the dignity of a Doctor And altho' some of those ancient Heretics could dispense with Fornication yet they dissuaded People from Marriage teaching them that it was of the Devil That we ought to own our Saviour in times of the greatest persecution is a great gospel-Gospel-Truth Luke 12.9 and yet the Corinthian Schismatics taught and practis'd otherwise which Doctrin and Practice St. Paul is likewise thought to oppose chap. 3. ver 11 c. and went so far as to partake of the Idol Sacrifices according to their worldly wisdom that they might escape persecution which made the Apostle argue that point cap. 8. and to determin so peremptorily and severely cap. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils I might give you several other instances of the Gnostick heresy too rife at that time in the Corinthian Church but these surely are sufficient to prove against Mr. H. that they were not all agreed in the great Gospel-Truths Now Heresy includes Schism as it breaks the unity of the Faith one of the indispensible requisites to the unity of the Church And therefore the Corinthian Hereticks being Schismatics likewise i.e. disjointed and loose from the body of the Church the Apostle bids 'em be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well-jointed and compacted in the Church Again in the same mind and in the same judgment i. e by uniting themselves to it both in affection and principles a work surely to be done while men are in this world and if it be not Mr. H. will find it too late when he enters into another I have only two things further to note under this particular First That the Apostle charging the Corinthians to be perfectly join'd together in the same mind and in the same judgment or opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is strange how Mr. H. could observe that they were not obliged to think the same thing And secondly That this Text relating so plainly to difference in apprehension even according to his own exposition it is no less unaccountable to me why it might not as well have been reduced under that head as any one of those which he alledged to that purpose Secondly We must enquire into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this caution which he tells us we have v. 11 12. There were contentions among them v. 11. Now the contention was about their Ministers as Mr. H. assures us p. 11. But I would ask him first of all was there no miscarriage antecedent to that contnetion Yes surely their heretical and wicked opinions which occasioned the antecedent caution viz. That ye all speak the same things In these the Schism was founded and they were probably the occasion of their ascribing themselves to Paul and Apollos and Cephas and Christ For where difference in opinion occasions debates among people not only the merits of the cause but likewise the original of each party and the means of knowing what they pretend to teach others are very frequently enquired into Thus it was in our Saviour's case when he taught something new and extraordinary beyond the common rate of their ordinary Scribes Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works Is not this the Carpenters son Is not his Mother called Mary c And are not his Sisters all with us Whence then hath this man all these things Mat. 13.54 55 56. And there seems to be abundantly more occasion for the like enquiry in the case of the Corinthians as will appear if we consider the circumstances of those early times when this Epistle was written especially what means of knowledge the Corinthians then had and what proofs they might make use of to evince the truth or falshood of any Doctrine in debate They could not have the writings of the New Testament this Epistle being one of the first And it may reasonably be conjectured perhaps proved that of that little which was then written they had seen nothing For neither in their Epistle to St. Paul so far as St. Paul alludes to it neither in his to them is there the least intimation of any such thing And yet in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Gospel of St. Matthew which were of a prior date had they been in their hands they might have found the resolution of some of those cases which they put to the Apostle and therefore saved themselves the labour of that part of their appeal And as for the writings of the Old Testament there were two sorts of errors not to mention any more which were not easily confuted by their authority One was touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection which altho it might be proved from the Old Testament yet the Gnostics who denyed it may reasonably be supposed to have learnt from the Sadduces some of their first Masters how to evade those proofs and as for the other Judaizing Doctrines the Old Testament did so far seem to countenance them that it was not likely that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be able to prove it otherwise And therefore it might become the skill and authority of the great Apostle himself to shew the contrary And as the Corinthians had not the assistance of the written rule either for information or proof in these cases so both must be derived from their Teachers either in word or writing For instruction besides what they had learned from our Saviour and his Apostles they had their Prophets and Evangelists continually among them who being endued with the Spirit were thereby qualified to instruct and educate the younger converts in the Doctrines of the Gospel and from these the Corinthians received their common Instructions But as the Orthodox Prophets had their true inspirations so the Heretical Teachers pretended to the same and as the former had their true miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrines so the latter had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their lying wonders for the confirmation of theirs to deceive if it were possible the very elect And that which made it still more difficult for the ordinary Corinthians to judge betwixt them was because both parties continued in the same communion the Heretics not daring to go out i. e. to separate from the Church till a considerable time after this when many of the Apostles were dead Now where both sides were equal in order pretended to the same inspirations the same miracles and lived in the same communion the proof of each Doctrine must depend upon the credit and authority of those persons from whom it was derived If from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts well learned in the Christian doctrines highly approved and dignified by the Apostles as Apollos was it was of the last great authority Thus St. Paul recommends the authority of the houshold of Stephanas as being the most early Converts in that Region
betwixt those that were genuine and those that were otherwise The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand which is the token in every Epistle c. 3.17 And if this was the practice of the primitive Heretics both before and after the writing of this Epistle to the Corinthians we may reasonably suppose that they did not wholly omit it at this time And therefore I see no reason but rather a great deal to the contrary why any body should be blamed for saying I am of Paul c. save only those Hereticks 'T is not to be supposed that the Orthodox complained of themselves for if they knew themselves herein faulty they might easily have reformed without ever acquainting the Apostle with it And it is something remarkable how Clemens * Clem. Ep. ad Corinth pag. 110. Edit Lond. 1687. Romanus aggravates the latter Schism of the Corinthians by extenuating this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But that siding was less criminal for then ye took part with the Apostles who had born their testimony and a man highly approved by them but now what kind of men are they that have turned you aside c. From which words it is plain That as the latter Schismatics were all of a Party so were the former And therefore the being of Paul and Apollos and Cephas c. is comprehended by St. Clemens under one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that according to the circumstances of those times the reasonings of the Apostle and the account of Clemens Romanus they were all of one Party whom the Apostle reprehends for saying I am of Paul c. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them those who had seen and heard our Saviour pretended to be of Christ i. e. to have received theirs from St. Paul and St. Peter the elder Converts among the rest who had been baptized by Apollos to derive theirs from him So that the Schism of the Corinthians lay in opposing the sound and orthodox Doctors maintaining their wild Heresies under the pretence and umbrage of these great names and all other Heretics who altho' they forsook not the Communion of the Church yet making a Separation within it and forming a Party against the truth and opposing their Orthodox Governors have been reputed Schismatics upon the very same account in all Ages Having thus far given an account of the Corinthian Schism which will do but little service to Mr. H's Notion let us now take a further view of his Enquiry and consider how ingeniously he manages the matter He tells you That Schisms and Contentions are one and the same thing as if Schism and Contention had been convertible terms and every one that contends tho' for the greatest Truths against the most pernicious Heresies were for that reason a Schismatic Mr. H. might as well and as truly have said That Schisms and Factions are the same thing because St. Paul calls them likewise by that name But however to lay the greater Emphasis upon the word Contentions he adds 't is worth noting that Clemens Romanus in that famous Epistle of his to the Corinthians still calls Schisms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentions En◠p. 11. Now from this Note of Mr. H's I hope he will give me leave to make another which is that Mr. M. H. never read that famous Epistle For tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes used in that famous Writer yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other words by which St. Clemens means Schism As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 110 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 108. Edit Lond. 1687. are brought in more frequently but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural scarcely once in that whole Epistle But Mr. H. being a modest as well as an ingenious person was it seems contented to steal a Note out of Mr. Pool's Synopsis rather than undergo the drudgery and Greek of that famous Epistle 'T is strange how Mr. H. in the next Paragraph should say The Contention was about their Ministers Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this and it would have been a strange wild fancy in any Corinthian not to be contented with any other Minister excepting only him If Mr. H's Congregation at the next Election of a Minister should be divided into four Parties and one of them be for Christ and no one else I fancy the rest would conclude that either they were not right in their wits or else that it is purely a trick to have none at all And besides it would be hard for Mr. H. to assign any reason why any body should prefer Paul or Apollos or Cephas before Christ I always thought our Saviour might have had the preference And among all the wild Opinions of that Age I believe neither Mr. H. nor his Vindicator can name one Heretic who ever professed himself to be for Paul c. rather than for Christ He tells you That he that was of Apollos was as much a Schismatic as he that was of Paul which is very true tho' not for the reason which he gives They were all of one side against the Orthodox There being not four Parties among the Corinthians as Mr. H. fancies St. Paul himself makes but two viz. the Orthodox and Heretics as is plain from that part of his salutation ver 2. To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours He tells you pag. 12. That if one went to hear Paul and another went to near Apollos that did not make a Schism no nor if one communicated with Paul and another with Apollos which is certainly true for it would have been no more Schism to hear and communicate as aforesaid than it would be among us to communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London But I would fain know of Mr. H. how they must at that time hear and communicate with St. Paul who was then in Asia how with Christ who was then in Heaven There was no occasion for silencing either Apollos or Cephas for they were of the same mind with St. Paul and the other orthodox Doctors And yet there might be occasion enough to silence some of the schismatical Teachers who made use of their Names to give a reputation to their own Heresies and accordingly you find the Apostle threatning them 2 Cor. 13.2 Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to all other that if I come again I will not spare And in the 10th Verse Therefore I write these things being absent lest being present I should use sharpness according to the power which the Lord hath given me c. which power was not only to silence but to excommunicate those Teachers and inflict that further punishment which then attended those Censures and accordingly the incestuous Doctor was to be so dealt with by the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
appoint the length of him but if Authority thinks fit to call him to the Standard he is undoubtedly a Subject and I know no reason why he should not go as well as I. Some People have not forgotten since they of his Party did usurp Moses's Chair how zealous they were for drawing up every body to their own pitch not only those that were in Covenant but those that were out insomuch that if your size were too small and you could not stretch it would be next door to hanging before they had done with you And notwithstanding the smoothness and love which Mr. H. personates in this Book yet there is still so much roughness and spite which he could not hide and which the Vindicator openly boasts of in his rude usage of F.W. as makes me often pray that I may never stand in need of either of these Mens Charity We come now to consider the second sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Man would have thought by this time it had been half construed but you must examin three places in 1 Cor. and thence you may be furnished with a true Notion of Schism p. 9. Now if I had been as Mr. H. I would have scratcht out all the former Impertinence for if here be the true Notion what 's all this stuff for before But then the little Book had been a great deal less than it is Just now you must look into three places for the true Notion of Schism but Hocus-Pocus turn over the Leaf and you have it in one of them 1 Cor. 1.10 I beseech you Brethren that there be no divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Schisms among you And for the understanding of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you must observe this method i.e. First of all You must enquire into the exegetical Exhortations that accompany it And secondly Into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this Caution p. The exegetical Exhortations are First That ye all speak the same thing viz in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as he understands St. Paul but then he tells us from himself See Bishop Ov. Eâ—… Convoc Book p. 226. and Estius one of those who debauched the New Testament with their Popish Annotations That in little things it can never be made a Duty to be of the same Opinion since it is morally impossible Now for my part I can see no more impossibility for Men to be of the same Opinion in little things than in great There is but one truth and one best in both Their nature is as plain and it is as easy to me to find out my Duty with relation to Ceremonies as it is rightly to apprehend the great Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity and therefore I know no reason why I may not agree with other People in little things as well as in great A Table-gesture is a little thing and yet I suppose Mr. H. believes that our Saviour himself made it a Duty to use it at the Sacrament It would be pretty to see him demonstrate according to his own Rule that it is morally impossible that we who now think otherwise should ever be of the same Opinion and consequently that our Saviour could never make it our Duty If the Gentleman were better acquainted with Ecclesiastical History he would find that whole Churches and Nations had their peculiar Customs and Ceremonies and yet their Members agreed well enough in their Opinions about the things he calls little while they had no such People as he to disturb their Peace He bids us observe That St. Paul does not oblige us to think the same thing but tho' your thoughts be divers yet speak the same thing i. e. in your Preaching and Converse speak of those things only wherein you are agreed I observed before from Mr. H. that they were to speak the same things only in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and if he will allow me to lay these two Observations together the Sense will be thus viz. you are not obliged to think the same thing i. e. to be of the same opinion in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and in your Preaching and Converse take care to speak of those things only wherein you are agreed and as for the rest of the Fundamentals you may let them alone i. e. according to Mr. M. H. do not fall out and fight about them As if there were no difference betwixt meer silence and falling out and fighting But tho' Mr. H. may preach Fundamentals according to this Gnostic Rule I am sure that St. Paul himself followed a contrary practice or else he might have saved himself the trouble of many sharp persecutions as well as a great deal of pains in this Epistle Secondly That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment which says he must be understood of a serious endeavor after it for otherwise a perfect conjunction must be reserved for a world of everlasting perfection If Mr. H. had but lookt into his Greek Testament and duly considered the Original perhaps he would have found no great reason for this Interpretation The words of St. Paul are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ye compacted or knit together in the same mind and opinion For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the literal Notion to compact or knit together either the members of a body or the parts of a building c. So Exod. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 40.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Mr. H. observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the breaking of a Net John 21.11 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in English mending their Nets Mat. 4.21 And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed in the literal sense so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are by St. Paul in the Ecclesiastical Nor were the Corinthians all agreed in the great Gospel Truths as Mr. H. ignorantly supposes p. 11. The Resurrection is surely to be numbred among the great Gospel-Truths and yet many of the Corinthians denied it which gave occasion to St. Paul so strenuously to assert it in the 15th Chapter of this first Epistle Clem. Rom. p. 60. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vid. Chrysost Theodoretum in locum Vid. Hammond in cap. 7. v. 1. and St. Clemens Romanus in his That Marriage is lawful and Fornication otherwise are I suppose considerable Gospel-Truths And yet the Corinthian Schismatic allowed and practised Fornication even such as was condemned by the generality of the Heathens and no where scarce in use except among the brutish Arabs viz. That a Man should have his Fathers wife cap. 5.1 And yet this done by a Doctor of some Church in Achaia within the Corinthian Precinct according to St. Chrysostom and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not only admitted to be a partaker of the Divine Mysteries but likewise he had obtained