Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A51624
|
A Review of Mr. M.H.'s new notion of schism, and the vindication of it
|
Murrey, Robert, fl. 1692-1715.
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing M3105; ESTC R5709
|
75,948
|
74
|
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Vid. Dodw. in Irenae Dis 1. Sect. XVII and that there were no Subordinate Presbyters to do the same thing by the Bishops Order in other Congregations within his Diocess And that there were more Congregations than one under the Bishop of Smyrna is evident from that Passâ—…ge of Ignatius in his Epistle to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ig. ad Smyrn Let no man perform any of those things which belong to Publick Assemblies without the Bishop That Eucharist is to be thought valid which is either under him or at least which he allowed What had he to do to allow the Eucharist in Congregations Independent upon him and to talk of giving allowance to himself in his own is to great a Blunder for Ignatius to be charged with So that all the distinction here made is betwixt a Congregation under the Bishop viz. that where he was Personally present and another Congregation Assembled by his permission and allowance and must consequently imply that in the Church of Smyrna there were several Congregations under one Bishop what relates to Servants is nothing to this purpose in Ignatius whatever it was in our Authors Head Nor is the Second Alligation more regular or just than the former Antistitis manu in Tertullian for thence it came Originally by way of Mr. Baxter to our Author referring not to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistitâ—… manu contestamur nos Renunciare Diaibolo c. Eucharistiae Sacramentum in Tempore victus Omnibus mandatum a Domino etiam antelucanis Caetizbus nec de Aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus Tert. De Cor. Milit. c. 3. but to the Form of Renouncing the Devil c. which was preparatory to Baptism and the persons to be Baptized did it sub Antistitis manu for ex as this Man quotes it would have made it Non-sence Tertullian does indeed speak of the Lords Supper not to be Received nisi de Praesidentium manu But this will do our Author no Service The word Praesidentium including the Bench of Presbyters as well as the Bishop in Cathedra Vid. Pears Vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Assert 2. Dod. in Iren. Dis 1. Sect. VII Nor will the Passage out of Irenaeus which he so hastily misapplies if fully cited and understood afford any advantage to his cause Presbyters in that Father oftentimes denoting the Age rather than the Office of those Persons meant by it as divers Learned Men have already observed And in that Sence not only Presbyters but likewise Bishops Deacons and Laymen might be comprehended under that Title And accordingly Irenaeus distinguishes by divers Characters telling them what sort of Elders they were to hearken to Qua propter eis qui in Eccles sunt Pres obaudire oportet hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episc Successione charisma veritatis Certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Iren. l. 4. c. 4 3. Iren. l. 4. c. 43 viz. First Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt those who are within the Pale of the Church Secondly Hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis c. those who had the Succession from the Apostles and who together with the Succession in their Episcopal Charge did receive the sure Gift of Truth according to the Will of the Father Whence it is plain that Irenaeus in this place means Bishops only when he talks of the Apostles Successors And therefore our Authors Inference in behalf of Presbyters having their Succession from the Apostles as well as Bishops is out of Doors Irenaeus reckons up the Bishops of Rome in order as they Succeeded to Eleutherius then Bishop who was the Twelfth from the Apostles concluding Hac Ordinaâ—…ione Successione c. by this Ordination and Succession that Tradition which is in the Church from the Apostlâ—…s and the Preaching of the Truth is handed down to us From which it is plain that Succession in their days was more than bare Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship For they Succeedded the Apostles First In Power and Authority So Irenaeus quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias Committebant quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum Locum Magisterii tradentes Secondly In Place So Linus was constituted the Successor of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome and Irenaeus tells us further that they made him Bishop And therefore if his Successors afterwards mentioned kept up to the Apostles Model they must likewise derive their Office as he did from Persons invested wâ—…th the same Character and Consequently as Linus was Ordained by the Apostles who had that Episcopal Authority in themselves which they conferred upon him So the rest down to Eleutherius must be Ordained by Bishops And if so let our Author consider with himself whether his Notion or ours is nearer in all Points to the sense of those Times When I consider how nice and strict this Gentleman was in the Notion of Succession P. 19. 20 that he could not allow Two Bishops to Succeed One Apostle nor One to Succeed Two I cannot but wonder that in the Writing of 16 Pages his Head should grow so loose as to make it no more than Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship Surely if this be the truest Sence as the Gentleman affirms One Bishop may Succeed Two Apostles or One Apostle be Succeeded by Twenty Bishops without any such absurdity or Blunder as our Author cries out against in the fore-quoted Pages We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such particular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules and impose no new or needless Terms is to Act Schismatically because such willfull Separation when nâ—… cause is giuen cannot be without breach of Charity with our fellow Christians Page 37. Yes it may through the prejudices of Education or for want of understanding People may take that to be New which is very Old and that which is very Decent and Fit to be Imposed to be altogether Needless and withdraw themselves from particular Churches fram'd according to Scripture Rules when purely out of mistake they think them otherwise They may be led by Interest or won over by perswasion to a new Communion and yet have no hard thoughts of that Church or its Members which they left I cannot believe that every Dissenter at his first going off from the Church of England does immediately hate us I find several of 'em very Kind aâ—…d Affable Persons And yet if our Author has granted Right all their Charity though a very good and commendable thing cannot excuse 'em from the Guilt of acting schismatically And because our Author has granted this I shall grant likewise That Schism is frequently the Effect of Uncharitableness which perhaps was all that honest Mr. H. meant when he call d it formalis ratio People
the first-fruits of Achaia who having addicted themselves unto the Ministry of the Saints I beseech you brethren says he that you submit your selves unto such 1 Cor. 16.15 16. Therefore acknowledge ye them that are such v. 18. Hereby plainly directing them which side to choose viz. those that were of Stephanas Fortunatuâ—… and Achaâ—…cus's party who took part with the Apostles and consequently were Orthodox So likewise he magnifies his own authority as prior and greater than that of the first-fruits telling them that he planted Cap. 3.6 as the wise Master-builder he had laid the foundation v. 10. That although they had ten thousand Instructors in Christ yet not many Fathers for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the Gospel c. 4.15 So that having received their Christianity originally from him they ought not to gainsay his doctrines they might not oppose their first-fruits to his authority The Colledge of their Prophets could not judge him And as for those who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore said they were of Christ i. e. had heard our Saviour themselves and therefore pretended to have received their Doctrine from him and were consequently of greater authority than the first-fruits who received theirs only from the Apostles yet these were not to be credited in opposition to St. Paul who being chosen into the number of the select witnesses no other witness that was not one of that number could be equal to him Or if any man should oppose the authority of an Apostle St. Peter or any of the rest against St. Paul's yet the Answer is easy Is Christ divided Can he make two men the Apostles of contrary doctrines The Apostles and all other Orthodox Teachers must necessarily speak the same thing They being labourers together with God c. â—… 9 Ministers of Christ Stewards of the mysteries c. 4.1 but can lay no other foundation than that is laid in Jesus Christ c. 3.11 So that if men pretend the authority of St. Peter against those Doctrines that are really St. Paul's their pretences by this very argument are proved fictitious and St. Peter could never be the Author of any such thing Or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who say they are of Christ should pretend his authority against that which is trâ—…ly St. Paul's yet the answer is the same Is Christ divided He chose oâ—…t Paul and gave him his Spirit to preach these doctrines and therefore those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily belye our Saviour who cannot be supposed to make the Apostles Preachers of one Doctrine and himself preach the contrary And yet if any man should set up Paul against the true Doctrine of Christ so as to make him the patron of their new Doctrines because he had the authority of an Apostle yet the answer is easy Is Christ divided He cannot have the authority of Christ to preach two contrary Doctrines neither ought he to set up any Doctrine of his own against the Doctrine and Authority of Christ which is the ground of that farther reasoning Was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name c. 1. v. 13 14 15. Tho we are Stewards of the mysteries have the authority of Apostles and are accountable to no man save only to the Lord c. 4.4 yet this authority does not impower us to be the patrons of contrary doctrines that we should preach to you one doctrine formerly and now the contrary be obtruded upon ye under our names It is required of Stewards that a man be found faithful c. 4.2 and therefore we who are such ought to be true to our Master and consistent to our selves So that if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 And that they might take the greater notice he ingeminates the sentence as we said before so say I now again If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed Ibid. v. 9. Now for the Orthodox to say they were of Paul or Apollos c. i. e. that they received their doctrines from them was the same thing then as to quote Scripture now i. e. it was the utmost authority they could alledge But when the Hereticks pretended to the same authority the Orthodox had no way left but to appeal to the Apostle himself that it might appear under his own hand what his doctrine really was and which party was in the right and accordingly they dispatched their Letters to him by Stephanas c. by whom likewise they received his answer in this Epistle concerning the things in debate So that it was the Heretical Gnostics only not the Orthodox party who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying I am of Paul c. 'T was necessary for them to alledge these great authorities that they might counterpoize the Orthodox who justly pretended to the same this being one of the best ways of proof in an age of inspirations while there was little or nothing written And accordingly we find it made use of by the succeeding Heretics till such times as the Canon of Scripture was collected and made up which was the best part of a Century at least after the writing of this Epistle And when that was done they could not easily forget the same artifice but still vented their doctrines under the patronage of great names so the Ebionites pretended to be the followers of St. James the Basilidans of St. Matthias Basilides himself of Glaucias the hearer of St. Peter Valentinus of Theodades who was conversant with St. Paul c. Sometimes they opposed the truth by pretended and false traditions otherwhiles by spurious and supposititious writings and at last by corrupting the very Text it self by their base interpolations Nor is it to be supposed that this was the practice only of the latter Heretics you may trace it in St. Paul's second Epistle to the Thessalonians written several years before this 1st to the Corinthians That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by Spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand Let no man deceive you by any means c. 2 Thess 2.2 3. Herein alluding to the pretended revelations the false and spurious traditions of Heretical Teachers and either some counterfeit Epistle urged under the Apostles name or at least their corrupt glosses and interpretations of those words in the 1st Epistle c. 5.2 and perhaps it may not be unreasonably conjectured that it was a counterfeit Epistle or at least that such practices were then in use because the Apostle is so careful to give 'em a certain token in the close of this Epistle whereby they might distinguish