Meletiâ—ns were Schismaticks and 〈◊〉 thâ—se 〈◊〉 by Meletius were receiv'd into places where othâ—â—… 〈…〉 though the Paulianists and 〈◊〉 were to be re-baptiz'd 〈◊〉 ordain'd by the 19th Canon of the Council of Nice 〈…〉 those ordain'd by the Novaâ—â—â—…ns * 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid c. 8. when reconcil'd to the Church were to continue in the same Station which they enjoy'd before except Catholick were in pâ—ssession by the 8th Caâ—â—… of the very same Council From which Instances it is plain Tâ—â—â—… according 〈◊〉 the Sence of those Fathers though Schismatical 〈…〉 â—â—â—…ieties were out of the Church yet it did not whâ—â—…Y dâ—vâ—st 'em 〈◊〉 their Character so as to make 'em no longer the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cal Power as this Vindicator would insinuate Nay the severest Enemies to Heretical Ordinationâ— never went so far as our Aâ—â—â—or as appears from what they declare in a â—â—â—â—â—…lel Case viz. that of Baptism St. Cyprian himself owns the practice in his days to admit reconciled Hereticks Vid. Cypr. ad Quinteâ—… Steph. ap Cyp. ad Pomp. cp 74. Crescent ap Conc. Carthag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Eus H. E. l. 7. c. 7. Ec. His l. 1. c. 9. Apos c. 67. Con. Nic. Can. 19. c. Ap. Cypr. Ed. Ox. Ep. LXXV Novatus à Thâ—…umagade ap Con. Carth. as Penitents only with Imposition of Hands if at first they were Baptiz'd by the Orthodox Clergy And so Heraclas of Alexandria took care that such persons should renounce their Heresies not at all requiring 'em to be Rebaptiz'd And in like manner Miletius retain'd his Character tho debarr'd the exercise of his Function by the Decree of the Nicene Council as appears by their Synodical Epistle in Socrates So that here the case of Baptism and Ordination run parallel neither being made void by meer Heresie or Schism and accordingly we find them put together in several Ancient Canons and in Firmilianus's Epistle to St. Cyprian c. 'T is true the case was otherwise with those Baptized or Ordained by Hereticks or Schismaticks they were to be Reordain'd and Rebaptiz'd according to the Sentiments of those African Fathers How consistently with their own practice let others judge for if Hereticks or Schismaticks did retain their Character while they were out of the Church as those Fathers seem to allow I can see no reason why it should be totally out of their Power to confer the like upon other Persons for if it be said that they lost their Character by departing from the Church how they could obtain it again without a new Ordination is past my understanding And therefore why Miletius himself should retain his Character Socr. ubi sup and yet those Ordain'd by him be confirmed or setled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if by those words is really meant a Second Ordination I must learn from others Vid. Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 18. As for the grosser Hereticks that lived before the time of St. Cyprian and whose several manners of Baptizing were so Monstrous and Wicked I cannot wonder if the Ancients thought fit to Baptize them over again Their former Baptism wanting the necessary words and being Consequently void in the very performance and therefore when Tertullian and other Fathers reject their Baptism I am of opinion it makes little for St. Cyprians Cause So that notwithstanding the Testimonies produced by a Learned Author â—…aun Ep. 15. Agrippinus might be the first introducer of that Practice as Vincentius Lirinensis testifies Vincen. Lirin Com. c. 9. p. 21. Edit Cantab. 1687. Ap. Cyp. ut Supra Vid. Cyp. ipsum in Ep. ad Juâ—…aian And this I am the rather induc'd to believe be cause Pope Stephen then condemn'd it as a Novel Custom and Firmilianus and other Africans seem to own at least could not deny that it was so as appears by the Answer they made to that Objection So that by the most constant usage of the Church in those first Ages the Baptism of Hereticks was not to be admitted in gross neither was it Universally to be rejected upon St. Cyprians Principles there being a difference to be made betwixt those Hereticks who did not really Baptize at all and those that did And so you find both the first and second Councils of Arles admit such as were Baptiz'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 1. Con. Arcl. c. 8. 2. Con. Arcl. c. 16. 17. Optat. 1. 4. and Rebaptising only those that did not believe in the Trinity nor Consequently use the Essential Form and so Optatus declares Quodcunque in Trinitate factum est bene factum est The like distinction I reckon is to be made concerning Ordinations viz. Those who derived their Orders only from Hereticks and Consequently never had any Succession from the Church were justly to be reputed as Unordain'd but those Ordain'd by Hereticks who had their Ordination originally from the Church and did not omit any thing necessary to the conferring of Orders had no occasion for Reordination And to let pass the distinction betwixt the Novatians and Cataphrygae made by the Nicene Fathers Optatus and St. Austin have both of 'em settled the point in their Controversy with the Donatists (a) Vinc. Lirin c. 11. p. 26. Ed. Cant. 1687 who pretended the Authority of the African Council for Rebaptizing the Catholicks Thus (b) In hoc Sacramento Baptismatis Celebrando tres esse Species Constat c. Optat. l. 5. p. 143. Edit Com. 1599. Optatus in Celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism there are three kinds of things which you can neither increase nor diminish nor pretermit The 1st is the Trinity The 2d in him that Believes The 3d. in him that does the Office but they are not all to be esteem'd of equal moment For I look upon two of 'em to be necessary and one as if it were necessary The Trinity obtains the principal place the Faith of him that Believes comes next after this and the Person of him that Ministers is nigh but cannot be of the same Authority The two former remain always unalterable and fixt for the Trinity is always the same and the Faith in several Persons is but one both always retain their proper Efficacy but the Person of him that Ministers is known that it cannot be equal to the two former sorts for this reason because it alone appears to be alterable c. And (c) Ibid. p. 141 142. a little before he acquaints us with the practice of the Church at that time As oft as any one Baptized by you i. e. the Donatists desires to come over to us we receive him according to the Example of our Master with all simplicity for far be it from us that we should call him back again to the Font who is already washed far be it from us that we should repeat that which is to be done but once or double that which is but one for so it is written by the
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
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
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
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