in Parliament 25 H. 8. c. 20. have confirm'd it to the Prince So that it is his by Law And for my part I know no Reason why it should not so continue Episcopacy is the same chuse who Names it being not the Nomination but the Ordination that makes the Bishop And if that be the same now which it was in the Primitive Times our Episcopacy must needs be the same with theirs Page 33 and 34. The Gentleman is willing to be try'd by the Pattern of those Churches which are truly Primitive but I find he dares not venture far among 'em for fear of losing his Cause He complains That a Century or Two made a considerable Change in the Features of their Government and Worship but in which Century that Change was wrought he durst not inform us However if he pleases to venture his Cause upon it let him take any of the first Fifteen to prove Congregational Episcopacy and provided he will allow the Writers of that or the next Age to be credited before those that liv'd later I shall freely joyn issue with him We have a Specimen of his Abilities already page 34 and 35. where he tells us That Ignatius charges the Bishop to take a personal cognizance of every Member of his Church not excepting the very Servants And Secondly That it was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's Day and that they never receiv'd it nisi ex antistitis manu but from the Hand of the Bishop What could such Bishops be more than Pastors of single Congregations To which I Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. First That Ignatius does indeed require of the Bishop to discourse people singly as God should enable him But how does this prove That he was to take a Personal Cognizance of every particular Member of his Church Had he no body to assist him in the Remoter parts of his Charge Why could no Man else acquaint him with the Frailties and Misdemeanors of particular persons but all must depend wholly upon his own Cognizance and Observation Or because he was not to content himself barely with Publick Preaching but was to discourse 'em particularly as he found occasion Does it therefore follow that he must needs be acquainted with every Member o his Church How if they were too numerous or liv d too remote to be all Personally discours'd with All that Ignatius requires is so far as God shall enable him Which kind of Expression methinks implies some difficulty Let Assemblies be held often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Enquire after all by their Names do not despise or behave thy self insolently towards the Men-Servants or Maid-Servants This I suppose is the Passage to which our Author principally refers Though if he had been able to have quoted it we might have been abundantly more certain However from this it is not to be concluded that he must take a personal Cognizance of every Member of his Church or that he was the Pastor only of One single Congregation For how does he prove That those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be only at One Place Why might not the several Assemblies in his Diocess be as well comprehended under that Title Again how does our Author prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more but the Ordinary Congregations Why not the more Extraordinary Assemblies when the Bishop Visited Perhaps the Bishop had a Scroll wherein the Names of Christians were enroll'd and in calling them over at his Visitations might enquire into the Faith and Manners of particular Persons and call for the Men themselves and as he found Occasion discourse 'em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Doct ine Admonition or Reproof Or peradventure he might call over the Nâ—…mes of the Congregation where he himself was present that he might hereby discover who were heretically inclin'd For even then such Persons began to withdraw from the Communion of the Church and to hold Conventicles though very privately And if we take it in the latter Sence it will contribute little to his Cause unless he could first prove That the Bishop's Congregation would not be a Pattern to the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Id. ad Smyr
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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