the World see his Talent in Controversie he should have taken up the true Question as it was laid before him VVhat is that which the Scripture calls Schism and should have proved in all those Instances where mention is made of it that there was not only Alienation of Affection but diversity of Communion and when he had done this it had been time enough to have boasted that he had answered Mr. H's Enquiry till then his Labour is impertinent and his Triumphs ridiculous But instead of observing this Proper and Necessary Method which by all the Laws of Argument he was bound to he ranges from the Point and Chimes upon those decantate terms Church Unity Communion Obedience Succession c. and is wonderfully pleased with the melodious Sound of words he does not understand for though he should from these Topicks prove the Practice of Dissenters to be sinful yet he cannot prove it to be that Sin which in Scripture is called Schism unless he can discover in it that Uncharitableness and want of Christian Affection which is the very thing called by that Name in sacred Writ This would be sufficient for the Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry without ever entring upon the Lawfulness or Fault of Nonconformity but since the Valiant Man has challenged us into that Field of Argument we have gone along with him into it and endeavoured to justifie our Practice not only from the Crime of Schism but any other of which it has been accused and how far we have succeeded in this Affair is with all possible respect referred to the Censure of the Learned and Moderate of both Perswasions The grand Impertinencies exposed in the Gentleman's first Paper he has endeavoured to defend in the latter but through the Common Misfortune of a Man that meddles with what he does not understand he is more bewildred and confounded than before and indeed of all things that ever set up for a Defence of so Learned a Party as the Episcopal I never saw any thing comparable to this for Stile and Argument unless it were the famous Works of Mrs. Eleanor James to which this Gentleman's Reply bears such a marvellous resemblance that a man would almost conclude it to be the issue of some Friendly Conference betwixt our Citizen and that renowned Heroine I wonder why he should be so much disturbed that the Vindicator has concealed his Name especially when he did not think fit to discover his own for T. W. Citizen of Chester is a Cypher so general as remits us to conjecture and common fame and leaves him room to escape if any such danger should happen as he portends concerning his adversary but what great matter is it who is meant by T. W. or what that mans name is that has adventured to encounter him it is not names but things that we have to examine and yet by his little contemptible menaces it is very apparent that he would gladly betake himself to their former way of Confuting Dissenters as that which was always found to be the most easie and effectual He Triumphs in the Effects of his former Paper one of which was few believed but that it was done by some Clergy-man who had prevailed with him to Print it in his Name That is to say they thought it beyond the longth of T. W. to write such a Book a shrewd sign that his Neighbours have no great Opinion of his Abilities if they thought such stuff was above him but as his Name is capable of giving little Reputation to another mans work so I dare say no Clergy man in Chester will grudge him the Honour of his own He would not be thought to have acted beneath himself in his Reply and therefore he magnifies the Stature of his Adversary and transforms the Vindicator into a Ship and by all means it must be one of the first Rate that was chosen to Attack and Fire all its Guns at his mighty Self so happy a thing it is to have Gazetts and News Letters always at hand where a man can never fail of being furnished with Admirable Metaphors but if we must needs speak in such Bombardick Language though the Vindicator was size enough for the Service assigned him yet there was no need of chusing a Man of War of the first Rate to engage a disabled Frigat Venus arta Mari. whose Mast and Tackling had suffered miserably in some hot Sea-fights heretofore But 't is no part of my design to vye with him in his Bantering Dialect I shall therefore apply my self in good earnest to the matter in Hand and in the Remainder of this Preface defend some lesser Passages in the Vindication which this Gentleman either does not understand or will not seem to do so and afterwards proceed to the more material parts of the Controversie In his first Paper he pretends to tell us of the Origination and first Existence of the Church which he dates only from the time of Pentecost mentioned Acts 2. The Vindicator thought there was Reason to find fault with that Account of the Matter not only because it excludes the Angels which but a few Lines before this Gentleman had told us were members of the Church but especially because it shuts out the Jewish Church as it stood in Old Testament Times but he has a Salvo ready such as it is and he that can content himself with such a one will never be at want for 〈…〉 â—oes The Church was never called Catholick before that 〈◊〉 â—ost the Wall of Partition not being broken down But if I mistake not he promised to shew us when the Church had its first Existence not when it acquired a new Title it 's an odd way of arguing The Church was first called Catholick at Pentecost therefore it had its first Existence then a miserable Consequence and yet as good as the Antecedent for it is not true that the Church was called Catholick at that time nor do we find it once so called in all the Scripture that I know of and the Wall of Partition was broken down at Christs Death when the Vail of the Temple was rent in sunder and if in spight of all Reason the Existence of a Church must needs commence with its acquest of a new Title he must still fix his Epocha much lower and yet I know not why the Name Catholick may not if men please be attributed to the Jewish Church which was before its Apostacy the whole and the true Visible Church of God upon Earth The Vindicator told him nothing could be proved from the bare Name of Bishops in Scripture-times to favour our English Prelacy till the Power of those Bishops the Extent of their Dioceses the Quality of their Under-Officers the Modes of their Worship and Terms of Communion be proved to be the same with ours or liable to the same Exceptions To this the Gentleman replies I cannot understand this last Sentence or liable to the same Exceptions unless he would make
is the Assembly of all the Saints And again The City of the Lord is the Church of the Saints the Congregation of the Just St. Austin speaking of the visible or mixt Church De Bapt. Con. Donat. l. 7. c. 51. distinguishes it into two Nations Jerusalem and Babylon the Faithful and the Wicked the latter may be in the Visible Church but are not really of the Church and says The Rights of the Church belong only to the Faithful Amongst the Divines of the Reformed Churches the Incomparable Jurieu speaks as fully to the purpose as we can desire Pastoraâ— Lett. Vol. 1. p. 151. He describes the Unity of the Church by the Unity of the Spirit the Unity of Doctrine and the Unity of the Sacraments and exposes the Bishop of Meaux for making the Unity of the Ministry necessary to Salvation saying They must have lost their Senses that suffer themselves to be deluded with such Imaginations as if the Medicine must be given by such a hand or else it would not heal but poison them and adds Ah my Brethren open your Eyes upon this Folly and be ashamed thereof be sure every hand that gives you the true Doctrine is good in that respect the saving remedy of Truth heals from whomsoever it comes And the same Person reckoning up the Innovations of the Third Age mentions amongst the rest Cyprian's corrupt Idea of the Church thereby opening a Door to the most cruel Doctrine that ever was advanced of which he thus speaks He made a false Idea of the Unity of the Church which be encloses in one external Communion and because the Unity of one visible Head was not yet invented he imagined I know not what Unity of Episcopacy which all the Bishops did individually possess whereof nevertheless each administred but a part This inconsistent Imagination gave place afterwards for the substitution of one single Head to the end that a visible Head might be given to the Unity of the visible Communion which might be the Center thereof The Bishop of Meaux brags much of four or five Passages in Sr. Cyprian P. 149. that ancient Doctor goes so far as to say There can be no Martyr but in the Church that when a Man is separated from its Unity 't is in vain that he sheds his Blood for the Confession of Jesus Christ This Maxim in a large signification may be suffered for indeed there may be Hereticks who confessing the Name of Jesus Christ but on the other side ruining the Foundations of the Christian Religion may die for the Religion of Jesus Christ to no advantage But the Application which St. Cyprian makes thereof is one of those Faults over which wise Men ought to draw a Curtain he proceeds so far as to apply it to the Nevatians Now it must be known that the Novatians were good Christians a thousand times better than the Papists since they did not ruine any of the Foundations but retained and believed all the Christian Verities only they were something severe in Discipline and would not receive those that fell in times of Persecution to the Peace of the Church was not this a fine occasion to say as Cyprian did That a Novatian was no Christian O what temper are the Doctors of the Roman Church that make use of those Excesses which ought to be hid out of honour to those Great Men that fell into them It was Cyprian's Zeal for the Peace of the Church and the Harred he had for Schism that ran him into that Excess as to think or say P. 150 151. That out of I do not know what Exterior Unity of the Church a Man could not be saved and it was in this Age that Men begun to corrupt the Idea of the Church I have transcribed thus much out of the Letters of this Illustrious Divine because some noted Men amongst us lay much stress upon the Authority of Cyprian in this Notion or One Communion and One Episcopacy though they can make bold to censure him themselves in the case of Rebaptizing Ep. 68. Ed. Goulart p. 201. and the Peoples Duty of withdrawing from the Communion of a Debauched Bishop in which he is very Positive and I know not why they should deny us that Liberty they take themselves But it may be the Opinion of an Eminent Divine of the Church would go further with some People than either Scripture or Fathers or foreign Authors And is it not the common sence of that Church that has so often told the World there is none upon Earth so Learned and Wise as her self that without the Unity of Episcopacy there can be no true Church no Sacraments no Salvation I confess her Chieftains have been free enough of such kind of Language when it has been her Glory to tread upon the Necks of poor Dissenters but when the Tables were turned and she had to do with an Adversary that could make as great a Noise about Catholick Unity and Communion as her self she learned more Modesty and Discretion Though they all acquitted themselves well in their late Rencounters with the Papists yet I know none that have come off more cleverly than the Examiners of Bellarmine's Notes of the Church Upon the seventh Note the Union of the Members amongst themselves We have this Account of Church-Unity P. 164 165. There is the Unity of submitting to One Head the Lord Jesus There is the Unity of Professing the Common Faith that was once delivered to the Saints There is a Unity of Sacraments a Unity of Obedience to all the Laws and Institutions of Christ the Union of Christian Affection and Brotherly Kindness The Unity of Discipline and Government by retaining for substance the same Form that was left in the Church by the Aposties an Unity of Communion in the Worship and Service of God Now to speak clearly there ought to be all these Kinds and Instances of Unity in the Church but we see evidently they are not all thore I mean in every part and Member of the Church and therefore they are not all necessary to the being of a Church but some of them are and they are The Acknowledgment of One Lord the Profession of One Faith and Admission into the state of Christian Duties and Privileges by One Baptism And this is all that I can find absolutely necessary to the Being of a Church And if they be the same Persons that Vindicate the Discourse of the Notes they speak yet plainer thus Vindic. p. 20 22. In such a divided state of Christendom as this is meer External Unity and Communion cannot be the mark of a true Church All true Christian Churches are United in the most Essential things Ephes 4.5 6. They have one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all and this makes them one Body animated by the same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church but still they are not One entire Communion
Societies off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and then the whole thread of his discourse is spoiled which every where makes Schism to be Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which he says truly there is no true Ministry nor Sacrament 2. If all Schismatical Societies are Unchurched then either they lose the Apostolical Succession and Power or else there may be Apostolical Power where there is no Church And it would be very strange to find a Power to Ordain and to Administer Sacraments in Societies where there can be no Ministry nor Sacraments Church Power without a Church a Right to Gevern the Church by Apostolical Succession and yet no Right to the Church or any of its Priviledges The power which is an adjunct without the Church which is its Subject These are mysteries which I am no more worthy to understand than that of Transubstantiation 3. If the Papal Churches through which this Power is conveyed be not Schismatical then he makes the Founders of his own Church so for he says There 's no way of holding Communion with the Universal Church Arch-Rebel p. 6. but by holding Communion with the Particular Churches we live amongst if they be not Schismatical Instead of speaking plainly to these things he asks us whether Re-ordination of those that come over from the Church of Rome to the Reformed was ever required We answer No and can give a good reason for it upon our Principles but it will be hard to do so upon his We do not think the validity of the Ministry depends upon such Line nor do we believe that either Schism or Heresie as such do utterly destroy their Church state indeed a renunciation of any of the fundamental Articles of our Faith would do it but every heresie will not We believe the Church of Rome to be both Schismatical and Heretical but do not therefore say their Church state is utterly lost though greatly corrupted for then it would be hard to allow their Ordinations especially if we thought Ordination so necessary and that the Validity thereof depended upon the Administrators as this Gentleman affirms Therefore where he says the Vindicator attempts to unchurch the Church of England because our Bishops derive their consecration from Rome he utterly mistakes himself the Vindicator spoke ad hominem and only shewed him what would be the consequence of his own arguing He tells us It is the Judgement of all Reformed Divines that formal Schism can never invalidate the power of formal and regular Ordination But if those Reformed Divines thought as be that formal Schism utterly excludes out of the Catholick Church they must needs acknowledge that where there is formal Schism there can be no such things as regular Ordination and 't is strange this Gentleman that makes Schism such an unchurching thing shall talk of a regular Ordination in a formal Schism one would think the regularity would have been spoiled if the Essence thereof should happily escape Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 107 108. And yet some of our Doctor make this the very reason why the Dissenters Ordinations are Null because they ordain in a Schism granting that in case of necessity they may do it But as to the Reformed Divines if they allow the Ordination of Schismaticks to be valid it is either because they think the validity of the Orders does not depend upon the quallfications of the person conferring there or that Schism does not necessarily exclude a Person or People out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and here lies this Gentlemans Error he would tack the candid conclusion of the Reformed formed Churches to the unmerciful Premises of his own but they will by no means comport This Notion of the Necessity of an uninterrupted Line of Succession for the conveyance of Power like Water by Pipes and Conduits the Vindicator made bold to call a Whimsie which has exceedingly raised the Gentlemans Spleen A Whimsie says he that 's some Phantastick device or the Creature of an unst able unsettled Brain which being applied to Prelates that bear the Authority of Christ can be no less than Blasphemy But the Vindicator never charged this Whimsie upon the Prelates the greatest part of whom I dare say will not thank this man for hanging their Authority upon so slender a thread 't is his own Whimsie and so silly a one that we will never charge it on any that do not expresly own it and yet if a Man should venture to say of some Prelates that they are unstable and their Brains unsettled as namely the late Bishops of Oxford and Ely c. I know not how it can be proved Blasphemy nor will any man call it so that has not made an Idol of the Mitre or the Head that wears it unless these clamours proceed from the same Principle with those of the Ephesians who were as tender of their Diana as these men are of the Hierarchy and this Image of Succession that dropt down from Jupiter After all we have said against the Necessity of such a Line yet if this Gentleman or any for him will clear it we will have as much Benefit by it as himself having largely proved that Presbyters are the same with Bishops by the Law of God and therefore our Ordinations are as valid as theirs but we will never so far betray the Honour of the Church nor the Peace of mens Consciences as to make all depend upon that which is impossible to be proved and certainly if it be a thing of that consequence this Gentleman makes it the proof should be as strong and clear as that of the most essential Doctrines of our Religion and to say as Mr. Dodwel is forced at last that a Presumptive Title may serve is to unsay all and to confess that it is not the reality of such a Line on which the Power depends but the strong Conceit and Presumption of men which is the worst Basis that Episcopacy has ever yet been fixed upon 2. The second thing in our Plea is That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and the Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws of the Land And this I think will follow from the former if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God it must be from the Laws of the Land Here I expect some will reply Datur tertium there is the Jus Ecclesiasticum resulting from the Customs and Canons of the Church by which Bishops formerly laid claim to this Power even when there was no Christian Magistrate but this will be soon answered For 1. This Jus Ecclesiasticum has not the proper nature of a Law nor does it oblige by virtue of strict Authority we are not bound in Conscience by the Canons of Ancient Foreign Churches any farther than the matter of them brings the stamp of Scripture along with it Grot. de Impsum Potestat p. 168. The
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
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
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
the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church that divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the Nature and Aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Privileges of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints and Promises of Everlasting Life which shews how the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One Norwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are caused by the Quarrels of Bishops and Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Jurisdiction Thus have these Learned and Sober Gentlemen made up those defects which the Lord Verulam complained of in his day Advance of Learning l. 9. p. 472 473. he sets down amongst the Deficients and recommends us a wholesome and profitable work a Treatise touching his degrees of Unity in the City of God and he tells us It exceedingly imports the Peace of the Church to define what and of what Latitude those points are which discorporate Men from the Body of the Church and cast them out and quite Casheir them from the Communion and Fellowship of the Faithful The bounds of Christian Community are set down one Faith one Baptism and not one Rite one Opinion the Coat of our Saviour was entire without Seam but the Garment of the Church was of divers Colours In the mean time it is very likely he that makes mention of Peace shall receive that answer Jehu gave to the Messengers Is it Peace Jehu What hast thou to do with Peace Turn and follow me Peace is not the matter that many seek after but parties and siding To conclude this point Dr. Stilling-fleet Irenic p. 121. God will one day convince men that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection than in the Uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies since the Unity of the Church consists in the true Catholick Faith and Christian Affection whereby Men are knit to Christ the Head and to one another None are out of the Unity of the Church but those that are destitute of these fundamental Graces and to affirm this of Protestant Dissenters in general is a piece of Diabolism which the Gospel abhors and Humanity it self will be ashamed of We must first prove that Men are without Faith before we can prove that they are without the Church and not with the Papists condemn them as void of Faith because out of the external Communion of their Church It is a very foolish and misleading method to prove our interest in the Faith by our interest in the Church as if we must first know the true Church and that we are in it before we can know the true Faith or that it is in us this way of arguing has been always condemned by Protestant Writers The Scripture Test for the trial of our Faith is a serious endeavour to perfect Holiness in the fear of God to be careful to maintain good works c. And indeed nothing but gross Heresie and known constant Immoralities can warrant us in saying that any who profess to be Christians are destitute of the Faith and whether Dissenters in England do not generally shew as much of the fear of God both in their Fumilies and common Conversation as their Neighbours must be left to the Consciences of all observing Men here and the righteous judgment of God hereafter And I hope they may modestly justifie their pretensions to Christian Love and Charity too I am sure their quiet and peaceable behaviour under so many years severe Persecution will plead more strongly for them than for those by whom they suffered such things all the World will take notice how unable those Gentlemen were to bear a very small share of those Severities themselves which they had for a long time so liberally inflicted upon others I am far from the thoughts of charging these things upon the Episcopal Party in general or even the Clergy themselves but all the Nation will bear witness 't is too true concerning those Bishops and others that were formerly most uneasie and troublesom to their Dissenting Brethren How odd a thing was it for this Gentleman to begin his Book with Panegyricks upon Peace when the avowed design is to justifie all those Violations thereof that have been the scandal of the Protestant Religion He tells us of a blessed Legacy left us by our dying Redeemer and why then should we not be suffered to enjoy it I am sure we should have been glad to have lived in the obscurest places and circumstances where we might have enjoyed that Sacred Bequest but there were a Generation of Men amongst us who having spent their own Legacies would needs deprive us of ours unless we would surrender the dearer Peace of our own minds I am afraid it is the conscienciousness of their former guilt that makes many of them so very suspicious and jealous of Dissenters as they are they can hardly believe that we have any Charity for them because they know how little they have discovered towards us And thus the remembrance of what is past pushes them on to farther abuses instead of producing fruits meet for Repentance whereas I do verily believe the generality of Dissenters can heartily forgive all that 's past and would be glad to see any ground of hope that the same men would not greedily embrace the first opportunity of acting over again their former excesses CHAP. II. Of Obedience to our Governours Spiritual and Civil That the Jurisdiction of our English Bishops is not Jure Divino but Presbyters have as much Power by the Law of God as they An Answer to the Gentleman's Allegations out of Antiquity The Judgment of the Fathers and Councils and School-men and our first Reformers and the Divines of the Transmarine Churches I Hope we have safely passed the Ordeal of Catholick Unity we now proceed to defend our selves from the dreadful Accusation of Disobedience to Superiors for though our Non-Conformity should not utterly exclude us from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church yet if it involve us in the guilt of Sedition contempt of our Lawful Governours and disobedience to their just Commands our Cause would be bad enough and we could by no means justifie it before God or the World The Indictment charges upon us a twofold Disobedience First Disobedience to our Spiritual Governours the Bishops And secondly To the Civil Magistrate likewise but we do verily believe our selves to be innocent and desire an impartial hearing of our just Defence which will proceed in this Method 1. We plead that Bishops have no Power by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they 2. That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
Atheist or an Infidel is no true Pope This c. Is to be supplied with Arch-Bishops Bishops and all other Orders Advertisement on the Hist of K. Charles p. 193. and many such there have been of one sort or other whose acts therefore in creating Cardinals c. Being invalid it is exceeding probable that the whole Succession has upon this account failed long ago c. I may add hereunto that it is the opinion of Dr. Heylin where there is no Dean and Chapter to elect and no Arch-Bishop to Consecrate there can be no regular Succession of Bishops now where there are so many junctures in which this Line may fail it would be very strange if in all that Series of Ordainers and Ordinations none of those things should happen which break in upon the Succession Nay farther when a Bishop has advanced by lawful paces to the Chair yet it is not impossible but he may lose this power again I know the Papists have invented the Chimaera of an indelible Character to support the other Chimaera of an uninterrupted Succession But Bishop Jewel affirms Apology c. 3. divis 7. That if the Bishop of Rome and I suppose it will hold of any other do not his Duty as he ought except he Administer the Sacraments except he instruct the People except he warn them and teach them he ought not to be called a Bishop or so much as an Elder for a Bishop as saith St. Augustin is a name of Labour and not of Honour and that man that seeketh to have the Pre-eminence and not to profit the People must know he is no Bishop Defence of Apâ—â— part 2. p. 135. And he vindicates this Saying against Harding from other of the Fathers Chrysostom Hom. 13. Multi Sacerdotes pauci Sacerdotes multi nomine pauci opere And St. Ambrose Nisi bonum opus amplectaris Episcopus esse non potes Lib. 4. Ep. 32. de dignit Sacerdot c. 4. And Gregory speaking in the name of wicked Prelates Sacer dotes nominamur non sumus And the Council of Valentia under Damasus c. 4. Quicunque sub ordinatione vel Diaconatus vel Presbyterii vel Episcopatus mortali crimine dixerint se esse pollutos à supra dictis ordinationibus submoveantur Whosoever he be whether of the Order of Deacon Presbyter or Bishop that is convicted of deadly Sin let him be removed from the said Orders Now can any man imagine that in a Line of above 1600 Years length running through Babylon it self there should be none of these who by their intolerable wickedness had nullified their Title Wo unto Mankind if their Salvation depend upon such a Supposition Thirdly The third Part of this Gentleman's Position is That those Churches Reply p. 18. or if they must not be so called those Societies that are not under the Government of such Bishops are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry nor Sacraments nor Salvation This cuts off at a blow the Church of Alexandria and damns all her Members for the First two Hundred Years Of the Government of that Church we have this remarkable Account from Entychius Patriarch there That the Evangelist Mark in the Ninth year of Claudius Caesar Eutychii Annal Pococks Edit p. 328. came unto the City of Alexandria and called the People to the Faith of Christ and as he was walking in the Street broke the Latchet of his Shoe and presently applied himself to one Ananias a Cobler to get it mended in the doing of it Ananias prick'd his Finger with the Aul after that dangerous manner as caused a great effusion of Blood and much Pain insomuch as that he murmured against Mark who said unto him If thou wilt believe on Jesus Christ thy Finger shall be healed and added In his Name let it be made whole and accordingly in the same moment it ceased bleeding and was well from this time Ananias believed and was baptized by Mark and made Patriarch of Alexandria and with him were appointed twelve Presbyters Hitrom Ep. ad Evagr. 85. that when the Patriarchate was vacant one of them should be chosen on whom the other Eleven should lay their hands and bless him and create him Patriarch and then should choose some worthy Person and constitute him a Presbyter in his room who was made Patriarch And this Custom continued till Alexander the Sixteenth Patriarch without interruption which was about 235 Years This Story St. Jerome likewise tells us and by it proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and that Presbyters have not only Power to ordain those of the same degree with themselves but to consecrate Patriarchs too And this Assertion undoes all the Reformed Churches abroad that are governed by Presbyters To this the Gentleman replies That many very Learned and Pious Persons amongst them have declared their longing Desires for the Episcopacy but living in Popish Dominions cannot have any but those of the Popish Communion or in Republicks that will not admit of Episcopacy But are desires then of Episcopacy sufficient to bring a Man within Catholick Communion What then becomes of the Absolute necessity of Apostolical Succession if affectionate Desires after this Communion will free a Man from Schism Then surely Schism lies in the want of such Desires which comes nearer to Mr. H's Notion than this Gentleman I suppose was aware of but after all though 't is pity to put him out of a good humour since he happens so seldom into it if there be no Catholick Communion without Episcopacy and without such Communion our hopes for Salvation are but Fancies as this Gentleman tells us Desires after Episcopacy will not relieve Men it will only prove that they desire such Communion and to be in the way of Salvation but that at present they are not so And I wonder how it does appear that the Reformed Churches desire this Diocesan Episcopacy by what Publick Acts do they declare any such Desires What their Thoughts are concerning it we have already seen It may be indeed as the Honourable Mr. Feb. 9.40 Fines once replied in Parliament to this very thing there are some amongst them that desire Episcopacy that is the Dignities and Revenues of Bishops but that any desire Episcopacy as the fittest and best Government of the Church I do not believe for if they would have Bishops I know not what hindreth but they may they have Presbyteries and Synods and National Assemblies and Moderators therein and how easily might these be made Bishops Germany and Poland are Popish Countries and yet they have Superintendents or Bishops And why will not Republicks admit Episcopacy Is it because they have found it injurious to the Commonwealth Methinks that is no great Commendation of the Order or will they say it does not so well comport with that Form of Government That is a sign it is not of Divine Institution for as God will have Gospel-Churches in all Countries
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
any way concerned in them And many of those that were at that time most zealous in urging the Covenant and Engagement and Abjuration were the first that turn'd with the Times and became as Troublesome and Vexations on the other Side and yet the instance which this Gentleman brings ought to be a little examined for 't is neither Pertinent nor True as to Matter of Fact It is not pertinent because not appertaining to the ordinary Worship of God that which he calls the Rebellious Covenant was a Solemn Oath whereby Men bound themselves to endeavour in their Places a Reformation both in Church and State according to the Word of God and particularly to preserve the King's Person pursuant to which Clause Thousands of Scotch and and English hazarded all that was dear to them on the behalf of the Royal Family Royal Declar. at Dumferling Aug. 16. 1650. it was deliberately and voluntarily taken by King Charles the Second who professed himself deeply humbled for his Father's Opposition to it and that upon full perswasion of the Justice and Equity of all the Articles thereof he had Sworn and Subscribed it and was resolved to adhere thereunto to the utmost of his Power and to prosecute the Ends of it all the days of his life And it is certain the Restoration of that Prince is very much owing to the Sence which a great many had of the binding Power of that Covenant as Mr. Crofton shews in his Defence of it against Dr. Gauden Now this being a Solemn Oath must needs as all other Oaths require some signal Expression of Consent according to the Custom of all Civilized Nations in some this Consent is signified Viva voce in some by kissing the Book in Scotland by lifting up the Hand and as we had the Covenant from thence so their Signification of Consent was used also being more suitable for the expressing the Joynt Consent of a Multitude than any other but this is nothing to Mystical Ceremonies in the stated Worship of God if no more had been required of us in the late Troublesome Times than to kiss the Book when we were called to take an Oath there would not have been many Dissenters excepting those that scruple Swearing upon any Account Besides it is not true that this Covenant with the manner of taking of it was ever imposed as a term of Communion The House of Commons indeed and the Assembly of Divines took it and most of those that held any Office of Profit or Trust but it was never imposed upon any on Pain of Excommunication or Suspension from the Lord's Supper Rushworth's Coll. Part. 3. p. 475. it was to be tendered to all in general and an Exhortation drawn up for the satisfying of those that might scruple the taking of it but it was forced upon none by any Penalties Corporal or Spiritual if the Ceremonies and Subscriptions had been no otherwise imposed it had been happy for us The Presbyterians neither imposed nor used any Mystical Ceremonies of their own devising in the Worship of God they never tied Men up to the Words of their Directory nor required any to Subscribe to it or declare their Assent and Consent to all things therein contained they never obliged Persons to Swear against endeavouring an Alteration but bound themselves to promote a Reformation of whatever should be found to be contrary to the Word of God and therefore they gave no Presidents for what has been done against them in the late Reigns 2. The Gentleman tells us the Apostles made meer Ceremonies Terms of Communion in their days which is not true and yet if it were would not justifie others in doing so who have not the Commission and Power which the Apostles had The Gentleman instances in having all things Common in their Love-Feasts and in the holy Kiss and affirms that these were meer Ceremonies imposed by the Apostles as terms of Communion but he 's miserably out all along As to the Custom of having all things common nothing more evident than that it was a thing purely voluntary and imposed upon none St. Peter tells Ananias Whilst it remained it was his own Acts 5.4 and after it was Sold it was in his Power he might have done with it what he pleased but the Sin was Lying against the Holy Ghost in pretending they had dedicated the whole to God when part was kept back surely this was more than the omission of a meer Ceremony And he is not more happy in the second instance of the Love-Feasts for as they were no Parts of Religious Worship but either going before or immediately following the Eucharist so it no where appears that they were ever instituted by the Apostles at all much less imposed as terms of Communion and though some Learned Men think the Apostles recommended them to the Churches yet I see nothing in Scripture to ground such an Opinion upon but rather on the contrary for 1 Cor. 11.20 21. the Apostle does not only reprove them for their Disorders in those Feasts but seems to disapprove of the very thing it self and advises them rather to Eat their Meat at their own Houses than to make those Solemn Assemblies Places and Times of such Feasting And the Learned Dr. Lightfoot seems to have a great deal of reason for what he says upon this place viz. That the Jewish part of the Church retained something of the Old Leaven and could not forbear Judaizing in this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper and therefore it must be attended with a Feast as the Passover was And he observes that the Apostle does not only find fault with their abuse herein but with these very Feasts themselves in that they dishonoured the Church by bringing their Meat into it which they should rather have eaten at their own Homes And as ridiculous it is to say that the holy Kiss was imposed by the Apostles as a term of Communion it was indeed the manner of Friendly Salutation a meer Civil Rite used amongst Jews and Gentiles as well as Christians and the Apostles Command relates only to the sincere chaste and honest use of it as became Persons devoted to God and that they should not suffer that Token of Respect to degenerate into an Hypocritical or Lascivious Complement It is so far from being plain that these things were imposed as terms of Communion by the Apostles That it is certain from their own words They determined to lay no burthen upon Christians but necessary things that is things that had some good tendency for that is the softest sence that the word Necessary will bear and our English Ceremonies by the Acknowledgment of all can never come under that Denomination And indeed if the Apostles had made these things terms of Communion in the Catholick Church they must have remained so to this day unless by some latter Apostolical Edict repealed for who will dare to alter the Apostolical terms of Communion and it may be this
Gentleman's design is to revive these old Ceremonies of Feasting and Kissing and having all things common not only for the sake of their Apostolical Institution but as being all of them Ceremonies of very comfortable importance to a Man of his Temper and Circumstances But after all if it were plain that the Apostles made meer Ceremonies terms of Communion it will scarcely follow that our Bishops may do so too no more than that they may write Canonical Epistles and make Laws to bind the whole World as the inspired Apostles did To make terms of Communion is a very great Power especially if out of Communion there be no Salvation for then to make terms of Communion is to make the terms of Salvation and to put such a Power into the hands of weak and fallible Men is a thing of such dismal Consequences to the Souls of Men that we may be sure our Blessed Redeemer would never do it He has in his own Person and by his Apostles whom he inspired fixed that Law by which he will justifie and condemn Men and has not left it in the Power of any Mortal to add thereunto and to pretend to such Power is not only to impose upon Men but upon God too as if he must ask them leave whether he shall have a Church upon Earth or no. REFLECTIONS Upon a PAMPHLET ENTITULED A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H ' s. new Notion of Schism and the Vindication of it THE Title of this Paper imports that there has been some kind of Answer already made to the Enquiry and Vindication but such as the Zealous Club judge Lame and Impotent and therefore have thought fit to order a Review great things surely may be expected from this which comes to supply the defects of the former Methinks the Author of the Reply is more concerned in this thing called a Review than either the Enquiror or Vindicator Reply p. 2. for 't is a scurvey intimation that his own Confederates do not believe him when he boasts that he has run down his Adversary and proved and shewed and demonstrated every thing for if they had entertain'd as good an opinion of the success of his last expedition as he himself has it had been the most superfluous thing in the World to have come with a Review before the other had received an Answer these things would almost persuade a Man to think P. 35. that T. W's Reputation is not so great amongst the party as he pretends But whether this latter comes out on purpose to Affront the Citizen or whether it be with his consent upon conviction of the miserable weaknesses of his Reply I neither know nor care my business is to enquire whether the valiant Second has done any greater seats than he that first engaged in the quarrel This Gentleman must not expect an Answer to his famous and innumerable Oxford Jests I consider the humour of his party and how dull and insipid every thing is to them how rational soever that has not a great mixture of Farce and Comedy in it for my part I shall take no more notice of them than I would do of those little ludicrous wanton Creatures that can make themselves excellent sport with their own Tails and Shadows As to the Enquiry there are two very material things he encounters in it the Design and the Management He will not allow the Design of it to be Honest and Peaceable to allay heats and create a better understanding amongst us as the Vindicator pretends that design it seems is too high and the Vindicator ascribes too much to Mr. H. in saying he endeavoured to create a better understanding betwixt parties that had been so long and learnedly contending this is to place him in the Chair and make him an Oracle and I do not know what so uneasie a thing it is to Proud Men to hear any body commended but themselves it seems the Reviewer had no design to accommodate differences or to contribute any thing to a better understanding betwixt Church-men and Dissenters he modest man will not pretend to take so high an aim for my part I believe this was not his design but then I am sure it must be something worse that is to enflame the differences and perplex the controversie and no doubt he has managed such a design as well as he could He tells us Mr. H's design was no greater than to satisfie the scruples of some persons and to make two Female Proselites which is a great piece of news to Mr. H. for he declares he knows nothing of it and desires the Gentleman to name the Persons that were to be drawn in and to tell us at what Gossipping he pickt up this Story or else we must lay the Brat at his own Door I leave it to the Reader to judge what expectations Mr. H. could have from this Book when he found so notorious a Fiction in the very first Page And truly he goes on as he begun telling us that Mr. H's Notion of Schism will turn all Church Discipline out of Doors Review p. 3. for if breach of Communion be no Schism as these Gentlemen alledge a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting House c. It is not without good reason that some Men have so great a spight at the Stool of Repentance there are a sort of Men that hate it as a Thief hates the Gallows the Citizen could not forbear it in his Book But to let that pass I wonder where this Gentleman finds any such a Sentence in either of the books he pretends to review as that breach of Communion is no Schism let him produce it or confess himself worse than a trifler Both those Books acknowledge Separation of Communion to be Schism if it be uncharitable and to be sinful if it be without good reason and how this can be prejudicial to Church Discipline I know not unless by Church Discipline be meant that uncharitable unchristian and tyrannical thing that has been sometimes acted under that Title and if that should be turned out of Doors by this account of Schism all wise men will love it better upon that score He proceeds We have reason to question the peaceableness of his design Review p. 4. for the Notion it self being contrived to encourage and justifie Separation I am afraid the last result and consequence of it will not be peace this has as little honesty in it as the former there is not the least tendency in Mr. H's Notion to encourage or justifie any sinful Separation nay it lays the strictest tye upon persons to see to it not only that the cause of their Separation be just but the manner of it peaceable and charitable too if the Cause be not just it is sinful and if it be not managed peaceably and charitably it is Schismatical Nay it obliges persons in the same Communion to avoid uncharitable contentions about the lesser matters of
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
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
disagree and easie to be mistaken whereas the Fundamentals being more directly and positively asserted in the Word of God admit of clearer demonstration 'T is true indeed those that think it their duty in all the lesser matters of Religion to follow their Leaders and that make their Commands in these things the Standard of Sin and Duty have found out an easie Rule of Controversie and this seems to be his opinion for he says if Mr. H. were better acquainted with Church History he would find that whole Churches and Nations had their peculiar Customs and Ceremonies and yet their Members agreed well enough in their opinions about them And I will venture to add if this Gentleman be as well acquainted with Church History as he pretends he knows in his Conscience that he imposes upon his Reader and would obtrude a great fallacy upon the World The first Attempt for the introducing such Customs and Ceremonies into the Worship of God occasioned a great deal of Contention and Discord in the Apostles times and the Imposers were severely check'd by them for their Arrogance Gal. 5.1 and all Christians commanded to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not suffer themselves to be entangled with the yoak of Bondage and so great a Disturbance was raised by urgeing such Ceremonies v. 12. that the Apostle wishes they were cut off that troubled the Church with them And after the Apostles were dead when Ceremonies began to encrease though they were not for some time enjoyned but the People took them up partly of their own accord partly upon the example of those they had a great Veneration for yet they occasioned great Animosities and Discord in the Churches of which Socrates gives us many instances Lib. 5. c. 21 22. Sozom. l. 7.19 And when Victor would needs impose his Observation of Easter such Feuds and Heats were raised thereby as made them the scorn of the Pagans and were greatly lamented by all sober Bishops and Christians and both Cyprian and Irenaeus greatly blame him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stretching the Rigour of his Government Euseb l. 5. c. 24. not only beyond his line but also to Causes of indifferency which would not admit of such severe Censures And as Ceremonies and Impositions encreased Contentions grew up with them till at last a great part of the Christian World was laid in a dead sleep with that Poison poured into the Church and for a long time became like Issachar a strong Ass submitting to every Burthen then indeed there was almost a Universal Agreement about Ceremonies and a general Prostitution of Conscience to the dictates of the pretended Catholick Church but that was the darkest and worst state wherein Christianity ever was in the World I come now to examine this Gentleman's Account of the Corinthian Schism and indeed hic pes figendus this is the Core of the Controversie and the hinge upon which it turns if he be right in this he has broken Mr. H's Measures and put him upon a new Enquiry Mr. H. supposes that these Corinthians who are reproved for their Schismatical Contentions were agreed in the fundamental Articles of Faith and great Truths of the Gospel but engaged in foolish and uncharitable Contests about the Apostles some commending Paul and preferring him before the rest others crying up Cephas and a third sort Apollos thus having the Faith of Christ with respect of Persons This Gentleman has learned from Dr. Hammend to say That the Persons reproved for these Contentions were the Gnostick Hereticks Review p. 20 21. that denied the Resurrection of the Dead and lived in Incest and disswaded the People from Marriage and sacrificed to Idols that they might escape Persecution some of them pretend they had their heretical Doctrines from St. Paul P. 22. others fathered theirs upon Apollos others upon Cephas and another sort pretended they had seen Christ himself and received those Doctrines from his Mouth And he affirms they were Heretical Gnosticks only and not the Orthodox P. 24. who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos and concludes that the Schism of the Corinthians lay in opposing the sound Orthodox Doctors and maintaining their own wild Heresies under the Umbrage of these great Names Were it not for these Gnostick Hereticks I know not what some Men could do to misunderstand plain Scripture if we meet with any smart Reproofs in the Apostolical Epistles still they must be levell'd at the Gnostick Hereticks if any were guilty of Fornication it was the Gnosticks if any of Temporizing or of Schism they were Gnosticks as if all besides them had been Pure and Innocent This is too great partiality and savours much of the Pharisaical Humour of some Modern Men that are for casting the Odium of every ill thing upon those they are pleased to call Schismaticks that under this Blind all the Sons of the Church may come off clear and be thought in every thing blameless and inoffensive Now although I make no question but there were such Hereticks in those days and that they were as bad as he describes them that some of them lived amongst the Corinthians and that the Apostle sometimes speaks concerning them though I seldom find that he speaks directly to them yet that these were the persons here reproved for Schism much less the only persons I can never believe For these reasons 1. 1 Cor. 1. The Character which the Apostle gives of these contentious Corinthians in the context will by no means fit the Gnostick Hereticks for we find he calls them the Church of God Saints and in the 9th verse Persons that were called into the Fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord and in the very same verses wherein he admonishes them of their Schismatical Contentions he calls them Brethren v. 10. Now I beseech you Brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions amongst you For it hath been declared unto me of you my Brethren that there are contentions among you Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul c. Can any Man imagine these such gross and damned Hereticks as the Gnosticks have been always described Can we believe the same Apostle that was so sharp upon those that urged the Jewish Ceremonies as to call them Dogs and Evil Workers and bid the Christians beware of them would be so tender and kind so affectionate and endearing to the vilest corrupters of the Christian Faith as to call them Saints and Brethren and all the good names imaginable I am sure the Church of England seldom speaks to Protestant Dissenters in such obliging language and yet I hope we are not altogether so bad as the Gnostick Hereticks 2. If the fault here reproved had been Herefie and such as this Gentleman speaks of there 's no question but the Apostle
Power which was emminently included in the former The Vindicator grants that for persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such Particular Churches as are framed according to Gospel Rules and impose no new or needless terms of Communion is to act Schismatically because it cannot be without breach of Charity The Gentleman replies Yes it may through the Prejudices of Education or want of Understanding that is to say they may wilfully withdraw for want of Understanding If their ignorance be not wilful it does not come up to the Case as the Vindicator stated it but if it be wilful ignorance sure there is something of Uncharitableness in it His two last Pages are a very fit Epilogue for such an Opera he rakes together all the instances of wickedness that can be and the Reader must take it for granted that the Dissenters are the Criminals pointed at though he does not think fit to say so Such dealing and no other we have had from him all along We desire him the next time to speak above board let him name the particular Cases and Persons and not by sly insinuations prejudice the Minds of his Credulous Party against those who abhor such things as much as himself Who are those that look upon all besides themselves as Enemies of God and Opposers of his pure Worship Arch Rebel p. 25. Reply p. 47. as Reprobates and Damned Wretches Such censures indeed T.W. passes upon all Dissenters and the Reviewer has seconded him in it they are Men out of the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints have no right to the Promises are in a desperate Condition their hopes of Salvation are unwarrantable and groundless Fancies c. They neither Pray with nor receive the Sacraments nor live under the Government of any Church Review p. 58. New Whigg Atheists p. 34. and therefore cannot be within the Communion of Saints These are their own words And as this Gentleman observes 't is no wonder if Men of such thoughts Consistory of Clowns p. 61. make no scruple of the most Violent and Uncharitable practices Who are those that are guilty of Plundering and Robbing their Neighbours and taking away Mens Lives Sure he does not mean those that for above twenty years together made a Trade of breaking into the Houses of Protestant Dissenters taking away their Effects and casting them into Prisons and suffering them to lye and perish there See the 4th part of the Conformists Plea what lamentable havock they made is in part laid before the World by an Eminent Conformable Minister and will be ere long further discovered Who are those that refuse to have any dealing in Trade with Men of another Persuasion it would be madness in the Dissenters for being the lesser number they must needs be great losers by such a Project but this indeed was the advice of L'Estrange when he was the Darling of the Party Lay not out a penny with the Whigs I confess I am not able to name the place but I find it in a Paper concerning the Election of the Present Lord Mayor and 't is very probable these Gentlemen can turn to it when they please Who are those pack't Juries that he speaks of and where the unjust Courts of Judicature I hope he does not mean those that condemned the Renowned Lord Russel Colonel Sidney Alderman Cornish whom our Parliament has declared to be Murthered Or those that gave such damages against Sir Samuel Bernardiston Mr. Dutton Colt Mr. Culliford or the Judge and Jury that dealt so genteelly with Mr. Papillon c. By those cruel proceedings against a zealous Clergy Man that appears in Defence of the Church I would fain know whether he refers to the Barbarous Usage of Dr. Oats for discovering the Popish Plot or of the Ingenious and brave Mr. Johnson for his Seasonable Advice to the Standing Army in behalf of the Protestant Religion and Liberties of England And whether by destroying of Princes he means the importunate invitation of some Spiritual Persons of Eminent Note to the then Prince of Orange to come and free them from the Tyranny of the Late King James And that Infamous after-game that a certain Elder Brother with other of his Family See the L. Prest Trial p. 53. were a playing to bring in the Abdicated Prince again and destroy their Generous and Noble Deliverer If I have not been so happy as to hit upon the Gentlemans true Meaning he must e'ne blame himself for sculking so in Generals If he can convict any of the Dissenters of such scandalous practices let him do it and if the Churches to which they belong neglect to do their duty in censuring and rejecting of them they will be condemn'd by their own Principles But I hope he would not have them to proceed upon such unproved Accusations and Libels as these which it seems he advanced in such loose and general terms See his Review p. 69. because he knew not by what Rules to fix these crimes upon particular Persons And certainly he had better to have suspended the Charge till he knew how to make it out than to arraign us so confidently upon it and be forced after all to Petition that we would help him to prove it Appendix IT is certain in such controversies as these nothing is more necessary than to understand the matters of Fact without which we shall never make a true judgment as to matter of Right I shall therefore add a Brief Historical Account of such passages as are pertinent to our present case laying down this Law to my self that I will report nothing but what in my Conscience I believe to be true and for which I can produce good Authorities That the Reformation of this Land was encouraged by King Hen. VIII rather upon private pique against the Bishop of Rome than out of any hearty Love to the thing it self is too plain to be denied that doubtless was the reason of the short uneven paces by which it then moved nothing must be done but with a saving to the Politick Maximes and Interests of the Court Fox Acts and Mon. p. 1239. Fuller Cent. 16. p. 242. The six Articles were put in Execution to the very last year of his Reign and that Pious and Ingenious Lady Mrs. Ann Askew suffered Martyrdom thereby not many Months before that Prince himself gave up his Mighty Ghost His Son and Successor the Glorious King Edward engaged himself in the Cause upon a better Principle and would in all probability have improved it to a good degree of perfection had not the stiffness of some leading Church-men and the shortness of that invaluable life prevented him In the beginning of his Reign Miles Coverdale John Hooper and others who had fled beyond Sea upon the six Articles returned into England And finding how very defective the Reformation was and how many Popish Ceremonies Gestures and Vestments were still retained could not conceal their dissatisfaction
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
and endeavour an Universal Compliance with it and are distinguished hereby from all that reject this Law and set up any other in opposition to it This Faith likewise Unites them in One Baptism not that they all agree in the External Wasâ—â—â—â— and Modes of Administration but in that which the Apostle Peter makes to 〈◊〉 Substance of it not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a good Conscience towards God 1 Pet. 2.21 when a Mans Conscience returns a consenting Answer to the Gospel Proposals and by a solemn Self-dedication becomes Sacred to God he has then the Substance of that Ordinance This is the True Catholick Unity described in the 4th of Ephes 5 6. There is one Body and one Spirit even as you are called in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all 2. The Moral Unity by which the Members are knit one to another is that of Love This is the Unity of the Spirit which is to be held in the bond of Peace and will always flow from the other by a kind of Spiritual Sympathy and Sensation but it must be acknowledged this admits of various degrees and is subject to sinful Declensions Emulation Passion Interest Misunderstanding of Persons and Things may very much weaken the Bond of Amity but it must be habitually in every True Christian and he that has no brotherly kindness for those that appear to him True Believers can never know that he has passed from Death to Life Mistakes and Weakness may create Jealousie and too great Distances even amongst great and good Men. Paul and Barnabas from different apprehensions about the management of their Work proceed to a parting one from another And too many Brethren that have all the same Father and are all bound for the same home cannot forbear falling out by the way The Corruption of Nature both fullies mens Graces that they do not shine forth so clearly as otherwise they would and also darkens their sight that they cannot so well discern the Virtues of each other and where the Eye is dim and the Object clouded too no wonder if misapprehensions and uncharitable surmises arise and men mistake one another for Enemies and fall a quarrelling when perhaps a true Light would let them see they are all Friends But certainly as far as Believers understand one another they have Christian Affection one for another and if they knew more of the Truth of each others Christianity their Mutual Love would be greatly encreased And a shyness in some tempers and unwillingness to converse more freely and often together keep up mens prejudices and hinder their desired Union and yet they have still a fervent Love for the Church in general though their Affections be misplaced as to particular persons This Brotherly-kindness where it is prevalent will oblige the Members to have the same care one for another not envying but rejoycing at each others Heath Beauty and Improvement it would make them sensible of each others use ulness and service they would not think any part superfluous or tye it up from performing its duty towards the good of the whole the Eye would not say to the Hand I have no need of thee This would not permit them to reproach and despise each other for their blemishes and deformities but oblige them to cover the same with the greatest candour and civility and to bestow more abundant honour upon those parts that may be thought less honourable This is that great Law of Love which the King of the Church has given to all his Disciples as the Bond of Peace amongst themselves and the great Characteristick by which they shall be distinguished from others John 13.35 By this shall all men know that they are Christ's Disciples if they love one another Where the Soul is wholly destitute of this all pretences of Love to God or Faith in Christ are false and vain 1 John 4.20 For he that loves not his Brother whom he has seen how can he love God whom he has not seen And true Faith will work by Love I know this Account of Catholick Unity as consisting in Faith and Love will not meet with general approbation Many will reject it as to spiritual who have placed their hopes of Salvation in being of such a Party and in a Zealous Observation of the Rites and Ceremonies of that Communion in which they are these are too sensless to be argued with That can suppose the Son of God would be incarnate and crucified only to teach men a particular kind of dress and fashionable gestures and a form of words c. whilst their Souls are under the dominion of sin and they have not learned to live soberly righteously and godly in an Evil World Many will censure it as too narrow excluding from the Church all formal and insincere pretenders to Christianity but I suppose when we understand one another we shall not much differ about this it is certain in Foro Dei none but true Disciples are true Church-Members but in Foro Ecclesiae all that seem to be so must be so accounted When we say such a one is a Member of the Visible Church we mean he is visibly a Member of the Church that is he appears so to us and we are obliged to think so of him till he discovers the contrary but whether he be really so or no God only knows And most will condemn this Notion as too large and general including even those that have not a Regular Ministry amongst them nor are joyned to any particular Congregation duly organized And here indeed the main difficulty we have to encounter is about the Unity of the Ministry and how far that is essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church And I freely grant every True Member of the Church of Christ will give great deference to the Ministerial Office and whoever they be that will presume to ridicule the Function and despise its just Powers cannot in reason be thought to have the Faith and Charity of the Gospel But there must be a great difference made betwixt contemning the Ministry and questioning the Rights of this or that particular person to the Office or scrupling the Term oâ— Made of his Administrations or preferring another before him whose Qualifications and Conduct are more answerable to the great Ends of that Office But though I do verily believe it is essential to Catholick Church Unity that every Member love and honour the Ministerial Function yet I dare by no means affirm it to be equally necessary that every Person be under the Conduct of a Regular and duely called Ministry this indeed is requisite to the flourishing State of the Church and all are obliged to pray for it and endeavour it in their several Spheres of Activity but it is not absolutely Necessary to the Being of the
Church or the Salvation of her Members My Reasons are these 1st This would be to confound the Unity of the Church with its Order which must be distinguished here where we speak of Essential Unity that which belongs to the Order of the Church always supposes its Essence a thing must first be before it be capable of Order Thus the Excellent Monsieur Claude argues Histor Def. of the Reform Part 4. p. 57. To admit that to be a true Church where the Ministry is and deny that to be a true Church where the Ministry is not is a vain deceitful and illusory way of reasoning For the true Church naturally goes before the Ministry and does not depend upon the Ministry but the Ministry on the contrary depends upon it as in the Civil Society the Magistracy depends upon the Society and not the Society on the Magistracy In the Civil Society the first thing that must be thought on is That Nature made Men afterwards we conceive that she Assembled and United them together And lastly from that Union which could not subsist without Order Magistracy proceeded It is the same thing in a Religious Society The first thing that Grace did was to produce Faith in the hearts of Men after having made them believe she united them and formed a mutual Communion between them and because their Communion ought not to be without Order and good Government from thence the Ministry arose So that a Lawful Ministry is after the true Church and depending upon it And a great deal more to the same purpose 2dly This would make it utterly unlawful for the Laity to Reform the Church from idolatry or other Abuses unless the Clergy would joyn with them in it and so would condemn those Princes and Churches in Germany and elsewhere that Reformed without their Bishops yea against their Wills and repeated clamorous Prohibitions Either the Popish Bishops and Clergy were the regular Ministry of those Churches before the Reformation or no if they were not then there was no Regular Ministry amongst them and the Line of Succession failed and either they had no Churches or else their Churches reâ—ain'd their Beings without the Ministry But if the Popish Clergy were the Regular Ministry Then either those that Reformed without them were cut off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and Reformed themselves into Hell as the Papists speak or else they were still in the Unity of the Church though at present without a Regular Ministry Those that will needs thrust the Unity of the Episcopacy into the Desinition of the Catholick Church would do well to consider Every Nation was not so happy as England in having Bishops so willing to comply with their Rulers in a Secession from Rome or in having Rulers so Potent and resolved as ours were And yet God forbid any Protestant should say they ought to have delayed their Reformation till they had disgusted Princes and complying Bishops to lead them on Surely the lawfulness of our Departure from Rome does not depend upon such contingencies How few Bishops there were that gave the least countenance to Luther's Proceedings none can be ignorant that has read any thing of the History of that Reformation the Ministry they had was generally chosen by themselves out of the most learned of the Laicks some few of the Priests and Monks falling in the Nobles themselves sometimes devoted their Gifts to the Service of the Church as the Prince of Anhalt Du Plessis Sadeel and others they never insisted upon an uninterrupted Line but maintained That where the true Faith and Doctrine were there was the true Church Claudes Hist Def. Part 4. p. 58. and that it is the Call of the Church and the Approbation of the most competent Judges therein that makes a Lawful Call of Persons to that Office and that the Church has a full and entire Right to set up Ministers for its Government supposing it have the true Faith 3dly If there can be no true Church without a Regular Ministry what becomes of the Being of a Church when its Ministers are dead and banished and no other yet chosen By this Notion the Church must be dissolved and die with them and the Death of the Shepherd must be the Damnation of the Flock for if the Regular Ministry of each particular Church be the great Ligament by which that part is fastned to the whole it must needs follow that upon the Failure of the Ministry it falls off from the Body and consequently from Christ the Head If it be replied that such Societies remain in the Unity of the Church whilst they desire a true Ministry and endeavour to get one though at present they are without it That 's as much as we demand for then it is not essential to Catholick Unity that there be a Regular Ministry but that there be a desire of it and no doubt all true Christians have such desires and the great difference amongst them is which Ministry is most Regular and it is their apprehension of the greater Regularity of theirs than of others that makes each side of them prefer their own before others In short if we admit the absolute Necessity of such a Ministry under whose Conduct every Church must be what shall we say of those Scandalous Tumults and Contests that have happened about the Election of Bishops Vott de Dâ—sp Caus Pap. l. 2. § 2. Ch. 3. p. 143. one Party choosing this another that sometimes falling to downright blows and the stronger Side winning the day such things often happened in the earlier Ages of the Church and sometimes the Controversie was a long time undecided and yet far be it from us to think the Essence of those Churches was lost during those Contentions it is true some have invented a Metropolitan or Patriarch to whom those Churches remained United in the vacancy of the Episcopal Seer to save the Body from perishing and over these the Pope as the principal visible Head of Unity but I hope I need not prove that there may be Catholick Unity without these I expect to be assaulted with that Text Rom. 10.14 15. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and how shall they Preach unless they be sent by this sending I know many understand Regular Ordination to the Work of the Ministry and they would infer from hence that none can believe but by thâ— Preaching of a rightly Ordained Ministry which must therefore be necessary to the very being of the Church But it is certain the Word and Works of God never contradict one another and therefore this cannot be the sence of the place for we read of great Conversions made by the Preaching of those that were never so Ordained Ruffinus l. 1. c. 10. as those of the Abyssines by Frumentius and Edesius and the Roman Merchants and the Iberians by a Captive Maid as for this Text
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
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
ignorant in saying that Timothy and Titus and Linus were made the Successors of the Apostles in their Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles were still living for in this case the Apostles might have outlived their Successors and if we believe some Historians they did so and if this be ignorance in the Vicar it can be no extraordinary piece of Wisdom and Illumination in the Citizen he confesses this is a mystery and so he says is all the Gospel but he must not take upon him to obtrude such stuff of his own upon the World because the Gospel is a mystery thanks be to God a man may easily discern betwixt the mysteries of the Gospel and those of T. W's making But if this Notion won't pass under the pretence of Mystery he will invent a reason for it which we have in these Words They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical Power if the Apostles whilst living had not conferr'd it upon them could the Apostles have ordained then after they were dead No truly no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead but were all that the Apostles ordained their Successors in Apostolical Power then the Presbyters which they ordained must be so too He says The Apostle by ordaining them in his Life-time secured the Succession to them and the Government too in the Apostles absence But I wish he had told us how they could secure the Succession to them unless they could have secured them from dying before them and for securing the Government to them in the Apostles absence that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters but if they were invested in Apostolical Power they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apostles Presence as in their Absence for the Apostles had all the same Power and had it alike whether together or asunder In short if it be really true that the Bishops must either be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles lived or they could never be so we must conclude they could never be so for whilst the Apostles lived they could not have Successors in their Office especially such as claimed their Power by such Succession The second Point is equally censurable viz. That he is no true Bishop that was not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards to the Apostles This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved and that the Papists whose Interest it is to make men believe so confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See The Gentleman replies I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession that all established Catholick Churches do assert it and that in every Diocess it is as sacredly recorded as the Succession of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones and challenges his Adversary to prove the contrary Well I 'll be so civil to him as to tell him that which it seems he knew not before touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succession Eusebius himself notwithstanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Successors of the Apostles Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuously confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But how many or who were the true Successors of the Apostles and thought sufficient to govern the Churches founded by them is hard to say excepting those which perhaps some one may gather out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate says What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures Are all the outcries of Apostolical Tradition of Personal Succession of Unquestionable Records resolved at last into Scripture it self by him from whom all these Pedigrees are fetched Then let Succession know its place and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them There are two things to be done before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line first He must have a true Catalogue of the Names of all such Bishops as have filled the See and then he must be able to demonstrate that none of them came in after a Surreptitious manner without Episcopal Ordination the former is difficult but the latter much harder and yet without it the former will amount to no more than a Wild-goose row of hard Words and Names 1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a satisfactory Catalogue even in that See whose Bishops have made the greatest noise and figure in the World and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will consult Baronius for him I suppose he will forbear making challenges for the future Licet plerique sive vitio Scriptoris acciderit sive alia ex causa c. the learned Annalist shews Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearsing the Catalogue of Roman Bishops down to his own times begins thus In the principal Chair sate first Peter then Linus succeeded to him Clemens to him Anacletus passing by Cletus as thinking him the same with Anacletus but on the other hand Epiphanius omitting Anacletus mentions Cletus speaking thus The Succession of the Bishops of Rome is in this Order Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Clemens Evaristus St. Austin following Optatus omits Cletus thinking him the same with Anacletus St. Jerom speaking of Clemens says he was the fourth Bishop of Rome from Peter that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the second of these Jarring accounts Baronius says Num. 48. Si in ordine tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur The Author of the Roman Ceremonial endeavours to reconcile these things by a fine Conjecture Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse Jesus primum denominatione Successorem constituit ea ratione c. Jesus Christ appointed his Successor by Name and after the same manner Peter also named Clemens but on this Condition that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him but they knowing that this way of naming ones Successor would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church would not accept of Clemens but chose Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter but that afterward when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was chosen by the Senate it self Of these Primitive times the great Scaliger thus speaks Prolog in Euseb Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo c. That interval of time
Decency and having no sacredness by institution may vary with the different customs and usages of Countries But as to National Churches since the usages and customs of the same Nation and Rules of Decency are the same the Bishops may agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for a National Church The summ is it is not the Command of Superiours but the Customs of a Country that make a thing Decent and therefore the same Rites may be commanded throughout a Nation because the Customs upon which Decency stands are the same 3. When we make Custom the Rule of Decency we do not mean This or that way of Worshiping of God is Decent because we are accustomed to Worship him so but on the contrary We use to Worship so because it is Decent that is agreeable to our custom of expressing Honour and Reverence in other cases Otherwise we should make the same thing the Rule of it self and say this Worship is Decent because it is customary and it has been our custom to Worship God thus because it is Decent which would be running the ring besides then might all the fopperies of the Roman Church set up for Decency because they are now become customary No actions or gestures in the Worship of God how long soever they have been used can plead Decency but those which are used in other cases as well as in Divine Service and therefore used in the service of God because agreeable to the general customs of Decency in other matters 4. Nothing is required of us by the Law of Decency but to preserve the Worship of God from all Indecencies It is impossible to prove that we are obliged by that Law to use this or that Ceremony in the Worship of God if it may be managed decently without them If the Omission of such Ceremonies do not render the service of God Indecent the Law of Decency is not broken As no man can be charged with a breach of the Law of Justice but he that has done some unjust thing or of the Laws of Charity but he that is uncharitable so none can be charged with breaking the Laws of Decency but he that Behaves himself Indecently in Divine Worship As there is no medium between Justice and Unjustice so there is none betwixt Decency and Undecency and when of two actions one is said to be more just the other must needs have something of injustice in it so when one thing is more decent the other must have something of indecency for these things being privately opposed admit of no medium in a capable subject There are some indeed tell us of certain transcendental heights of Justice Charity and Devotion which might be omitted without sin Miscell p. 275. thus Mr. Norris in his discourse of Heroick Piety How they can reconcile it with the 14th Article of the Church of England I cannot tell it is like such men will pretend to the same Eminencies of Decency too but so long as they acknowledge we may fall short of such acme's without Sin we are well enough the Nonconformists pretend not to such high Attainments they would be heartily glad could they come up to the Rule in any thing but are so far from pretending that they do not desire to exceed it nor do they grudge these Gentlemen that unweildy Glory of being wiser and better than God has commanded Now let us Examine the Practice of Dissenters in their worshipping of God and its agreeableness with the Rules of Decency The Chester Gentleman falls upon the Vindicator for saying We desire the Rules of the Gospel may be carefully look'd into and such a Model of Government and Worship taken from thence as may be likely to answer the great ends thereof that nothing may be imposed but either what is expresly commanded or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is so then would the Worship of God appear like it self Rational Grave and Majestical becoming reasonable Creatures to offer and a Being of perfect Simplicity and Spirituality to accept Nor would we as we are accused under pretence of Spirituality reject the natural Decorum of an Action in Divine Worship but only lay aside these Formalities that are over and above natural Decency which in Civil Converse are counted Foppish and daily grow out of repute betwixt man and man and are no where so improper as in the Service of God Now what harm is there in all this the Gentleman it seems has nothing to object against it but all the Question is Whether the Worship of God in our Conventicles be as agreeable to this Rule as their is in the Churches and no doubt he thinks the Case is half determined by the very Names Churches and Conventicles for is it imaginable that men should worship God as decently in a Conventicle as in the Church All the Club will say and swear too 't is impossible but what if our Assemblies are as much Churches as theirs and theirs as much Conventicles as ours 't is true enough for any thing he has yet produced to the contrary Of Schism Mr. Hales tells us that all pious Assemblies in times of Persecution and Corruption are the only lawful Congregations and the publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition He charges the Dissenters with Indecency 1. In their Expressions 2. In their Gestures 3. In their Habits 1. In Expression because our Ministers use not a stated form of Prayer and therefore he accuses them of Rushing into the presence of God with the rash and sudden thoughts of one single Person with a Prayer newly Coined but whether Sterling or no is uncertain being never tried for the People know it not till it be out But must it needs follow that because we have not a form laid before us that our thoughts are therefore rash and sudden is he sure that we never use Premeditation both as to the general Method and Matter of Prayer And for the words if they be usually Scripture Phrase I hope they will pass for currant in a more equal Ballance than his Will this Gentleman say that all conceived Prayer is rash and irreverent Then I am sure he will condemn the most learned and pious Divines yea and Bishops too of the Church of England who in the Pulpit commonly use such Prayers and sometimes of a considerable length too which we may be sure they would not do if they thought it impossible for the People to joyn with them in it and if the Duty of Prayer may be performed rationally and gravely without a prescribed form this Objection vanishes into putrid Air. If this Gentleman would only say that He and his Companions cannot express themselves rationally and reverently in the presence of God without a prescribed form of Words we would not contradict them they best know what they can do but to say that without such
they will admit of no other Plea But what if terms of Conformity be not sinful it is sufficient for us that we are under no Obligation to comply with them our Governours have left us at our Liberty and though the Bishops may still command them yet our own Pastors are as truly Bishops as they The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them but may be much better preserved without them and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble declares that it is the Sense of the King Lords and Commons that not Conformity but ease to scrupulous Consciences may be an effectual means to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection and the Worship of God may be as decently performed without them how are we then obliged to comply with such things Will he say it is our Duty to use all those Ceremonies and Customs in the Worship of God that are not sinful What if a Papist should ask him Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church Why do you not use Salt and Cream and Spittle in Baptism Why do you not Cross your Breasts and Shave your Heads Can you prove these things to be sinful I suppose this Gentleman would reply we care not whether they be sinful or no we are not obliged to use them and if the Papist should alledge the Command of the Catholick Church he would reply No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn such things upon us and our own Governours have not done it if the other should urge that we must comply for Unity sake he would answer The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of such Rites and Ceremonies if the Papists should press it further These are decent Ceremonies and serve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Christ and have rare mystical Signification surely He would rejoyn The Worship of God is managed by us very decently without such things Thus we say in answer to his demand if we be not obliged to Conformity though it should not be unlawful our Nonconformity is very justifiable therefore this Plea of the Sinfulness of the thing is not now so necessary as he imagines but lest we should seem to acknowledge that we had nothing to justifie our practice heretofore when Conformity was required by the Law And that we are still for an unaccountable Singularity and are resolved to differ from others meerly for distinction sake and have no regard to Parochial Order which we have formerly seemed to approve of I shall venture to say something upon this point though I am sensible before-hand some will blame me for saying so much and others for saying no more The World is not to seek for the Reasons of our Nonconformity a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatises some of which have received no answer at all as Dr. Rule 's Rational Defence and Mr. Baxter's English Nonconformity Stated and Argued wherein the Case is so copiously and yet so closely debated in the several particulars both of Ministerial and Lay-Conformity that it seems wholly superfluous to add any thing till we see what answer will be made unto it I have seen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controversie but only tells us with Confidence enough that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unnecessary unseasonable and unaccountable Undertaking and has been already answered which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Dissenters and the common reply of every baffled Party to all that is writ against them and is only taken up as a little shist to serve an easie and credulous sort of Men amongst themselves but can never be designed to give Satisfaction to others and if such Trifles must pass for an Answer to a Book so Large Distinct and Argumentative as Mr. Baxter's is truly it is to no purpose either to write or read Controversie There are three Steps a man must take before he can arrive at the heighth of English Conformity 1. He must submit to the Use and Practice of the Impositions 2. He must declare his Approbation and good liking of them 3. He must Swear never to endeavour any Alteration some of us stumble at the First many stick at the Second but the Last is most inaccessible 1. Many of us can by no means be satisfied with the constant Use and Practice of these controverted Matters and that for these Reasons amongst others 1. We observe That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages risen from this Source introducing unnecessary Ceremonies in the worship of God teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men this had reduced the Jewish Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time And the grand Apostacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Ecclesiasticks beyond its measure and exerting it in the Invention and Imposition of such Mystical Rites and Ceremonies and by adding still thereunto it grew up to such a Mystery of Iniquity and Monster of Usurpation and Tyranny as it appears at this day in the World and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and those of Rome and we could never prevail with our Antagonists to give us a Rule to distinguish them by It is usually said ours are but few but theirs are many and therefore burthensom but this does not satisfie for many or few alters not the kind and if it be lawful to use Three why not Six Twenty or a Hundred besides if ours be therefore better because they are fewer I hope they will give us leave to infer the fewer Ceremonies and the better and therefore best of all where there are none if the Matter must be resolved into their Positive decency we have already shewed by their own Confession there is no such decency in them but the worship of God may be managed as well without them But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority then let the Church command never so many we must comply and so are as much enslaved to the humours of the Ecclesiasticks as the Papists themselves and the case standing thus we think none can justly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superstition and Arbitrary Church Power by entertaining and embracing those things that have given it rise and strength in other Parts and Ages of the World Our Objection against them is not that weak and silly thing some represent it as if we reject them meerly because the Papists use them but we do it because the Imposition and use of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy 2. Especially since they are altogether useless and have no tendency to promote that which is good this much strengthens the prejudice they have done a great deal of harm and they can do no good by the Confession of the Imposers and we cannot imagine why they should
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
reprove them for Envying and Strife and Division in saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. And adds Who is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed I have planted Apollos hath watered and God gave the increase What sence can any man put upon this but that the fault here censured lay in their glorying too much in Instruments some in one some in another and therefore he adds Let no man glory in man for all things are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Would all this have been true of the Gnostick Hereticks or would this have been a proper way of dealing with them for their recovery 6. Clemens Romanus in the passage this Gentleman cited would have undeceiv'd him P. 110. if it had been considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Take into your hands the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul which he wrote unto you in the beginning of his Gospel for he being divinely inspired admonished you that there were sidings and factions amongst you concerning Himself and Cephas and Apollos But there was less Sin in that siding than in your present Contentions for there you sided with the Apostles c. Now I would fain know were these Corinthians Gnosticks too to whom Clemens here writes If the other were these must be so to for he says the Apostle admonished you that there were sidings among you Clemens here tells us that the Contending Corinthians whom St. Paul reproved sided with the Apostles which he mentions as a thing which did extenuate their Crime did the Gnostick Hereticks do so Can we think that by siding with the Apostles he means fathering their damnable Heresies upon the Apostles surely that would rather have aggravated than lessened the fault this Gentleman tells us the Gnostick Hereticks here reproved opposed their Orthodox Governours which agrees but very sorrily with what Clemens says of the Corinthian Schismaticks siding with the Apostles That Schism which Clemens reprehends he says was worse than that censured by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Schism they sinned less than in the latter but what could be worse than the Gnostick Heresie and fathering it upon God himself If those to whom Clemens writes were worse than the Gnosticks 't is strange we should not hear him taxing them with monstrous Errors and horrid Crimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 106. but that on the contrary he should tell them they had one God and one Christ and one Spirit poured out upon them and one calling in Christ and he aggravates their Sin in casting off their Faithful Elders because it was done by the Godly and says It was without President that the just should be rejected by Godly Men and nothing is more evident by the whole Series of that Epistle than that the Schism there reproved was not any Heresie or Apostacy from the Faith but that for the sake of a few factious Persons they had slighted and cast off their faithful Presbyters by whom not by any one single Person that Church was governed and the great fault is laid upon the want of Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great Encomiums upon Charity P. 114. and his earnest pressing of them to it shews that he look'd upon Uncharitableness to be the very Soul of their Schism whereby it was informed and acted which agrees so well with Mr. H's account that this Gentleman should have called it any thing rather than new but if this was the latter Corinthian Schism and if the former was not so criminal as this surely it could not be that damnable Blasphemous Gnostick Heresie which this Gentleman speaks of 7. If I thought what has been said were not sufficient I could add that the account which Jerom and many after him give of this Corinthian Schism will by no means quadrate with the Gnostick Heresie the Passage is very Trite and Common Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent Comment in Tlt. 1. diceretur in Populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Now though I can by no means grant that upon this very Schism Episcopacy was instituted for the Reasons already given yet it is sufficient for the present purpose that it was upon a Schism of the same kind and therefore the Nature of Schism may be understood hereby it consisted in contending about their Ministers that governed them in Common and instead of paying a due and equal respect to them all some cried up this another that probably every one would magnifie him by whom he had been Converted and Baptized and at length it seems it infected the Ministers themselves and they begun to challenge a special Propriety in those they had Baptized as if by Baptism men had been united to them not to Christ for the Prevention whereof one was chosen from amongst the rest and the Government of the whole principally committed to him and by this means they endeavoured to prevent such contests about the Preheminence for the future Let the Gentleman apply this to the Gnostick Heresie and he will find it to be the most unapt and discordant thing in the World were those Hereticks under the Common Government of the Presbyters of Corinth No he says they opposed their Orthodox Governours and puts the grossest abuse upon the Apostles making them Haeresiarcha's and what would it have signified to such men as those to have one of their despised Presbyters made a Bishop How would this have put an end to the Heresie What tendency could it have to make them change their Minds and renounce those Opinions for which they pretended Apostolical Authority Would they think that as soon as the Presbyter was advanced to the Quality of a Bishop he presently commenc'd infallible and therefore they must necessarily speak and think as he dictated to them The World has not found Episcopacy to be such a Soveraign Cure of Heresie the Arians had their Bishops and so have the Papists and prodigious great ones too but they are generally the greatest promoters of Heresie of all others I would now willingly consider any thing that has the least colour of reason to prove that the Corinthian Schism was the Gnostick Heresie and I have searched as diligently as I could those three or four pages which the Gentleman has writ upon this Point but I must needs say his whole discourse upon it is the most confused Jargon that ever I read from a man pretending so high as he does The thing which he
proving the Dissenters Schismaticks and the Vindicator repay'd him with another of those that have defended them from that Charge And adds whether these have not done as much to prove the Imposers Schismaticks as the former to prove the Dissenters such is referred not to the judgment of an interessed Party but of all the unbyass'd part of Mankind Our famous Surveyor asks Where shall we have a Council of such For those that have a Liturgy and Ceremonies and Bishops are certainly for us and those that are for none of these are all byassed against us But Sir the Question to be referr'd is not whether a Liturgy and Ceremonies and Bishops are lawful but whether such as ours be so and whether it be lawful to take those Oaths and make those Declarations that have been required of us and as there is no Church upon Earth requires the same things as this of our Nation so we have judges enough of this matter that are disinteressed without going to Pagans or Atheists for them and what their thoughts are has been already in part discovered He would help T.W. to prove that a Man who is not divested of all Christian Temper Humility and Consideration Review p. 34. may yet be in a desperate condition because it seems He may not have Grains enough of these Virtues to save him What! must we have a statical Divinity too If a Man has Christian Faith though it be but as a Grain of Mustard-seed it will be effectual to Salvation and I know not why the same may not be said of all other Graces he that has them not in the prevailing degree has them not at all that Man in whom Pride is Habitually prevalent has not the least Grain of Christian Humility The Gentleman therefore must find out some other Salvo against the next time The Vindicator took notice of a blunder in the Citizen in calling the same Person Sceptical a Slighter of our Religion Obstinate and Perverse c. And thought Sceptical and Obstinate did not jump well together This Gentleman endeavours to help him here too and says T.W. intended these as so many several Characters and did not intend to unite them all in one Person But it is certain he did he speaks in the singular number if thou be Sceptical I shall altogether glory in thy Scoffs c. These are all joined together no disjunctive particle betwixt them all lodged in one single Person in a distinct Paragraph as a third Man distinct both from the Church-man and Dissenter and this is so plain that Alderman himself as this Author calls him was too honest to deny it The Question concerning the ninth Article of the Creed and in what sence T. W. sets it up as a Standard of Controversie is fully manifested in the Preface to this Paper And 't is a very groundless suggestion that we have any design to lay it aside that we may impose whatever Notions we please upon the World we very well approve of the Creeds and have subscribed to them and to the Doctrine of the Church as laid down in the Articles and it were to be wished your own Ministers kept as close to those Articles in their Preaching as ours do The Vindicator has been already defended in the exceptions he took at T. W's date of the Origination of the Catholick Church This Gentlaman says he spoke of it under the denomination of Christian which is very false as those that read the passage will see however the Alderman is beholden to his brisk Champion for he 'll say any thing in the World to help him at a dead lift He puts the question Whether when our Saviour said upon this Rock I will build my Church he did not speak of it as yet unbuilt I answer if by unbuilt he means unfinished it is true for the Church Universal is a building in fieri and will not be compleated till the End of the World But if by unbuilt he means unbegun I say there is no reason so to understand the words of our Saviour for he has been building his Church upon the same Rock there spoken of from the Fall of Man but I am loth to spend time upon such quibbles if the Gentleman had mentioned the Christian Church or if he had not said a few Lines before that the Angels were the most glorious Members of the Church I dare say the Vindicator would not have taken notice of it Review p. 35. nor have blamed him no more than Tertullian and Jerome for speaking of the Christian Church in its infancy And though the Vindicator acknowledges the Apostles and Disciples were the Church he did not say the whole Church much less that the Church then had its first existence I hope when these Gentlemen call the Church of England the Church they do not mean the Church Universal I desire this Gentleman to give us some better proof than his bare Word that ever the Apostles imposed upon the Disciples things indifferent P. 36. especially because they tell us it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them not to do so And he must also prove that the Bishops are their Successors in the same plenitude of power till then he beats the Air but gains no Victory The Vindicator bewails the slow Progress the Gospel has made in the World and imputes it in part to the needless Ceremonies with which Men have encumbred it and want of Personal worth in the managers To this he replies The Divines of the Church of England are no way concerned in it No What! not when there is so much notorious Debauchery amongst us that insolently out-faces all the Letters and Orders whereby our Pious King and Queen have stirred up Magistrates and Ministers to do what they can for the suppression of it And yet these Gentlemen see no want of success of the Gospel in England but are for recommending to the Dissenters a Journey to China or Tartary Alass Man The design of the Gospel is not onely to give Nations another Title but to make the Inhabitants other Men and if you be not sensible that has made but a slow Progress in England in that which is its main design you 'll make but an ill Watch-man upon the Walls of your Church And if our Ministers should take such a journey as you are pleased to assign them it is not the first time that they have been forced to leave the dear and pleasant land of their Nativity and expose themselves to the fatigues of a tedious Voyage and all the dangers and hardships of a Pagan Wilderness that there at least they might enjoy that liberty of serving God according to his Word Vid. The Life of Mr. Elliot amongst the Barbarous Indians to whom they brought the Glorious Gospel and what toils they under-went and what success God was pleased to give them the whole World has seen and admired The Citizen acknowledged that in the Primitive times there was
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
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not