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
the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church that divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the Nature and Aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Privileges of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints and Promises of Everlasting Life which shews how the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One Norwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are caused by the Quarrels of Bishops and Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Jurisdiction Thus have these Learned and Sober Gentlemen made up those defects which the Lord Verulam complained of in his day Advance of Learning l. 9. p. 472 473. he sets down amongst the Deficients and recommends us a wholesome and profitable work a Treatise touching his degrees of Unity in the City of God and he tells us It exceedingly imports the Peace of the Church to define what and of what Latitude those points are which discorporate Men from the Body of the Church and cast them out and quite Casheir them from the Communion and Fellowship of the Faithful The bounds of Christian Community are set down one Faith one Baptism and not one Rite one Opinion the Coat of our Saviour was entire without Seam but the Garment of the Church was of divers Colours In the mean time it is very likely he that makes mention of Peace shall receive that answer Jehu gave to the Messengers Is it Peace Jehu What hast thou to do with Peace Turn and follow me Peace is not the matter that many seek after but parties and siding To conclude this point Dr. Stilling-fleet Irenic p. 121. God will one day convince men that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection than in the Uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies since the Unity of the Church consists in the true Catholick Faith and Christian Affection whereby Men are knit to Christ the Head and to one another None are out of the Unity of the Church but those that are destitute of these fundamental Graces and to affirm this of Protestant Dissenters in general is a piece of Diabolism which the Gospel abhors and Humanity it self will be ashamed of We must first prove that Men are without Faith before we can prove that they are without the Church and not with the Papists condemn them as void of Faith because out of the external Communion of their Church It is a very foolish and misleading method to prove our interest in the Faith by our interest in the Church as if we must first know the true Church and that we are in it before we can know the true Faith or that it is in us this way of arguing has been always condemned by Protestant Writers The Scripture Test for the trial of our Faith is a serious endeavour to perfect Holiness in the fear of God to be careful to maintain good works c. And indeed nothing but gross Heresie and known constant Immoralities can warrant us in saying that any who profess to be Christians are destitute of the Faith and whether Dissenters in England do not generally shew as much of the fear of God both in their Fumilies and common Conversation as their Neighbours must be left to the Consciences of all observing Men here and the righteous judgment of God hereafter And I hope they may modestly justifie their pretensions to Christian Love and Charity too I am sure their quiet and peaceable behaviour under so many years severe Persecution will plead more strongly for them than for those by whom they suffered such things all the World will take notice how unable those Gentlemen were to bear a very small share of those Severities themselves which they had for a long time so liberally inflicted upon others I am far from the thoughts of charging these things upon the Episcopal Party in general or even the Clergy themselves but all the Nation will bear witness 't is too true concerning those Bishops and others that were formerly most uneasie and troublesom to their Dissenting Brethren How odd a thing was it for this Gentleman to begin his Book with Panegyricks upon Peace when the avowed design is to justifie all those Violations thereof that have been the scandal of the Protestant Religion He tells us of a blessed Legacy left us by our dying Redeemer and why then should we not be suffered to enjoy it I am sure we should have been glad to have lived in the obscurest places and circumstances where we might have enjoyed that Sacred Bequest but there were a Generation of Men amongst us who having spent their own Legacies would needs deprive us of ours unless we would surrender the dearer Peace of our own minds I am afraid it is the conscienciousness of their former guilt that makes many of them so very suspicious and jealous of Dissenters as they are they can hardly believe that we have any Charity for them because they know how little they have discovered towards us And thus the remembrance of what is past pushes them on to farther abuses instead of producing fruits meet for Repentance whereas I do verily believe the generality of Dissenters can heartily forgive all that 's past and would be glad to see any ground of hope that the same men would not greedily embrace the first opportunity of acting over again their former excesses CHAP. II. Of Obedience to our Governours Spiritual and Civil That the Jurisdiction of our English Bishops is not Jure Divino but Presbyters have as much Power by the Law of God as they An Answer to the Gentleman's Allegations out of Antiquity The Judgment of the Fathers and Councils and School-men and our first Reformers and the Divines of the Transmarine Churches I Hope we have safely passed the Ordeal of Catholick Unity we now proceed to defend our selves from the dreadful Accusation of Disobedience to Superiors for though our Non-Conformity should not utterly exclude us from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church yet if it involve us in the guilt of Sedition contempt of our Lawful Governours and disobedience to their just Commands our Cause would be bad enough and we could by no means justifie it before God or the World The Indictment charges upon us a twofold Disobedience First Disobedience to our Spiritual Governours the Bishops And secondly To the Civil Magistrate likewise but we do verily believe our selves to be innocent and desire an impartial hearing of our just Defence which will proceed in this Method 1. We plead that Bishops have no Power by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they 2. That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws
Gentleman's design is to revive these old Ceremonies of Feasting and Kissing and having all things common not only for the sake of their Apostolical Institution but as being all of them Ceremonies of very comfortable importance to a Man of his Temper and Circumstances But after all if it were plain that the Apostles made meer Ceremonies terms of Communion it will scarcely follow that our Bishops may do so too no more than that they may write Canonical Epistles and make Laws to bind the whole World as the inspired Apostles did To make terms of Communion is a very great Power especially if out of Communion there be no Salvation for then to make terms of Communion is to make the terms of Salvation and to put such a Power into the hands of weak and fallible Men is a thing of such dismal Consequences to the Souls of Men that we may be sure our Blessed Redeemer would never do it He has in his own Person and by his Apostles whom he inspired fixed that Law by which he will justifie and condemn Men and has not left it in the Power of any Mortal to add thereunto and to pretend to such Power is not only to impose upon Men but upon God too as if he must ask them leave whether he shall have a Church upon Earth or no. REFLECTIONS Upon a PAMPHLET ENTITULED A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H ' s. new Notion of Schism and the Vindication of it THE Title of this Paper imports that there has been some kind of Answer already made to the Enquiry and Vindication but such as the Zealous Club judge Lame and Impotent and therefore have thought fit to order a Review great things surely may be expected from this which comes to supply the defects of the former Methinks the Author of the Reply is more concerned in this thing called a Review than either the Enquiror or Vindicator Reply p. 2. for 't is a scurvey intimation that his own Confederates do not believe him when he boasts that he has run down his Adversary and proved and shewed and demonstrated every thing for if they had entertain'd as good an opinion of the success of his last expedition as he himself has it had been the most superfluous thing in the World to have come with a Review before the other had received an Answer these things would almost persuade a Man to think P. 35. that T. W's Reputation is not so great amongst the party as he pretends But whether this latter comes out on purpose to Affront the Citizen or whether it be with his consent upon conviction of the miserable weaknesses of his Reply I neither know nor care my business is to enquire whether the valiant Second has done any greater seats than he that first engaged in the quarrel This Gentleman must not expect an Answer to his famous and innumerable Oxford Jests I consider the humour of his party and how dull and insipid every thing is to them how rational soever that has not a great mixture of Farce and Comedy in it for my part I shall take no more notice of them than I would do of those little ludicrous wanton Creatures that can make themselves excellent sport with their own Tails and Shadows As to the Enquiry there are two very material things he encounters in it the Design and the Management He will not allow the Design of it to be Honest and Peaceable to allay heats and create a better understanding amongst us as the Vindicator pretends that design it seems is too high and the Vindicator ascribes too much to Mr. H. in saying he endeavoured to create a better understanding betwixt parties that had been so long and learnedly contending this is to place him in the Chair and make him an Oracle and I do not know what so uneasie a thing it is to Proud Men to hear any body commended but themselves it seems the Reviewer had no design to accommodate differences or to contribute any thing to a better understanding betwixt Church-men and Dissenters he modest man will not pretend to take so high an aim for my part I believe this was not his design but then I am sure it must be something worse that is to enflame the differences and perplex the controversie and no doubt he has managed such a design as well as he could He tells us Mr. H's design was no greater than to satisfie the scruples of some persons and to make two Female Proselites which is a great piece of news to Mr. H. for he declares he knows nothing of it and desires the Gentleman to name the Persons that were to be drawn in and to tell us at what Gossipping he pickt up this Story or else we must lay the Brat at his own Door I leave it to the Reader to judge what expectations Mr. H. could have from this Book when he found so notorious a Fiction in the very first Page And truly he goes on as he begun telling us that Mr. H's Notion of Schism will turn all Church Discipline out of Doors Review p. 3. for if breach of Communion be no Schism as these Gentlemen alledge a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting House c. It is not without good reason that some Men have so great a spight at the Stool of Repentance there are a sort of Men that hate it as a Thief hates the Gallows the Citizen could not forbear it in his Book But to let that pass I wonder where this Gentleman finds any such a Sentence in either of the books he pretends to review as that breach of Communion is no Schism let him produce it or confess himself worse than a trifler Both those Books acknowledge Separation of Communion to be Schism if it be uncharitable and to be sinful if it be without good reason and how this can be prejudicial to Church Discipline I know not unless by Church Discipline be meant that uncharitable unchristian and tyrannical thing that has been sometimes acted under that Title and if that should be turned out of Doors by this account of Schism all wise men will love it better upon that score He proceeds We have reason to question the peaceableness of his design Review p. 4. for the Notion it self being contrived to encourage and justifie Separation I am afraid the last result and consequence of it will not be peace this has as little honesty in it as the former there is not the least tendency in Mr. H's Notion to encourage or justifie any sinful Separation nay it lays the strictest tye upon persons to see to it not only that the cause of their Separation be just but the manner of it peaceable and charitable too if the Cause be not just it is sinful and if it be not managed peaceably and charitably it is Schismatical Nay it obliges persons in the same Communion to avoid uncharitable contentions about the lesser matters of
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
but divide and separate from each other this we will grant is a very great Fault but yet if they Communicate in such things as make one Church their Quarrels and Divisions may hurt themselves but cannot destroy the Unity of the Church for the Church is one Body not meerly by the Agreement of Christians among themselves but by the Institution of Christ who has made all those that profess the same Faith and are united in the same Sacraments to belong to the same Body to be his own Body And therefore Christians are never Exhorted to be One Body for that they are if they be Christians as the Apostle expresly asserts but they are exhorted to live in Unity and Concord because they are One Body Eph. 4.1 2 3. And in the 25th Page Those who profess the true Faith of Christ without any corrupt Mixtures are Sound and Orthodox Churches other Churches are more or less pure according to the various Corruptions of their Faith And thus it is with respect to the Christian Sacraments and Worship too I hope this will be acknowledged very pertinent to our purpose but if we desire it he will yet speak more plainly for when his Adversary had said Succession of Doctrine without Succession of Office is a poor Plea He answers I must needs tell him it is a much better Plea than Succession of Doctrine for I am sure P. 53. there is not a safe Communion where there is not a Succession of Apostolical Doctrine but whether the want of a Succession of Bishops will in all Cases unchurch admits of a greater Dispute I am sure true Faith in Christ with a true Gospel Conversation will save Men and some Learned Romanists defend the old Definition of the Church Jo. Laun. Ep. Vol. 8. Ep. 13. that it is Coetus Fidelium the Company of the Faithful and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into the desinition of a Church I have e'en tired my self with these Quotations not for the sake of our Cause but out of Civility to the Citizen of Chester and Men of his Temper that by taking up a false Idea of Catholick Unity to the Exclusion of all those that have not Diocesan Episcopacy are animated by it to the greatest Severities against them concluding that those who shut themselves out of the Catholick Church are well enough served if they be cast out of Civil Saciety and denied the common Rights and Privileges of Mankind Let us now examine this Gentieman's Notions about the Unity of the Church which may give us a little diversion in our Journey He charges the Vindicator with mis-reporting his Description of Unity Reply p. 16. omitting that which was necessary to be added and if he did so he was very much to blame But let us turn to the places and try whether it be so or no. Those words out of which we must draw his Notion of Unity are these Though there be a Multiplication of Churches by the encrease of Believers yet no variation they are all one with that Church first mentioned in Jerusalem and all One with one another being all United into one Spiritual Society or Body under One head Jesus Christ Arch-Rebei p. 2. and are in all things the same with that first Church United in One Baptism and in One Faith all partake at the same Table and so all United in the visible external Worship and Service of God This Account of the Unity of the Church the Vindic thus Contract All Churches are One as United into One Body Vindic. p. 16. whereof Christ is the Head having the same Baptism the same Faith and the same Eucharist Now what has he omitted that belonged to this description of Unity why he should have added They are all One with that Church first mentioned at Jerusalem but that he left out and he should have added They are all one with one another and again They are in all things the same with that first Church but he omitted both these A very dangerous Omission But pray what do all these three Sentences amount to more than this single Assertion the Catholick Church is One Not one of them answers the Question wherein it is One it is no explanation of the Unity of the Church to say it is all One with the Primitive Church and all One with it self and the same with that first Church still the Question is wherein is the Church One wherein does the Unity of all true Churches consist For to say they are One because they are One and because they are the same and all One with one another is a most vain and ridiculous Tautology which the Vindicator was so civil as to pass by only fixing upon those words that tell us wherein they are One even as united into One Body under One Head having the same Baptism Faith and Eucharist and so united in the Worship of God the other Phrases barely assert the Unity these describe and explain it But this Gentleman knows not when he is well dealt with but will force us to expose him whether we will or no. The Vindicator having thus Collected out of his words a description of Unity as consisting in the same Lord and in the same Baptism Faith and Eucharist agrees to it with this Explanation that is the same for Substance for it does not appear that they all agreed in the Primitive Times in the same Circumstances and infers from hence that there may be Catholick Unity without Diocesan Episcopacy and Ceremonies neither of which he put into his Description The Gentleman's reply to this is very remarkable for thus it goes It is plain all that he drives at here is that there may be a true Church-Unity without Episcopacy which Doctrine is a meer Innovation c. But why did he not then insert the Unity of Episcopacy in his Description If he left it out it was not to be expected the Vindication should foist it in for him as he now would do himself but it is too late and to add it now is not a Defence of his former Paper but an Amendment rather such as it is but indeed rejected by the most Judicious of the Episcopal Writers as has been already evinced to which I will here add one citation more that I may either recover him out of his frenzy or leave him inexcusable 't is the Learned Author of The Summary of the late Controversies betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome P. 123. He very well distinguishes between External Ecclesiastical Communion and the Unity of the Church and says The Unity of the Catholick Church consists in One Faith and Worship and Charity that indeed such external Communion when occasion offers shews that we are all Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour and own each other for Brethren But the Church may be the One Body of Christ without being One Ecclesiastical Body under One Governing Head which 't is impossible
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
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
make the Dioceses of Ephesus and Creet to take in one another and the whole Christian World too The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical Power This Gent. undertakes to prove it may but by such kind of instances as signifie nothing but his own inadvertency viz. When two Persons are Heirs to one in the same Estate the Law calls them Successores partiarii But this will not do an Estate may be divided into a Thousand Parts and each of them have the Nature of an Estate still but the Apostolical Power is Universal the same in all places and division here will make it another thing according to the Account that Mr. Bradford Dr. Barrow and the best Protestant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apostle and Bishop Paul as an Apostle had the same Power at Ephesus as at Crete and if Timothy had succeeded in the Apostolical Power he must have had so too His Argument from the Division of the Empire is as defective as the former Empires how great soever are limited within certain Bounds and may be divided it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World as it was of the Apostolical 't is a vain thing to talk of any Provinces to which the Apostolical Power was limited they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World and so must those have too that succeed them in the Apostleship The Vindicator also desired to know how Timothy and Titus could succeed Paul in his Apostleship whilst he was alive and in Plenitude of Power This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle but so it was chuse what the Consequences may be for says he it is evident the Apostle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserved to himself But pray Sir think better of it a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province is not the Plenitude of Apostolical Power and if he reserved any Power to himself within those respective Charges they had not the Plenitude of Power there but were under his Apostolical Jurisdiction still and therefore did not succeed him in it and if the Apostle reserved to himself no Power over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete he divested himself of his Apostleship for he that had not Apostolical Power every where had it no where But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremise the matter betwixt them T. W. must call the Bishops Coadjutors only whilst the Apostles were living and the Vindicator must give them the Title of Successors after their Death And if by Successors he means those that after them were employed in the great Work of the Ministry of the Gospel we grant all true Bishops are their Successors but then we must put him in Mind that the Bishops we read of in Scripture were as much Bishops before the Apostles Death as after and therefore their Episcopal Power did not come to them by Succession nor did there at the Apostles Death any new Accession of Power devolve upon them It was therefore the most needless thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter Review p. 42. what if they call Bishops and Presbyters the Apostles Successors so do we too but do they say that they succeeded them in the Apostolical Power or that the Apostleship was devolved upon them by the Right of Succession and yet it is that T. W. after his weak manner struggles to prove and indeed no less will serve his turn This Gentleman is not so thoughtful as he should be when he says We make it such a mighty Mystery for a Bishop to Constitute his Successour if by Constituting he means Naming or Appointing who shall be his Successor it is not impossible supposing that God preserve his Life and the Church Consent to that Appointment tho' it be very inconvenient and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils but it is impossible for one Bishop to devolve his whole Episcopal Power upon another and yet to keep it himself in as great amplitude as ever Decret par 2. caus 7. Quaest 1. c. 5. Vivente Episcopo Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ c. The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Successor comes not in place till the Predecessour be gone that as long as the Bishop liveth no man can succeed him that there cannot be two Bishops in one Place this is most certainly true in the sence wherein we now speak of Bishops and sufficient to our present purpose That which follows about the certainty of Linus his succeeding Peter of an uninterrupted Succession of the Concession of Papists Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem Aetatem seniorem quadragessimi aut quinquagessimi anni habens Dom. noster c. has already been largely discussed in these Papers It is possible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Bishops and yet be Mistaken in their Order of Succession and 't is certain all is not to be taken for Gospel that Irenaeus reports even in matters of Fact for he tells us our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years and said he had this from all the Elders of Asia who received it from St. John himself How well is it that we have a more sure Word of Prophesie and History too than the Testimony of Irenaeus As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death accounts are so various and the probabilities on each hand so fair that no modest man will be Positive in it but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it and his Disciples make no Question but he has done it infallibly The Vindicator had some Reason to put that Question concerning the Apostolical Succession in the Patriarchal Churches which this Gentleman quarrels with because he observed T. W. made Linus succeed Peter in the See of Rome Simeon James in the Chair of Jerusalem Ananias I suppose it should be Ananias the Cobler of whom before St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria and the account runs upon this Supposition that the Apostles divided the World into several Provinces and each of them was Bishop of his proper district and those are called the Apostles Successors that came into their several Sees after their Death and these being but such a number it would follow that the Succession must be only propagated in these Patriarchats this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the consequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succession which he only erected in those Churches where he had an Apostle at the Head of the Roll he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other that none but the Patriarchs were the Apostles Successors but intimated that such a Succession as T. W. described would only be found in those