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
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
their own Sence there were no separate Meetings otherwise where-ever there is a Violation of Love and Charity amongst Christians there is a breach of Communion and his whole Book tends to prove it Will this Gentleman say that by these divisions are meant the rude and disorderly behaviour of some amongst them or rather the contests that those miscarriages caused If he speaks sence he must say the latter Forit is not usual to call the miscarriages of one sort divisions Besides these miscarriages tho' very great were chiefly about the Love Feasts which accompanied the Sacrament as the Gentleman himself acknowledges and therefore were not altogether so destructive of Communion as if they had been about the Sacrament it self But if that will not do he will try the old Salvo and these divisions must be into Sects and Parties that were Heretical But how can it then be said that these Divisions arose when they came together to these Feasts what did some of them turn Hereticks presently upon the Congress And become Orthodox again when they parted and so turn Hereticks anew when they came together the next time And certainly if they were Hereticks the Apostle would have charged the rest to have cast them out and not suffered them to Communicate with them at all and that had been a proper and likely way to have put an End to such Disorders But this he grounds upon the verse following For there must also be Heresies among you and blames Mr. H. for omitting it and would fain know what we have to say to it Why I 'll tell him in a few words This does not shew that the Divisions he reproves were Heresies but gives us the reason why he believed the report which he heard of their Divisions I hear there are Divisions or Schisms amongst you and I partly believe it for there must be also Heresies amongst you I need not wonder if there be Schisms amongst you for I know there will be Heresies also which are a great deal worse Thus it has been understood by very Learned Expositors and it seems the Natural import of the words and their connexion with the former and the Particle also makes it plain enough But after all if this Gentleman will in one place make Schism to be Heresie and in another a disorderly behaviour at the Communion Table or at the Feasts attending it he will advance an Idea of it much more Novel than Mr. H's and it will fairly acquit Dissenters from being Schismaticks for he can neither charge us with Heresie nor any such disorders at the Lords Supper The last place agitated is 1 Cor. 12.15 That there be no Schism in the Body Mr. H. acknowledges that Schism is that which breaks or slackens the Bond by which the Members are knit one to another Here the Gentleman presently claps hold and says that is done notoriously by Separation and breach of Communion yes no doubt Communion is broken by breach of Communion we won't dispute that but all Separation does not break Communion if we only separate in those things wherein Christian Communion does not consist the Bond is firm still therefore Mr. H. well added but this iâ— Bond not an Act of Uniformity in the same Ceremonies but of true Love and Charity the Gentleman replies nor is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence We grant it Sir it is sufficient for us that the Act of Indulgence takes away the Obligation of the Act of Uniformity we do not desire it should take away Mens Obligations to preserve the Unity of the Church which we question not is as Sacredly observed in our Assemblies as in yours He falsely charges Mr. H. with saying that true Love and Charity is the onely Bond by which Christians are knit together he does not say it is the onely Bond but certainly it is the Bond though not the onely one for they are United by Faith also but it is onely the breach of this Bond of Love which is properly called Schism He tells us the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together and let us hear what they are They are incorporated into one Society or Body but is that a tye by which they are knit together or does it not rather shew us what they are when united together Their being animated by one Spirit and so having one Hope and being within the One Covenant of Grace are not so properly the Bond by which we are United but the effects of our Union to Christ by Faith and it 's that is properly the Bond or Uniting Grace on our part that joins us to the Head God in Christ and from this the other Grace of Christian Love results by which the Members are Morally united one to another How far the Unity of the Ministry is absolutely necessary to the Unity of Christs Body has been already discussed in the former part of this Treatise He concludes his Reflections upon the Enquiry with the same ingenuity which has all along appeared in him He acknowledges that Charity is a comprehensive Virtue and every Sin is a violation of it as Theft Murder Treason but as it would not be good Logick to make Uncharitableness serve for a definition of them all so neither in the case of Schism And we acknowledge it would not and where does he find that Mr. H. makes uncharitableness the Definition of Schism he makes it but part of the Definition the Genus onely and this Gentleman by his own pretty Colloquy makes it to be the Generical nature of all Sin but the Enquirer adds the Differentia taken from the subject those who agree in fundamentals and its object the smaller things of Religion and this with its Genus makes up the compleat Definition of that which Scripture calls Schism But the account which this Gentleman has given of it is so uncertain and various so far from a Definition that it falls short even of a bungling Description In one place he affirms where there is Schism there is a breach of Communion p. 9. in another there was a Schism amongst the Corinthians and yet they were in the same Communion p. 22. In one place it is Heresie p. 21. In another place Fornication p. 20. In another rude and disorderly tricks at their Love Feasts p. 29. In one place it is opposing their Orthodox Governours p. 26. In another place it is siding with them p. 25. and yet this is the Man that cannot endure any body should be thought a Conjurer in Logick and Divinity besides himself I hope the Enquiror is got safe out of this Gentlemans Hands I now proceed to do the Vindicator the same Justice in which I shall be brief because the merits of the Cause are discussed already and his little scurrilous Reflections are not worth our notice The Citizen of Chester presented his Adversary with a List of the Names of those that had done Wonders in
and to make her glorious in the World when in the mean time Christianity it self has been rendred odious and contemptible Ridente Turce nec dolente Judaeo Turks Jews and Pagans have beheld her flames with pleasure and warmed themselves and said Aha thus we would have it It must not be denied but that Catholick Unity where it is so happy as to be understood acquaints us with something very sacred and venerable of which we cannot be too fond or tender it bears the Image of Divinity and if it were not in it self a most excellent thing the name of it could never be made so specious a pretence It has been often and confidently asserted that all the Dissenters in England have departed from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church This lies as a mighty prejudice in the minds of many both against our way Arch-Rebel p. 28. Reply p. 1. and persons too and their common Inference from hence is That we are out of a State of Salvation have no right to any of the Promises of the Gospel that all our Hopes are unwarrantable and groundless Fancies that we are contemners of the Peace and Unity which Christ has bequeathed to his Church and if they will demonstrate that our case is indeed such as they describe it we will not persist in it a day longer for we cannot be so fond of the Inconveniencies of Non-Conformity here as meerly for the sake thereof to purchase to our selves greater Miseries hereafter But that we may evince how void of Reason and Humanity the Sentence which they have past upon us is let us enquire wherein the Catholick Unity and Communion of the Church consists and then try whether none of our Dissenting Congregations be within the Verge of it By this Catholick Unity our Adversaries understand not that which is accidental may be present or absent without the destruction of the Subject which some Churches may have and other True Churches may be without for then it would not serve their purpose which is to conclude all that want this Unity to be in a State of Damnation and indeed it is the truest acceptation of the word to make it signifie Essential Universal Unity Uniformity in accidentals belonging more properly to the common place of order in this sense therefore we shall speak of it that we may come up as close to their thoughts as we can Nothing then belongs to the Catholick Unity of the Church but what belongs to the being of the Church that which makes it a Church makes it one Ens Unum being convertible and nothing can dissolve its Unity which does not destroy its Essence and certainly the being and the state of the Church must not be confounded Many things are required to the due and orderly state and form in which the Church ought to be and appear in the World and which may contribute to her stability beauty and enlargement which suppose her Essence but do not constitute it This Essential Catholick Unity whereof we speak may be distinguished into Political and Moral Political whereby all the True Members of the Church are united unto Christ the Head and that is by true Faith And Moral by which they are United one to another and that is by Christian Love which in some degree always follows the former those that have a mind to it may quarrel with the terms of this distinction but if I may but express my meaning by them I shall not be at all concerned about it 1. The Political Unity is that which does primarily necessarily and immediately constitute that Sacred Society the Church of God which was therefore by the Primitive Christians as well as our first Reformers frequently known by this short definition Catus fidelium the Congregation of the Faithful sometimes the Body of Christ the Temple of God Divin Instit l. 4. c. 13. and such like So Lactantius Ecclesia est verum Templum Dei quod non in parietibus est sed in corde fide hominum qui credunt in eum vocantur fideles The Church is the True Temple of God which does not consist in the bare Walls but in the Hearts and Faith of Men that believe on him and are called Faithful and before him Ignatius in the same sense calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Congregation Ep. ad Trall vid. Isidor Pelus Epist l. 2. Ep. 247. the Assembly of the Saints To the same purpose speak all those Fathers who affirm that the Church was built upon the Faith of Peter not upon his Person or Authority a great Cloud whereof the Illustrious Chamier has collected to our hand proving thereby that our Union with the Church De Oecumen Pont. l. 11. c. 4. is founded in our believing on Christ the True Foundation and Chief Corner Stone nothing therefore can dissolve this Union but what is inconsistent with True Faith in Christ And this agrees fully with the tenour of Holy Scripture which every where lays the Salvation of Men upon their believing Ephes 3.17.4.13 1 Pet. 2.6 Behold I lay in Zion a Chief Corner Stone elect precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded By this Faith Men are United to Christ and therefore cannot be divided from his Body which is the Church St. Paul calls the Church of God the House or Family of God and how a Man comes to be a Member of that Noble Family we are told Eph. 2.18 by the Spirit i. e. working of Faith we have access unto the Father and are no more Strangers and Forreigners but Fellow-Citizens of the Saints Gal. 6.10 and of the Houshold of God and therefore this Houshold of God is elsewhere called the Houshold of Faith In short nothing is more evident than that the Apostles received Men and Women into the Visible Church by Baptism upon the Profession of their Faith in Christ and thereby invested them in all the Sacred Priviledges of the New Covenant which belong only to the Church of God This Excellent Grace of Faith from whence our Union with Christ and his Body the Church doth flow is a very comprehensive thing it includes our solemn and hearty Choice of the Eternal God as our chiefest Happiness and hereby all the True Members of the Church are United in the Love and Service of One God and so distinguished from the Pagan World and in an humble affiance in One Mediator in whose hand alone they are brought back unto God and hereby are distinguished from Mahometans and those that call themselves Deists they are also United in the gracious Influences of One blessed Spirit and hereby are distinguished from all impenitent sensual persons who have grieved and quenched that Spirit And they are hereby United in One Rule of Faith Worship and Obedience not that they all understand this Rule alike or are fully conformed unto it but in this they agree that they all take it for their Rule
it plainly speaks of that Extraordinary Mission of the Apostles to the Gentile World by them as Men infallibly inspired for that End were the great Doctrines of the Gospel delivered and the perpetual Rule of Faith laid down this they must by no means have presumed to do had they not been sent of God and yet without such a Gospel the World had never believed on Christ and this Apostolical Doctrine is still the great Instrument by which God converts Souls sometimes by reading of it themselves sometimes by hearing it from others whether duely ordained or no sometimes by bringing it to their Remembrance when they are neither reading nor hearing it though the usual way is by the Preaching of a faithful Ordained Ministry but to say that it is never done by other means cannot be proved by Scripture and is evidently contradicted by Experience I cannot but have a great value for the Judgment of Monsieur Claude in this particular and shall therefore transcribe his words in that learned Treatise before mentioned Histor Def. Part 4. p. 54. viz. It is the Church that produces the Ordinary Ministry and not the Ordinary Ministry that produces the Church The Church was the fruit of the Extraordinary Ministry of the Apostles and Evangelists That Ministry of theirs produc'd it at first and not only produc'd it but it has always made use of that means or that source for its Subsistence and we may truly say That it yet produces it and that it will produce it unto the End of the World For it is the Faith that makes and always will make the Church and it is the Ministry of the Apostles that makes and always will make the Faith It is their Voice that calls Christians together at this day it is their word that essembles them and their teaching that unites them It is certain that the Ministry of the Apostles was singular that is to say only tyed to their Persons without Succession without Communication or Propagation but it ought not to be thought that it was also transitory as that of other Men for it is perpetual in the Church Death has not shut their Mouths as it has others they speak they instruct they incessantly spread abroad Faith and Holiness among the Souls of Christians and there is not another Fountain from whence those Virtues can descend but from them If any demand of us what is the perpetual Voice that we ascribe unto them We answer That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament where they have set down all the Efficacy of their Ministry and the whole virtue of that Word which gave a Being to the Church there is their true Chair and Apostolick See there is the Center of Christian Unity there it is that they incessantly call Men and joyn them into a Society But as to the ordinary Ministry we cannot say the same thing of them it is not their Voice as distinct from that of the Apostles that begets the Faith that assembles Christians into a Society or that produces the Church They are no more but meer Dispensers of the words of the Apostles or external Instruments to make us the better understand their Voice to speak properly it is not the Voice of the ordinary Pastors that produces Faith where it was not before it is the word of the Apostles themselves They are no more but those External Guides that God has established in the Church to lead Men to the Scripture and even such Guides as cannot hinder us from going thither of our selves if we will Therefore there is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of Ministers the one preceded the Church the other follows it the one has an independent and sovereign Authority with Infallibility on its side the other is exposed to Vices Disorders Errors and humane Weaknesses inferior to and depending on the Church And indeed to affirm that no Man can be truly converted but by a Regular Ministry would involve the Minds of Men in endless Perplexities A Man must know all those things that belong to the due mission of the Preacher and must be assured that all those met in the person by whose Ministry he was helped to believe before he can know that he has true Faith this would keep persons in a dark and uncomfortable state all their days especially if a Line of uninterrupted Succession be necessary to a true Mission for then a Man must be able to prove that the Bishop that ordained his Converter was ordained by another Bishop and that by another and so up to the Apostles which because no man in the World can be morally assured of it is impossible for any Man to know that he has true Faith This is an insuperable difficulty on the one hand And on the other those Persons that know they have true Faith by the powerful effects of it upon their Hearts and Lives must conclude from hence that their Preachers were duely ordained and called otherwise they could nor have been instrumental in their Conversion and yet this would not be true for doubtless there are many honest Souls that fear God and work Righteousness amongst those Sects that have no Regular Ministry amongst them So that this Assertion would rob many Souls of the comfort of a true Faith because of the uncertainty of their Ministers Mission and it would confirm others in an irregular and unauthorized Ministry because of the cerainty of their Faith I hope by this time I may venture to conclude That the essential Unity of the Church consists in Gospel-Faith and Love hereby Men are made Saints and unired to Christ and Members of the Catholick Church Did I think the Chester Gentleman would not yet take it I would be so civil to him as to and some more Testimonies That of Clemens Alexandranus is apposite enough The ancient Catholick Church is but one only Church Strom. l. 7. and assembles in the Unity of one only Faith by the Will of one only God and Ministration of one only Lord all those who were before Predestanted to be just having known them before the Foundation of the World In Cant. Hom. 1. In Maten 16. De Ar◠Patr. l. 1. c. 3 In Psal 35. De coronà indilitis So likewise Origen The Church is the Society of the Saints and else where The Church which God builds consists in those who are upright and full of those Thoughts Words and Actions which lead to Blessedness St. Amtrose tells us The Assembly of the Righteous is God's Tabernacle and that the Saints are the Members of Jesus Christ Terrullian says Where there are Three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith S. In Job c. 26. Jerome speaks to the same purpose saying The Church which is the Assembly of all Saints is the Pillar and Ground of Truth because she has in Jesus Christ an Eternal firmness In Cant. Hom. 1. and elsewhere The Church
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
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
has sufficiently taken off this Objection Agere de sui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Ecclesiae initiis and more particularly to that of Jerom Chamier de Occum Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180. manifestum est de suo loqui tempore c. It is manifest when St. Jerom says a Presbyter does every thing that a Bishop does except in Ordination he speaks of the time in which he lived and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove that formerly Bishop and Presbyter were the same because says he even now though the Names have been for a long time used for Distinction of Degrees yet excepting in Ordination there is nothing that a Bishop does but a Presbyter may do it also and therefore if after so long a Discrimination of Title and Degree Bishops have only gained this one Point of Power it is certain at first there was no difference at all this is the reasoning of that Father wherein he agrees very well with himself and is guilty of no such inconsistency as some careless or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him But that which seems most directly to confront these Witnesses is That Aerius is reckon'd amongst the Hereticks by Epiphanius for this Opinion and is represented as a Prodigy and his Opinion madness which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cause But a learned Prelate of their own will give them a sufficient answer to this Irenic p. 277. for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order it is strange that Epiphanius should be the first man that should charge him with it and that neither Socrates Sozomen Theodoret nor Evagrius before whose time he lived should censure him for it and why should not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon who is as express in this as any man in the World But some tell us He was an Arian others say he was put amongst the Hereticks for making an unnecessary Separation from the Church of Sebastia and Eustathius the Bishop thereof not that this was indeed Heresie but it was the custom of angry Bishops in those Ages to call all men Hereticks that stood in their way as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Heresies that Philastrius a Bishop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World It is too evident to be concealed that Epiphanius though otherwise a Worthy and Good Man was of a hot and eager Temper rash in his Censures and sometimes transported into great irregularities of Practice as appears by the disturbance he made at Constantinople Socrates c. 11 12. and the rude Language he gave to Chrysostom because he did not at his command banish Dioscorus and condemn the Books of Origen The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome gives us an instance of the rash and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius in condemning Aerius for Heresie in another point which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Heresies Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63 64. take it in the Words of our Author At the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the Names of Martyrs and Confessors and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their Private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without enquiring into the Reasons of it till by this Custom People began to conclude that such Prayers were profitable for the dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Intercessions of the Living which I confess was a very natural Thought and shews us the easie progress of Superstition that Customs taken up without any good Reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow Popular upon this Aerius condemns the Practice and he is reckoned amongst Hereticks for so doing He desired to know for what Reason the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and Prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in Sin might obtain Pardon which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary to live vertuously if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them when they were dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius but gives such Reasons as are no answer at all to his Questions He says it signifies our Belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another state are alive to God That it signifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of those who are gone hence That it is done to make a Distinction between Christ and all other good Men for we pray for all but him who intercedes for us all Very worthy Reasons of praying for the Dead c. Thus you see what a Monstrous Heretick Aerius was and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius The Truth is these two Heresies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters and the unlawfulness of praying for the dead are much of the same Nature and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both equally Learned and Satisfactory for it is very observable that in the same place where he condemns that monstrous prodigious Heresie of the Identity of Order he fairly confesses That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons Epiph. conr Acrium haeres 75. p. 905. all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Fathers we have suffrage of the Canonists Gratian cap. 24. Legimus dist 39. cap. 5. Olim dist 95. cap. 4. Nullus dist 60. cap. 16. Ecce dist 95. Lancel l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Glossae in cap. dist Concil Basil Duaren de sacr Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7. And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others as Lombard lib. 4. Sentent dist 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church saw it necessary for the better settling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Episcopacy above Presbytery and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed Sess 23. cap. 4. Can. 6 7. this Superiority and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inserted this Note Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus dist 43. That Bishops have differed from Presbyters always as they do now in Government Prelacy Offices and Sacraments but not in the Name and Title of Bishop which was formerly common to both And those Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council Chemnitius and Gentilletus Exam. part 2. Lib. 4. the one a Divine the other a Lawyer condemn this Decree the one by Scripture and Fathers the other by the Canon Law The Judgment of the Reformed Churches is so well known by the Harmony of Confessions that I shall not particularly enlarge upon it we have it there laid down
the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity one to another for he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Unity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be amongst us we be carnal and walk according to the Fleshly Man And St. James saith if ye have bitter emulation or envying or contention in your hearts glory not of it for where contention is there is unstedfastness and all evil deeds c. Nothing is more evident than that the thing declaimed against in this Homily is Schism what else signifie the words cut and mangled divided rent and torn And as plain it is that this rending and tearing and cutting and mangling the Body of Christ is done by contention by the violation of concord and charity without which we cannot be joined to the Head nor one to another it is true it mentions Factions and Sects He speaks of contentious Sects but there may be Factions amongst those of the same external Communion and there are many Sects too in the Church of Rome where the external Communion is the same and so there were formerly amongst the Jews and at this day in the Church of England some are Arminians others Calvinists in points of Doctrine But both the Title of the Homily and the express words and general scope of it make the Rents and Schism in the Coat of Christ to consist principally in the want of Concord and Charity in Emulation envying and heart contentions Which I hope will justifie Mr H. from the censure of having advanced a wild and novel doctrine Now let us examine the Consequences which this Gentleman has drawn out of this Definition First of all From hence it will follow that he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian But before we can tell whether there be any absurdity in this we must desire him to explain himself and tell us what he means by a true admission into the Christian Church If by admission he means Baptism and by true admission Baptism after the form and mode prescribed by his Church I doubt not there are many may be justly called Christians that were never so admitted and if he will take upon him to assert that none can be guilty of Schism but who have been admitted according to their Canons he will fairly acquit a great number of Dissenters from that crime who though they have been Baptized yet not altogether according to their Rubrick As for Mr. H's Words they are plain enough Schism in the Scriptural Sence is only the fault of professed Christians and all professed Christians are visible Members of the Catholick Church 2. That Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. sapposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the Fundamentals of Religion Yes he does suppose so and very justly for those that deny fundamental Truths are without the Christian Faith without the Unity of the Church and where there is no such Union there can be no Schism which always supposes a previous Union As Treason always supposes that a Man be a Subject of the King and Member of the Common wealth If a Man never received the Fundamentals of Christianity he never was a Member of Christ's Body and therefore never a capable subject of that Christian Love and Brotherly kindness the violation whereof is the thing in Scripture called Schism if he has formerly professed the Faith and afterwards renounced it he has by so doing dissolved that principal Fundamental Union with the Christian Church upon which Brotherly Love is built and therefore after such Apostacy cannot be formally guilty of the breach of Christian Charity because he is indeed no Christian and so no capable Subject of such Charity and can no more properly be called a Schismatick than a Stone or Tree can be called blind or any other thing in which there is no capacity of Sight And if the Gentleman do not like this Notion he may if he pleases write a Book to convince the Grand Signior and the Great Mogul and Cham of Tartary See the Review p. 8. that they are all Schismaticks as were their Fathers Jannes and Jambres the Egyptian Sorcerers before them But he adds This is as much as to say the greater the fault the lesser the crime By no means for what if Hereticks be not Shismaticks are they therefore innocent Creatures What if Traytors Murderers Adulterers be not Schismaticks are they therefore Saints Heresie in Fundamentals is a greater crime than bare Schism and the less is merged in the greater And it seems very strange that the same Gentleman who but a line or two before thinks it absurd to call those Schismaticks who were never truely admitted into the Church should think it also absurd not to call those Schismaticks that either never embraced the Christian Faith or have since renounced it 3. The third inference is According to this Definition Alienation of Affection is Schism but Division or Alienation of Communion is not Here he ought to have told us what he means by Division or Alienation of Communion Communion with the same God and the same Mediator and in the same Essentials of Faith and Worship is necessary to the Being of Christianity and an Alienation here is something worse than Schism if he mean personal Communion in the Worship of God in the same place and after the same Mode 't is impossible this should be undivided if by Alienation of Communion be means withdrawing from that particular Church of which we have been members and joyning with another 't is no more but what is allowed to all upon the removal of their Habitations and may be lawful on many other accounts but if it be done without some good reason it is sinful if it be done out of Uncharitableness towards the Church we leave it is Schism now if he would be as plain with us as we desire to be with him there might be hopes of bringing the matter to some issue But the last Inference is most remarkable both for Phrase and Sence and I would desire the Author to review it No one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his Heart it is impossible to know according to this Description that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity except we should enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts and on the contrary People may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and yet no Body can accuse them with it But pray why is this last Sentence said to be on the contrary to the former it 's impossible to know that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity and on the contrary People may
be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and no Body can accuse them Here 's a marvellous contrariety betwixt these two Sentences montibus illis erant crant in montibus illis I suppose by on the contrary he meant on the Tautology at least he must give us leave to take it so But is there no way then to know mens Uncharitableness but by looking into the Secrets of their Hearts Did he never hear of a rule by their Fruits ye shall know them How often does this Gentleman accuse the Enquirer and Vindicator with Malice and Uncharitableness If he had no evidence for this by overt acts we know what to call him but if he had sufficient ground for it then his Inference is spoiled and proves like the former Only thus far we will allow him to argue if Schism consist in such Uncharitableness and Alienation of Affection men ought to be very cautious how they call one another Schismaticks lest they should be guilty of that Sin themselves whilst they are charging it upon others and I suppose this is not the least of our Authors Prejudices against Mr. H's Notion that it will not suffer men to be continually bawling Schismaticks Schismaticks against all that are not of their own Perswasion but I am sure all but Schismaticks will like it the better upon this account that it would lay a restraint upon men that they should not without very good grounds fix such a brand upon their Neighbours nor as heretofore hunt them out of Churches Corporations and out of the World too as far as in them lay by the noisie clamours they have raised about this Word Our Surveyor proceeds to blame this Notion for want of clearness and puts wonderful hard Questions 1st Whether this uncharitable distance must be really amongst those that are Christians But this is the same thing over again and has received its Answer they must really be such as profess Christianity but who are real Christians God knows and if these men will forbear calling Dissenters Schismaticks till that matter be fully cleared the World would be much quieter 2. Qu. What does he mean by Fundamentals of Religion But what strange perverseness is this in those who so often tell us we have all the Fundamentals of Religion in the Apostles Creed He asks Whether Fundamentals of Salvation or Fundamentals of Truth and I answer they are Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation he urges further are they so to every man in his Private Capacity or are they the Fundamentals of Church Communion These are mighty pretty Distinctions pray why should those things be Fundamentals of Church Communion which are not necessary to the Salvation of particular Persons 3. Qu. What does he mean by little things Whether all Manner of little things or Ecclesiastical little things Had this Gentleman look't into the case of the Corinthians he might have answered himself they are such things as relate to the Affairs of the Church which are comparatively small that is small in Comparison of the great things wherein they agreed and of the great heats these things caused From these little quibbles which do no Body harm but himself he returns to his former Practice of falsifying Mr. H's Words for says he Mr. H. tells us Review p. 7. there is but one Scripture in the Old Testament relating to this Affair viz. Num. 11.21 But what if Mr. H. say no such thing Why then all his fine Observations upon it fall to the ground and he must give us leave to observe that he is a very unfair and unjust Writer all that Mr. H. says is The Old Testament will not help us so much in this Enquiry as the new only mentioning that one Text and that not as giving us a proper Notion of Schism but only helping to rectifie some mistakes concerning it Now I 'll be so Civil to this Gentleman as to help him to take this matter aright He ought to consider what that Enquiry was which Mr. H. says the Old Testament will not be so helpful in as the New it was not how many times the Church has been troubled with Schisms it was not his design to write a History of all the Schisms that ever were in the Church either since Christ or before then indeed if he had said the Old Testament will not be so helpful to us the Gentleman might have inferred that the Jewish Church was not infested with this Sin but the Enquiry was What is that thing which the Scripture calls Schism And those Texts were to be principally discussed that have the Word Schism found in them and by considering the circumstances of those Cases and Actions which are charged with Schism he comes to determine the formal Nature of that Sin and there may be a hundred Texts relating to the thing which would not be in the least helpful to Mr. H. in this Enquiry till he had first cleared that to be really the thing called Schism which must be proved by comparing it with that which in express terms is so called This was Mr. H's Method and I think a very proper and rational One and therefore the Cases which this Gentleman mentions of Aaron and Miriam of Jannes and Jambres of Korah Dathan and Abiram were very justly omitted by Mr. H. for how bad soever those Practices were they cannot be proved Schismatical till it be made to appear that they are of the same kind and quality with those which Scripture calls Schisms He is pleased to divert himself with the instance of Eldad and Medad Prophesying in the Camp which he says is forreign to the business 1. Because they were to bear the weight of the Government with Moses under God But was it not in Subordination to Moses Was not he the chief Governour still And are not the Presbyters allowed some share of Government with the Bishops and does that make them incapable of being Schismaticks 2. Their Prophesying was for a sign Well be it so and would have less answered that end if these two had been with the rest of them in the Tabernacle 3. They were acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the Case of our Nonconformists No surely nor of the Conformists neither though they openly declare at their Ordination that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the Office of the Ministry But what if Eldad and Medad prophesied by impulse did not Mr. H. obviate that Objection by putting us in Mind that the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14.22 And though this Gentleman says that Scripture is impertinently alledged yet wiser men as Grotius and others give that sence of it which makes it as pertinent as any thing can be viz. The Spirits of the Prophets are so subject to the Prophets themselves that they are not acted with that urging Violence as will not allow a Compliance with the Rules of Order that is they might if
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
insists most upon to overthrow Mr. H's Notion that the Corinthian Schism lay in Uncharitable Contentions about their Ministers is that Expression And I of Christ upon which he thus Harangues Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this and it would have been a strange wild Fancy not to be contented with any other Minister excepting him besides it would be hard to assign any Reason why any Body should prefer Paul or Apollos before Christ I always thought our Saviour might have had the Pre-eminence But these Questions have been often put and variously answered some think the Apostle speaks this of himself Chrysost in loc as if he should say Let others chuse who they will for Heads of their Parties I only chuse Christ for mine others say that some few of the Corinthians being wiser than the rest contented themselves with the Name of Christians Partus in loc without any other dividing Denomination But that which seems most probable is that these unhappy Contentions about Paul and Apollos had this effect upon some that they too much slighted them all and pretended to be of Christ in contempt of his Ministers and it is observable that our Old Bibles Printed with large Notes in Queen Elizabeths days and by her Authority give this last as the sence of the place which shews that it was agreeable to the Sentiments of the Bishops in those days otherwise they would not have permitted those Notes to have been gone along with it and we have also there this account of Schism that it is when men who otherwise agree in Doctrin separate themselves from one another Now let this Gentleman take any of these Solutions and it will be abundantly less absurd than this account of the matter which he has given us He tells us That because these Corinthians had not the writings of the New Testament but must be instructed by their Prophets and Evangelists it would be a difficult thing for them to judge betwixt the Orthodox and the Heretical but I cannot apprehend any such mighty difficulty in the Case the Apostles when ever they planted Churches preached unto them the fundamental Articles of the Gospel which are few and plain and therefore easily received and remembred those that believed upon their Preaching could not so quickly forget them nor could they be easily perswaded to think that the Apostles would preach one Doctrine to them and the contrary to others and we may be assured any that should come with such wicked pretensions would meet with a sharp repulse and it was so far from being a difficult thing to discover such impostures that nothing but folly or fascination could hinder them from so doing and therefore when the Galatians were corrupted with the Principles of Judaical Pretenders the Apostle admires at their weakness Oh foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you c. He further informs us That when there were contrary Doctrines preached the proof of each must depend upon the Credit and Authority of those Persons from whom they were derived if from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts as Apollos it was the last great Authority I must confess this is quite above my reach I know not why this Gentleman should fancy such degrees of Credit and Authority as these The Apostles and Evangelists who were at that day infallibly inspired spoke with the highest Authority even that of Christ himself who spoke by them and in them by his Spirit and to distinguish betwixt the Credit and Authority of what Christ spoke and of what the Apostles Preached and writ is not only a vain but a dangerous thing and makes such a difference in the several parts of Scripture as ought not to be made as if there was less Credit and Authority in some than others I suppose the proof of any Doctrine would depend upon this Point rather whether it was really the Doctrine of Christ and his inspired Apostles and Evangelists or no if it could be evinced that any of them had delivered it there was proof sufficient of its Truth and Authority in the highest degree The Authority of the Apostles was not questioned nor any such degrees of Credibility imagined betwixt the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles and inspired Evangelists as to leave room for such pretended Comparisons all the doubt was whether such a Doctrine was theirs or no and there could not want Witnesses in every Church to confront any one that should bring another Gospel under any Name whatsoever The Gentleman has discovered a wonderful Argument for his Opinion in the form of Salutation the Apostle uses in this Chapter 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours from whence says he it is plain the Apostle makes two Parties amongst them the Orthodox and the Hereticks theirs and ours This then must be the meaning of that Preface The Church of God which is at Corinth Sanctified in Christ Jesus and whose members are called to be Saints consists of two Parties 1. Theirs that is to say notorious damn'd Gnostick Hereticks that deny the Resurrection and hold it lawful to live in Incest and to Sacrifice to Idols and that blasphemously ascribe these Doctrines of Devils to Christ and his Apostles these are the first sort of the Holy Sanctified Members of the Church of God at Corinth 2. Ours That is the Orthodox that hold fast the Truth and the form of sound words Grace and Peace be to them both certainly this would be the most scandalous Paraphrase that ever was invented and yet the Gentleman sees this plainly in the Text. But alas it affords no pretence for such a Comment for theirs and ours plainly refer to the Lord Jesus who says the Apostle is both their Lord and ours Theirs that believe on him as well as Ours that preach him to the World or theirs that are Gentiles as well as Ours that are Jews the Common Lord of all the faithful all the World over thus it is understood by the whole band of Interpeters Dr. Hammond himself not Dissenting but when a mans fancy is deeply ting'd with a Notion every thing must be thought to support it or else this would never have been mentioned to such a purpose I now attend his Review of the second instance of Schism 1 Cor. 11.20 I hear that there be Divisions among you c. Mr. H. observes this could not be meant of breach of Communion because they all come together into one place and into the Church too The Gentleman replies there was a notorious breach of Communion even at the Communion Table and very great and scandalous Miscarriages and who ever doubted of that But does he call these things a breach of Communion Then I am afraid it is often broken among themselves when Mr. H. denies that there was any breach of Communion he takes it in
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church