〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Usher renders it Ordinem those that translate it a List would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let them contend about words as long as they please the true import of the place is plain enough to those that consider it with the foregoing Paragraph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewish Contests about the Priesthood and those of the Christians about the Episcopacy are compared together the case may be thus contracted Moses knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Priesthood ordered them to bring their Rods each inscribed with the Name of its Tribe and he laid them up in the Tabernacle telling them That the Tribe whose Rod should blossom God had approved and chosen for the Priesthood Even so the Apostles c. That is as the Sacerdotal Tribe was chosen and approved of God so none must take upon them the office of Episcopacy but Men well approved this seems to me the true sence of the place and the only one that it is capable of And what is here to prove that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters not one word but rather to the contrary for here it is said the Apostles constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 98. the aforesaid go a few lines backward and you have the word again and there you will find it refers to Bishops and Deacons which the Apostles ordained for those that should believe Now if they only appointed these two sorts of Officers what is become of subordinate Presbyters the Apostles we see appointed none such the distinction betwixt Bishops and Presbyters according to Clemens is not by Divine or Apostolical institution and it is observable that in this very Paragraph he makes them the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It will be no small Sin in us to reject those that have discharged the Duties of their Episcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner happy are those Presbyters who have finished their course They fear not being turned out of their present Settlement It is strange these Gentlemen should threaten us with Clement who as he writ next to the Apostles so he is next to them most friendly to our Cause and this was so evident to the learned Grotius That he gives it as a reason why he thinks this Epistle to be Genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis Epist 182. ad Bignon c. because he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Bishops which by the Custom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria but plainly shews as the Apostle does that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops His next Author is Ignatius and it must be confess'd he puts a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter and bids them all be observant of the Bishop and do nothing without the consent of the Bishop but still here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right we grant that in his time the Name of Bishop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter who was as Pastor and the rest his Curats or Assistants but this will make little for the Diocesan Prelate That Ignatius's Bishop was no more than the Pastor of a particular Church his own words abundantly manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches not that all the Members of the Church must be no more than can always meet together in one place there be many things that may make that difficult but they must all have One Altar that is One Communion-Table Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this instance some say by One Table is meant specifically One but so are all in the World Others One Supream Altar to which the rest were Subordinate but why then may we not say by One Bishop is meant One Supream Prelate with other Bishops under him There is no reason assignable why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken Numerically and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise That by One Altar is meant One Consistory as Dr. Morrice would suggest is very improbable when in the same Sentence we read of One Bishop with his Presbytery which sure must signifie the Consistory if any thing that Sentence does and is much more likely to do so than One Altar This is so apparent that Mr. Mede confesses Proof of Churches in the second Cent. p. 29. It should seem that in those first times before Diocesan were divided into lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his Residence Dr. Morrice would disable this Evidence because Mr. Mede expresses it with Caution and Modesty it should seem But such modesty makes it more valuable being the humor and way of that learned man he had made as strict researches into these things as he could and upon the whole it seemed thus to him but if there was a more than ordinary Caution observed in the Words some will be apt to think it was not for want of evidence that the case was really so but rather because he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member The Author of a late Treatise called a Defence of Pluralities supposed to be Mr. Wharton notwithstanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy which appear sufficiently throughout the Book yet ingenuously acknowledges That at the beginning Page 59. the Bishop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and deposited upon the Altar or Communion Table when the number of Christians encreased they began to build more Churches than one in a City these new Churches were but as Chappels of Ease annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church where the Holy Eucharist was Consecrated This may suffice to shew what kind of Diocess Ignatius's Bishop had and what he means by one Altar Enquiry into the Constitut Discip Vnity c. Of the Primitive Churches Chap. 2. and a late Author has said a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himself that the several Bishopricks of Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium were but so many single Congregations governed by a Bishop as Pastor and his Presbyters as Assistants and this he makes the true distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in those times But whether that be so or no is not so material as that our
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
A DEFENCE OF Mr. M. H's Brief ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF SCHISM And the Vindication of it WITH REFLECTIONS Upon a Pamphlet called The Review c. And a Brief Historical Account of Nonconformity from the Reformation to this Present Time LONDON Printed by T. S. for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the Lower End of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1693. THE PREFACE I Expect to hear from all Sides that such Controversies as these at this time a day are very inopportune and Ill advised I confess we have as much reason to value our present Ease and Quiet as any People in the World and to avoid every thing that may disturb or indanger it And we have not so abandon'd the Principles of Self-preservation as willingly to expose our selves to repeated Severities And if I had not some Cause to believe that our silent disregard of the Abuses put upon us will be made by Innuendo's a Confession of Guilt and will harden and encourage our Adversaries against us I would have took no notice of the Citizen's Reply but have left him and his Learned Cabal to the sweet Delights of a fancied Conquest I know we may safely appeal from his sordid Calumnies to the juster Sentiments of the soberest and wisest of the Episcopal Perswasion who have been full as severe in the Censure of his Pamphlets as is necessary for us to be but I am also assured there are too many in this emancipated Age that are passionately fond of any thing that throws dirt upon Dissenters and true or false sence or nonsence it is all one to them whose insatiable Lusts have left them neither Time nor Capacity to search into the true state and merits of the Cause I wonder upon what Inducement this Gentleman should take upon him to quarrel with Mr. H's Enquiry unless it were that he might make himself the Favourite of such a Generation of Men or that his Ghostly Fathers had obliged him to do Pennance in those Sheets I know not what could have been writ more fair and inoffensive than that Book Schism was the Word that had animated Men with a strange Blind Zeal against all those upon whom their Leading Men had fixed the mark and it was given out with so much Industry as if it had been the Shibboleth of the Party reserved for some special Service against a convenient Season Mr. H. kindly endeavoured to undeceive them and by enquiring into the Quality of those Actions upon which this Sin is charged in Scripture to discover its true formal Nature that Men might not fight in the dark and build vast and endless Controversies upon a single Word and that too not rightly understood He observes that the word Schism is not used in Scripture in any sence applicable to the present Case save only three times in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians those places he has particularly examined He shews that those Schismatical Corinthians met in the same place still but contending with one another about some lesser matters to the breach of Christian Love and Mutual Alienation of their Affections fell into the Sin there called Schism Enquiry p. 9. concluding from hence that the formal Nature of this Sin consists not in Separation of Communion but in the Violation of that Love and Charity there ought to be amongst Christians Acknowledging nevertheless that many Overt Actions may be and are Schismatical as they proceed from this Uncharitableness and he mentions such as these Judging and Condemning one another about the Circumstantials of Religion reproaching and reviling each other making approving and executing Penal Laws about such things and Separation from Communion with those we have joyn'd our selves to without cause that is as he explains it without regard had to any thing amiss in the Church we separate from or any thing better in that we joyn our selves to which he calls Separation for Separation's sake This is Schism not barely because Separation but because animated by that Uncharitableness and Disaffection which in Scripture is known by the Name of Schism The Gentleman could not digest a Notion so far different from what he had imbib'd Reply p. 2. but tells us Mr. H's Book had not much more of Schism than of the Philosopher's Stone in it He was loth so heavy a Charge should lye against Uncharitableness which being a main Ingredient in his own Constitution must be more softly and tenderly handled he thinks it more Prudent to lay the Fault so as he may bear the least share of it himself Arch-Rebel p. 10. and therefore boldly affirms that Diversity of Communion is the Ratio formalis of Schism and more than that says he has proved it to be so The Author of the Vindication justly blam'd him for so rash and confident an Assertion as giving the Lye to the Word of God which Charges the Corinthians with the Guilt of Schism when there was no such diversity of Communion and can there be a Schism where that is wanting which he calls the true formal Nature of Schism Can a thing exist without its Essential Form To this the Gentleman replies Shall a Cut in the Arm be truly Schism and not the separating the Arm from the Body If Paul condemned the Corinthians of Schism for preferring one Minister before another Shall that far greater Crime of separating from them be excluded from Schism This Gentleman is a topping Accuser But we cannot Complement this Gentleman so far as to call him a Topping Defendant For the Question was not Whether there may not be a Separation that is really Schismatical Mr. H. granted that But whether Separation be the very Essence and formal Nature of Schism If so then there can be no Schism without such Separation which is false as in the Case of the Corinthians nor any Separation without Schism which is equally false for in many cases we may be obliged in Duty to separate His Comparison of Cutting the Arm from the Body is like it self Lame and Defective for sometimes such a Scissure may be necessary to keep the Body from perishing In short if Separation be needless it is sinful if Uncharitable it is Schismatical if neither needless nor Uncharitable it is a Duty And let it be observed by the way that in this Reply the Gentleman acknowledges the Corinthians were guilty of Schism though they did not Separate when before he told us he had proved that the Ratio formalis of Schism consists in Separation let him reconcile these things at his leisure He thinks if such Uncharitableness be Schism it must follow à minori ad majus diversity of Communion is much more so but the reasoning is not good for Uncharitableness can in no case be lawful but Separation may He himself acknowledges that if any of their terms of Communion be sinful our Separation is justifiable and yet even in that case Uncharitableness would be a Sin If this Gentleman must needs let
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan in which Quadratus and Ignatius flourished might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure confused time in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Christians besides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way as Suetonius Tacitus Pliny c. Now to fill up this Chasme Eusebius has carelesly fetch'd things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Hypotyposes of I know not what Clement for it is not Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and out of the Commentaries of Hegisippus a writer of no better Credit than the former These Perplexities the Learned Bishop of Worcester thus relates Irenic p. 322. Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succession is as muddy as the Tyber it self for Tertullian Ruffinus and others place Clemens next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustine and Damasus make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him certainly if the Line of Succession fails us here where we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church And we do not â—â—â—ly meet with these Difficulties near the Head of the Line but many Ages lower The Series of Popes in the Roman See after the eighth Century is very much ruffled and confused as Onuphrius tells us Horum temporum Pontifices neque Praefat. act partem secund de Romano Pontif. perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem c. The Bishops of those times have not any constant certain Writer and a great part of their Affairs are omitted whence it comes to pass that these times are so uncertain and obscure that we cannot tell in what Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put and some new Popes have crept in which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll as Basilius one Agapetus and Dommus the second which are either the same with others under a different name or else were Schismaticks or perhaps were never in being but which of these to affirm is uncertain and doubtful and he tells us that as to John the 11th Leo the 16th Stephen the 8th Leo the 7th and Stephen the 9th He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers but of Luitprandus Ticinensis and says there is a foul mistake in the account of the Martins for there never were any such men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns quanta bone Deus confusio exorta est ex veterum Historiarum ignorantia It seems our Learned Citizen never dreamed that Popish Writers should be so ingenuous as to confess these insuperable difficulties in the Succession for his part he never discours'd with any of them that did not zealously assert it and it may be so but certainly then he never discoursed with the wisest or honestest of them but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himself But 2. Were these Catalogues of Names as clear and certain as they are otherwise yet unless it were equally certain that all of these were truly Bishops and had valid Consecration the Line of Succession is still unproved and how impossible is it to have this demonstrated with that clearness requisite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend For it has been often observed that our Church Historians being left so much in the dark for the earliest Ages are forced to supply the defects of History with bold conjectures of their own and where-ever they met with the Apostles or Evangelists in any place presently they made them the Bishops of that place Irenic p. 302. so Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Millan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus Bishop of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome And through the loss of the Dyptychs of the Church which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering called their Natalitia some have mistaken Martyrs for Bishops and the time of their Apotheosis for that of their Consecration and the Learned Junius reckons among these Anacletus Cletus and Clemens at Rome And how shall we prove that all the persons mentioned in the Lists had such Ordination as is made essential to Episcopacy it is not sufficient to say there were ancient Canons decreeing that no Bishop should be Consecrated but by three at the least this is arguing a jure ad factum which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made and it is as certain they were very little regarded in that state of Apostacy and Antichristianism into which the Churches fell and lay for so long a time we know there are many examples of mens getting into the highest Church Preferments by Murther Simony Sorcery which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Administrations It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture against judging hating and persecuting one another about Ceremonies but if any shall argue from hence there were never any such Practices every age will afford instances enough for their Confutation and if there has been so notorious a contempt of the Laws of Christ Why should we think it strange if the Canons of the Church have been despised too when they have stood in the way of mens Interest Every body knows Ecclesiastical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies whilst the greater sort of Vermine rush through The Council of Lateran decreed Electio facta per civilem Magistratum in sacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat and the Jus Orientale Lib. 3. Inter. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. 4. and the seventh General Council as it is called determine Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magistratibus Episcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam esse and yet that de facto the Magistrates sometimes did elect will not be denied The second Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Bishops shall be null and void 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bernard con ad Eugen. l. 4. c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriously guilty of it and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church says Notes of the Church p. 152. It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head and that there is now no true Pope nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to for by their own Confession a Pope Symoniacally chosen a Pope intruded by Violence a Heretick and therefore sure an
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
Religion upon pain of being convicted of Schism by the Word of God and how the effects of such an opinion should be any other than peace I cannot unless it be by an Antiperistasis and the powerful opposition of contrary principles that some Mon have suckt in I confess when these Gentlemen are so often telling us of the loss of peace if Dissenters will not all come to Church it appears to me like a menacing the Government as if they were resolved to throw all into confusion again unless they may be restored to the liberty of trampling us under foot and if our present Indulgence be attended with such dangerous symptoms I believe they do wholly arise from the discontents of some four and haughty Spirits that cannot be satisfied with all their Grandeur whilst Mordecai sits in the Gate and will not bow But says he suppose a Man should introduce the same doctrine into the State and tell people that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies that they need not own the Present Government but where has Mr. H. said any thing like this in the whole Enquiry Does he any where say Men need not to own the Government that God has established in his Church but may act by a Polity of their own I wish this Gentleman can clear himself as well of such a Doctrine as Mr. H. may If he means that it is as unlawful to have several distinct Bishops and Churches in the same Diocess as several Kings in the same Kingdom he deserves the rebukes of the Government much more than Mr. H. or the Vindicator either It is plainly the drift of these Men to make themselves as absolute Governours over the Laity as Princes over their Subjects and if they can persuade Men that it is as great a Crime to leave the Ministration of their Parish Priest what ever he be and go to hear another that is as truly a Minister of the Gospel as to rebel against their Prince and set up another in his room they have taken a great step towards it His harangue about the Present Government about the Title of K. James the Nature and Rights of Soveraignty he may if he pleases reserve for the Illumination of his Brethren that are for distinguishing between Kings de facto and de jure without which Vehicle they could not so easily have swallow'd the Oath of Allegiance or for his dear Friends in the Jacobite Conventicles whom it may be he would willingly excuse from Schism notwithstanding their Separation because they still adhere to Episcopacy and Ceremonies those fundamental Principles of Unity that which follows in the same Paragraph is equally false and impertinent Mr. H. never sets people at liberty to break into parties or to make any such divisions as he speaks of but endeavours to prevent all such things by fixing a brand upon that division in affection which commonly gives the rise to all other sinful divisions amongst men As to the differences betwixt the Presbyterian and the Independant Party in former times with which he upbraids us I shall only say if the Presbyterian Churches were framed according to the Word of God and laid no other Burden upon their Members than necessary things according to the Apostles Canon which all Churches are for ever bound to observe that Separation was Sinful and if it proceeded from uncharitableness it was Schismatical according to Mr. H's Notion And if this Concession will do him any service let him take it and make his best advantage of it And if it be sinful to break off from Particular Church Communion without just cause it is much more so for men to deny and renounce Communion with all Christians and Churches that will not comply with needless inventions of their own We are now come to Mr. H's Description of Schism viz. That it is an Uncharitable Distance Division or Alienation of affection amongst those who are called Christians and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things The Gentleman first charges this Description of Schism with Novelty and Wildness and then proceeds to draw out the consequences But as to Novelty and Wildness if it be the Scripture notion of Schism it will sufficiently clear it self of such imputations The question Mr. H. proposed was not what the Fathers called Schism but what the Spirit of God calls so in his Word it was this which he undertook to answer and if he has acquitted himself well in that he is not concerned what this or that Father calls Schism and this description is founded on the case of the Corinthians They were called Christians and it was fit to put that into the definition for we are not enquiring into the Schisms of Jews Turks or Pagans They agreed in the Fundamentals of Religion that is in all that was absolutely necessary to Salvation otherwise the Apostle would scarcely have given them the Title of Brethren and Saints acknowledging the Grace of God in them That there were contentions amongst them to the prejudice of Christian Love and Charity will not be denied since the Apostle plainly reprimands them for it And that these contentions were occasioned by different apprehensions is equally certain otherwise there would have been no room nor pretence for such contests And that all this was about little things that is comparatively little on which Salvation does not necessarily depend is sufficiently plain from the good account that is given of these persons as to the main notwithstanding these unhappy differences These contentions thus circumstantiated the Apostle calls Schisms and Mr. H. though a man might without danger or offence conclude That an Uncharitable distance or alienation of affections amongst those that are called Christians occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things is Schism according to the Scripture notion and account of it But nothing will please those that have a mind to be quarrelsome this must be bantered for a wild novel and bungling description the latest that ever was Coined And yet if this Gentleman had perused the Homilies of the Church of England before he subscribed to them as in all Reason and Conscience he ought to have done he would have found such an Agreement betwixt Mr. H's description of Schism and the sense of his own Church as would have obliged him for his own sake to have treated it with better language Let him consult the Homily against contention F. 9. and there he will find that the Church of England places the Unity of the Church in Concord and Charity and the Rents or Schisms of the Church in discord contention bitter Emulation c. Oh how the Church is divided Oh how it is cut and mangl'd Oh how that Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all rent and torn Oh body Mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is
disagree and easie to be mistaken whereas the Fundamentals being more directly and positively asserted in the Word of God admit of clearer demonstration 'T is true indeed those that think it their duty in all the lesser matters of Religion to follow their Leaders and that make their Commands in these things the Standard of Sin and Duty have found out an easie Rule of Controversie and this seems to be his opinion for he says if Mr. H. were better acquainted with Church 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 them And I will venture to add if this Gentleman be as well acquainted with Church History as he pretends he knows in his Conscience that he imposes upon his Reader and would obtrude a great fallacy upon the World The first Attempt for the introducing such Customs and Ceremonies into the Worship of God occasioned a great deal of Contention and Discord in the Apostles times and the Imposers were severely check'd by them for their Arrogance Gal. 5.1 and all Christians commanded to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not suffer themselves to be entangled with the yoak of Bondage and so great a Disturbance was raised by urgeing such Ceremonies v. 12. that the Apostle wishes they were cut off that troubled the Church with them And after the Apostles were dead when Ceremonies began to encrease though they were not for some time enjoyned but the People took them up partly of their own accord partly upon the example of those they had a great Veneration for yet they occasioned great Animosities and Discord in the Churches of which Socrates gives us many instances Lib. 5. c. 21 22. Sozom. l. 7.19 And when Victor would needs impose his Observation of Easter such Feuds and Heats were raised thereby as made them the scorn of the Pagans and were greatly lamented by all sober Bishops and Christians and both Cyprian and Irenaeus greatly blame him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stretching the Rigour of his Government Euseb l. 5. c. 24. not only beyond his line but also to Causes of indifferency which would not admit of such severe Censures And as Ceremonies and Impositions encreased Contentions grew up with them till at last a great part of the Christian World was laid in a dead sleep with that Poison poured into the Church and for a long time became like Issachar a strong Ass submitting to every Burthen then indeed there was almost a Universal Agreement about Ceremonies and a general Prostitution of Conscience to the dictates of the pretended Catholick Church but that was the darkest and worst state wherein Christianity ever was in the World I come now to examine this Gentleman's Account of the Corinthian Schism and indeed hic pes figendus this is the Core of the Controversie and the hinge upon which it turns if he be right in this he has broken Mr. H's Measures and put him upon a new Enquiry Mr. H. supposes that these Corinthians who are reproved for their Schismatical Contentions were agreed in the fundamental Articles of Faith and great Truths of the Gospel but engaged in foolish and uncharitable Contests about the Apostles some commending Paul and preferring him before the rest others crying up Cephas and a third sort Apollos thus having the Faith of Christ with respect of Persons This Gentleman has learned from Dr. Hammend to say That the Persons reproved for these Contentions were the Gnostick Hereticks Review p. 20 21. that denied the Resurrection of the Dead and lived in Incest and disswaded the People from Marriage and sacrificed to Idols that they might escape Persecution some of them pretend they had their heretical Doctrines from St. Paul P. 22. others fathered theirs upon Apollos others upon Cephas and another sort pretended they had seen Christ himself and received those Doctrines from his Mouth And he affirms they were Heretical Gnosticks only and not the Orthodox P. 24. who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos and concludes that the Schism of the Corinthians lay in opposing the sound Orthodox Doctors and maintaining their own wild Heresies under the Umbrage of these great Names Were it not for these Gnostick Hereticks I know not what some Men could do to misunderstand plain Scripture if we meet with any smart Reproofs in the Apostolical Epistles still they must be levell'd at the Gnostick Hereticks if any were guilty of Fornication it was the Gnosticks if any of Temporizing or of Schism they were Gnosticks as if all besides them had been Pure and Innocent This is too great partiality and savours much of the Pharisaical Humour of some Modern Men that are for casting the Odium of every ill thing upon those they are pleased to call Schismaticks that under this Blind all the Sons of the Church may come off clear and be thought in every thing blameless and inoffensive Now although I make no question but there were such Hereticks in those days and that they were as bad as he describes them that some of them lived amongst the Corinthians and that the Apostle sometimes speaks concerning them though I seldom find that he speaks directly to them yet that these were the persons here reproved for Schism much less the only persons I can never believe For these reasons 1. 1 Cor. 1. The Character which the Apostle gives of these contentious Corinthians in the context will by no means fit the Gnostick Hereticks for we find he calls them the Church of God Saints and in the 9th verse Persons that were called into the Fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord and in the very same verses wherein he admonishes them of their Schismatical Contentions he calls them Brethren v. 10. Now I beseech you Brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions amongst you For it hath been declared unto me of you my Brethren that there are contentions among you Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul c. Can any Man imagine these such gross and damned Hereticks as the Gnosticks have been always described Can we believe the same Apostle that was so sharp upon those that urged the Jewish Ceremonies as to call them Dogs and Evil Workers and bid the Christians beware of them would be so tender and kind so affectionate and endearing to the vilest corrupters of the Christian Faith as to call them Saints and Brethren and all the good names imaginable I am sure the Church of England seldom speaks to Protestant Dissenters in such obliging language and yet I hope we are not altogether so bad as the Gnostick Hereticks 2. If the fault here reproved had been Herefie and such as this Gentleman speaks of there 's no question but the Apostle