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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Usher renders it Ordinem those that translate it a List would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let them contend about words as long as they please the true import of the place is plain enough to those that consider it with the foregoing Paragraph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewish Contests about the Priesthood and those of the Christians about the Episcopacy are compared together the case may be thus contracted Moses knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Priesthood ordered them to bring their Rods each inscribed with the Name of its Tribe and he laid them up in the Tabernacle telling them That the Tribe whose Rod should blossom God had approved and chosen for the Priesthood Even so the Apostles c. That is as the Sacerdotal Tribe was chosen and approved of God so none must take upon them the office of Episcopacy but Men well approved this seems to me the true sence of the place and the only one that it is capable of And what is here to prove that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters not one word but rather to the contrary for here it is said the Apostles constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 98. the aforesaid go a few lines backward and you have the word again and there you will find it refers to Bishops and Deacons which the Apostles ordained for those that should believe Now if they only appointed these two sorts of Officers what is become of subordinate Presbyters the Apostles we see appointed none such the distinction betwixt Bishops and Presbyters according to Clemens is not by Divine or Apostolical institution and it is observable that in this very Paragraph he makes them the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It will be no small Sin in us to reject those that have discharged the Duties of their Episcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner happy are those Presbyters who have finished their course They fear not being turned out of their present Settlement It is strange these Gentlemen should threaten us with Clement who as he writ next to the Apostles so he is next to them most friendly to our Cause and this was so evident to the learned Grotius That he gives it as a reason why he thinks this Epistle to be Genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis Epist 182. ad Bignon c. because he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Bishops which by the Custom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria but plainly shews as the Apostle does that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops His next Author is Ignatius and it must be confess'd he puts a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter and bids them all be observant of the Bishop and do nothing without the consent of the Bishop but still here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right we grant that in his time the Name of Bishop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter who was as Pastor and the rest his Curats or Assistants but this will make little for the Diocesan Prelate That Ignatius's Bishop was no more than the Pastor of a particular Church his own words abundantly manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches not that all the Members of the Church must be no more than can always meet together in one place there be many things that may make that difficult but they must all have One Altar that is One Communion-Table Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this instance some say by One Table is meant specifically One but so are all in the World Others One Supream Altar to which the rest were Subordinate but why then may we not say by One Bishop is meant One Supream Prelate with other Bishops under him There is no reason assignable why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken Numerically and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise That by One Altar is meant One Consistory as Dr. Morrice would suggest is very improbable when in the same Sentence we read of One Bishop with his Presbytery which sure must signifie the Consistory if any thing that Sentence does and is much more likely to do so than One Altar This is so apparent that Mr. Mede confesses Proof of Churches in the second Cent. p. 29. It should seem that in those first times before Diocesan were divided into lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his Residence Dr. Morrice would disable this Evidence because Mr. Mede expresses it with Caution and Modesty it should seem But such modesty makes it more valuable being the humor and way of that learned man he had made as strict researches into these things as he could and upon the whole it seemed thus to him but if there was a more than ordinary Caution observed in the Words some will be apt to think it was not for want of evidence that the case was really so but rather because he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member The Author of a late Treatise called a Defence of Pluralities supposed to be Mr. Wharton notwithstanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy which appear sufficiently throughout the Book yet ingenuously acknowledges That at the beginning Page 59. the Bishop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and deposited upon the Altar or Communion Table when the number of Christians encreased they began to build more Churches than one in a City these new Churches were but as Chappels of Ease annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church where the Holy Eucharist was Consecrated This may suffice to shew what kind of Diocess Ignatius's Bishop had and what he means by one Altar Enquiry into the Constitut Discip Vnity c. Of the Primitive Churches Chap. 2. and a late Author has said a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himself that the several Bishopricks of Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium were but so many single Congregations governed by a Bishop as Pastor and his Presbyters as Assistants and this he makes the true distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in those times But whether that be so or no is not so material as that our
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
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
of the Essence of the Power but only requisite to the due exercise of it So it is not of the Essence of the Investiture that it be performed by Ministers but other competent Judges may do it where they cannot be had or will not do it upon lawful Terms This Case of Ordination has been very weil argued by the excellent Mr. Baxter of whom England was not worthy in his Disputations of Church Government and because I do not know that any one has directly assaulted him in it I would refer this Gentleman to it where he will find it illustrated thus If the Soveraign Power make a Law that there shall be Physicians Licensed by a Colledge of Physicians to Practise in this Common Wealth and describe the Persons that shall be so Licensed This plainly first concludeth that such Persons shall be Physicians but secondly de ordine that they shall be thus Licensed So that if the Colledge should License a Company of utterly insufficient men and murtherers that seek mens death or should refuse to License the Persons qualified according to Law they may themselves be punished and the qualified Persons may act as authorised by that which bindeth quoad materiam and is by the Colledge not by them frustrate quoad Ordinem So it is in this Case in hand This is a rational account of the matter and such as may give all Christians full satisfaction in the Truth of their Churches Ministry and Ordinances without flying up into the Clouds and inventing the Mysteries of an uninterrupted Succession indelible Characters and such like stuff What has this Gentleman to Object against it why He tells us no man can preach unless he be sent and no man can send him but he that is Authorized for that purpose If he means by this that no man ought to Preach but those that are Ordained and this he must mean if he speaks to the purpose the Constant Practice of his own Church Confutes him which allows men to preach several times before Ordination that their Qualifications may appear and they may acquire a Title but if no man can lawfully Preach till he be Ordained they ought not to allow this upon any account whatsoever not so much as to make experiment of their Abilities I would ask this Gentleman when your Candidates Preach before Ordination is there no Possibility that their Preaching may do good to the hearers and should they not in Preaching principally intend their Edification If not 'tis taking the Name of God in vain but if they may do good and should make that their chief aim in those Sermons then the Gentleman must find out some other sence for that Text he mentions which has been already explained in the first Chapter of this Treatise He thinks Ordainers are obliged to follow the Example of Christ who when he sent out his Apostles Mat. 28.18 recites his own Commission All Vower is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go therefore as my Father sent me so I send you But it is the highest piece of Arrogance in the World to pretend to the same Power that Christ had in this matter He had Power to institute the Office and give the Authority of the Ministry Men have only the Power of Investiture as the Bishops in Crowning our Kings and as Christ never made these Words of his the set form of Ordination so ' tis-too bold for any Bishop how great soever to apply them to himself in that Office That which follows Review p. 52 about appointing Embassadors for Almighty God without his Order is already in substance answered if by appointing Embassadors he means giving the Commission and Power neither Lay-men nor Clergy-men must presume to do it if he means investing them that God has chosen with the Ceremonies of Ordination 't is fit that the Ministers should do it if they may be had or will do it on lawful Terms but if not better it were omitted than that the Embassy of Reconciliation should not be delivered to the World I suppose their unordained Candidates bring such an Embassy to their hearers I am sure they should do so and if they do then we have Embassadours without an appointment in his Sence of the Word The Cases of Necessity which the Vindicator mentioned are such as may happen and to neglect the publick Worship of God in expectation of a Gift of Miracles which I suppose he means by the reviving of the Charismata would be a profane Omission He thinks to ridicule us out of it by putting the Case concerning a company of Women cast upon an Island c. Well what if a man should say that the best qualified Sister among them might be chosen by the rest as the Abbesss to be most constantly employed in Prayer and Exhortation till better help could be had were not the Iberians Converted by a Captive Maid Russin l. 1. c. 10. and was it not the constant Custom of the Church of England till the Hampton Court Conference to permit Women to Baptize Children in Case of Necessity and how zealously did the Bishops endeavour to defend the lawfulness of it at that time The Bishop of London affirmed the words of the Common-Prayer-Book intended a Permission of Private Persons to baptize in such Cases and said it was agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church alledging the great numbers that were Baptized Acts 2. Which it was improbable the Apostles alone could do and added that some Fathers were of the same Opinion Fuller Cent. 17. l. 10. p. 9. and when the King opposed it the Bishop of Winchester replied that to deny Private Persons to Baptize in Case of necessity were to Cross all Antiquity and the Common Practice of the Church it being a Rule agreed on by Divines that the Minister is not of the Essence of the Sacrament Their great Ecclesiastical Polititian Mr. Hooker sets himself to prove that Baptism by any man in Case of Necessity is valid Eccles Pol. p. 320. and says it was the Voice of the whole World heretofore and elsewhere That God hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special men it is for Orders sake in the Church not that their Authority might add any force to the Sacrament Now is it not the most unaccountable perverseness in the World to make Episcopal Ordination so indispensibly necessary when the most solemn acts of the Ministry the Application of the Seals are allowed by themselves to those that have no Ordination at all yea to a Sister whether welll qualified or no in which they have quite out-done us no such thing being ever practised in the Presbyterian Churches He endeavours to prove the necessity of such Ordination from the Case of the Abyssines who were contented to be without those Ordinances which are to be dispensed by Priests till the return of Frumentius from Alexandria but pray what Ordinances are those that are to be dispensed by Priests only I thought
where we live in its Holy Devotions and so do Dissenters join with the Churches where they live which are as true Churches and their Devotions as Holy as if they were more large and splendid for any thing that yet appears to the contrary In the 60th Page he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not essential to a Bishop nor to have Presbyters under him for Milles the Martyr had no Christian in his Diocess But it is Ordination that makes a Bishop If therefore our Ministers have all the Ordination that is necessary to a Bishop by the Word of God they are Bishops though they be but Pastors of single Congregations and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Bishop must have a distinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter Ambrose in 1 Tim 3. Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdos to advance him into a Superior Office he has lost the Cause and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him And if the Pastors of single Congregations have all that is essential to Bishops then our Diocesans are a new Species of Bishops which St. Cyprian disowned in his Prefatory speech to the Council of Carthage And indeed it is liable to very just prejudices for when Bishops have taken away from the Pastors of Particular Churches these Rights and Powers which God hath given them and engrossed all to themselves and their Diocess is become too large for their Personal Inspection and Administration they are forced to set up Officers of humane institution to exercise those powers under them which they have ravished from Gospel Ministers that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues they may gain that pre-eminence which some Men began betimes to contend for See Mr. Baxters treatise of Episcopacy never yet answered There is nothing more plainly shews these Mens contempt of Antiquity when it speaks not on their side than denying the Peoples power of Election Rational Defence p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197. which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Testimony of the Fathers as Dr. Rule has proved And though we will not say such consent is essential to the Ministerial Power yet it is certainly necessary to the Pastoral Relation for the Bishops and Ministers could have no certain cure in such places where the Civil Magistrate does not interpose but by the Peoples consent This Gentleman tells us the consent of the Ministers and People of the Diocess is not necessary but it is left wholly to the discretion of the Church and I wonder what that Church is to whose discretion this is referr'd when the Ministers and People are left out will he say it is in the Power of the Bishops of other Diocesses to impose a Bishop upon any without the consent of Minister and People And must we by the Church understand the Bishops alone without Ministers and People as if they had nothing to do in those matters that are left to the Churches Discretion This lets us see what these Men drive at and how gladly they would enslave the whole World to the humours of a few and those not always the wisest or best of Men. That the Nomination of our English Bishops is vested in the King is very pleasing to Dissenters especially under the Government of one so Wise and Good as ours is But then we must say the Power they receive from the King and Laws is not properly Spiritual Power And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us circa Sacra by the appointment of our Governours as far as by Law we are under their Jurisdiction And certainly many of them are too wise to pretend to any more since our Laws expresly condemn such pretensions as has been already proved by the very Letter of the Law in that case The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator shewed his Abilities in mentioning Ignatius who advises the Bishop to hold frequent assemblies and to enquire after all by their names not despising the Men Servants or Maid Servants and he would fain shew his Abilities in enervating so plain evidence and would impose upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures which we must help him to prove We must prove That those Assemblies met only in one place that they were no more than ordinary Congregations that the Bishop had no body to assist him in the remoter parts of his charge that no man else acquainted him with the frailties and misdemeanours of particular These and a great many more such Negatives we must prove which we are no way obliged to do we insist upon the plain words of Ignatius and he must prove his peradventures himself or we shall take no notice of them The Author of the Enquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive Churches offers to prove that these Diocesses were no larger in the number of Church Members than our present Parishes But whether that be so or no I will not be positive For it is manifest enough the first step towards Prelacy was committing the Government of the Church to one which before was managed by several in common the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be By keeping new formed Congregations under their Jurisdiction and we have early instances of such Incroachments These Men take the Liberty of making words signifie any thing that serves their present purpose If Ireneus say the Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles there Presbyter must signifie Bishop for fear of spoiling the Plea of Succession Review p. 65 66. If Tertullian say they never receive the Eucharist from any but the Presidents there President must not signifie the Bishop but the Presbyter for it seems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Presidents though there be a Bishop in Cathedra amongst them Such Men will never be at a loss for something to say Though the Vindicator trusting perhaps to his memory mentioned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instead of Baptism yet it amounts to the same thing for if the Bishop was to take the Confessions of all that were to be Baptised his Diocess could not be of the same Model with ours which such a thing would be altogether impracticable This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator should be so nice in the Notion of Succession p. 19. And afterwards so loose as to make it no more but conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship but the wonder will cease when he considers that in the former place he took Succession in the Sence T. W. used it as that which gives the Bishops their Title to Apostolical Power and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers use it whose words will never prove that the Apostles left them their Apostolical Power but onely that ordinary Pastoral
Nicene Creeds have so Interpreted Scripture but what if one should ask him How he is sure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expositions of Scripture Either he must fall into the Circle or resolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church and Compilers of those Creeds and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England and all the Reformed in one of the Principal and most Important Points of Controversie the Resolution of Faith I will not suppose him so ignorant as to think that the Apostles were the Authors of that Creed that goes under their Name Bishop Pearson and Dr. Towerson will tell him the contrary and by the Confession of all Protestants These Creeds are but summary Collections of the most principal Doctrines of Faith put into that form by Fallible Men and are to be received no further and on no other account than as they are Consonant to the Word of God and therefore were never intended as a Standard or Rule of Faith or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is so I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ if he had lived before these Symbols were extant I wonder how he is infallibly assured of the true sence of these Creeds I doubt he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another and so ad Infinitum but if he say the sence of these Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity so is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points and is sufficient Assurance of the Truth of them without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches Whether these odd Opinions are to be imputed to his inconsiderateness of which every Page affords us instances enough or rather to the Happy Illuminations of his great Rabbi Mr. Dodwell I will not determine but the latter is not improbable if we compare it with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes Separation of Churches p. 542. That the Power actually received by Ordained Ministers must not be measured by the true Sence of Scriptures but by that wherein the Ordainers understood them c. Many other Effata of the like Nature have proceeded from that great Oracle which would scarcely have been encouraged or so much as suffered in any Reformed Church besides our own but it was sufficient to make these things passable that they were levelled at the Dissenters and sent them all headlong into the Pit I think it may not be amiss to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice against the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which this Gentleman very unfairly suggests the Passage aimed at is this To say that Bishops Vindic. p. 18. which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in their Apostolical Power is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government and would give the Bishop of Rome as great Power in England as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury when there is any All the Malice lies in this little Parenthesis when there is any and here the Citizen clamours upon him for reviling Gods High Priest Reply p. 18. and speaking evil of the Ruler of his People What Apology will the Vindicator now make Truely if it was my own Case I would desire no better than that of St. Paul under the same Accusation I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest The late Arch-Bishop had been deprived by Law above half a Year before that Vindication was writ and the Metropolitane See was vacant a considerable time after this was Printed and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People to say there was none I will not drive this too far I hope he can give a better Reason for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him If he was the Ruler still What becomes of the Authority of those that deprived him It had been more becoming this Gentleman to have answered that Argument wherein this Parenthesis had its Place than by falling foul upon so Innocent an Expression to expose those thoughts which Prudence would have concealed I know not of any thing else in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatise wherein I have attempted at least to prove that our Congregations are not Schismatical or Unlawful though many of our Ministers were not Ordained by Diocesan Bishops though the Places we meet in be distinct from the Parish Churches and the Mode of our Worship in some things different from theirs And because I find the most Learned of our Adversaries condemn our Present Practice 1. As Inconsistent with Catholick Unity and Communion 2. As Guilty of Disobedience to Superiours Civil and Spiritual 3. And of Scandalous Indecencies and a Breach of good Rules and Order I shall examine the matter as carefully as I can under all these Particulars heartily Praying that whatever Censures I bring upon my self the Interests of Truth and Peace may be promoted ERRATA PAge 6. l. 38. r. retain'd p. 16. l. 13. r. consciousness p. 20. margent r. August p. 33. l. 38. r. Diaboli instinctu p. 37. l. 15. p. 38. l. 12. for rite r. right p. 117. l. 17. for Ananias r. Anianus Several lesser faults will occur which are referr'd to the Reader 's Candor and Emendation A Defence of the Vindication c. CHAP. 1. The true Notion of Catholick Unity distinguished into Political and Moral A Regular Ministry not Essential to this Unity The Judgment of the Fathers and others IT is the observation of an Ingenious Gentleman that the World has never been without some extraordinary word to fill mens mouths and furnish out Pamphlets and by which the Sentiments of men have been for the most part more absolutely governed than by the true reason of things for Reason concludes nothing without disquisition but the other like a kind of spell captivates and determines mens thoughts many times beyond the Relief of the most rational and convincing Arguments Amongst all the Charms of this nature which take place as the Interests and Designs of Parties or posture of Publick Affairs vary and direct I know of none that has been more unmercifully tortured and forced to speak things never intended by it than this of Unity It has been the Motto and Device of every Ascendant Party in the Militant Church to frighten the weak and timorous and chastise the more resolute opposers of Spiritual Usurpation and Tyranny The Papists for the good Service it has done them have preferr'd it to be the Seventh Note of their Church according to the Order in which their great Cardinal has marshall'd them and under the Umbrage thereof have raised the greatest Feuds and Divisions that ever infested the Christian World In their most bloody Persecutions barbarous and funest Tragedies they have still pretended to act by the Commission of Catholick Unity to advance her Interests
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
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
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
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
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
from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan in which Quadratus and Ignatius flourished might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure confused time in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Christians besides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way as Suetonius Tacitus Pliny c. Now to fill up this Chasme Eusebius has carelesly fetch'd things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Hypotyposes of I know not what Clement for it is not Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and out of the Commentaries of Hegisippus a writer of no better Credit than the former These Perplexities the Learned Bishop of Worcester thus relates Irenic p. 322. Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succession is as muddy as the Tyber it self for Tertullian Ruffinus and others place Clemens next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustine and Damasus make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him certainly if the Line of Succession fails us here where we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church And we do not â—â—â—ly meet with these Difficulties near the Head of the Line but many Ages lower The Series of Popes in the Roman See after the eighth Century is very much ruffled and confused as Onuphrius tells us Horum temporum Pontifices neque Praefat. act partem secund de Romano Pontif. perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem c. The Bishops of those times have not any constant certain Writer and a great part of their Affairs are omitted whence it comes to pass that these times are so uncertain and obscure that we cannot tell in what Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put and some new Popes have crept in which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll as Basilius one Agapetus and Dommus the second which are either the same with others under a different name or else were Schismaticks or perhaps were never in being but which of these to affirm is uncertain and doubtful and he tells us that as to John the 11th Leo the 16th Stephen the 8th Leo the 7th and Stephen the 9th He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers but of Luitprandus Ticinensis and says there is a foul mistake in the account of the Martins for there never were any such men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns quanta bone Deus confusio exorta est ex veterum Historiarum ignorantia It seems our Learned Citizen never dreamed that Popish Writers should be so ingenuous as to confess these insuperable difficulties in the Succession for his part he never discours'd with any of them that did not zealously assert it and it may be so but certainly then he never discoursed with the wisest or honestest of them but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himself But 2. Were these Catalogues of Names as clear and certain as they are otherwise yet unless it were equally certain that all of these were truly Bishops and had valid Consecration the Line of Succession is still unproved and how impossible is it to have this demonstrated with that clearness requisite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend For it has been often observed that our Church Historians being left so much in the dark for the earliest Ages are forced to supply the defects of History with bold conjectures of their own and where-ever they met with the Apostles or Evangelists in any place presently they made them the Bishops of that place Irenic p. 302. so Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Millan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus Bishop of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome And through the loss of the Dyptychs of the Church which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering called their Natalitia some have mistaken Martyrs for Bishops and the time of their Apotheosis for that of their Consecration and the Learned Junius reckons among these Anacletus Cletus and Clemens at Rome And how shall we prove that all the persons mentioned in the Lists had such Ordination as is made essential to Episcopacy it is not sufficient to say there were ancient Canons decreeing that no Bishop should be Consecrated but by three at the least this is arguing a jure ad factum which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made and it is as certain they were very little regarded in that state of Apostacy and Antichristianism into which the Churches fell and lay for so long a time we know there are many examples of mens getting into the highest Church Preferments by Murther Simony Sorcery which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Administrations It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture against judging hating and persecuting one another about Ceremonies but if any shall argue from hence there were never any such Practices every age will afford instances enough for their Confutation and if there has been so notorious a contempt of the Laws of Christ Why should we think it strange if the Canons of the Church have been despised too when they have stood in the way of mens Interest Every body knows Ecclesiastical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies whilst the greater sort of Vermine rush through The Council of Lateran decreed Electio facta per civilem Magistratum in sacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat and the Jus Orientale Lib. 3. Inter. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. 4. and the seventh General Council as it is called determine Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magistratibus Episcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam esse and yet that de facto the Magistrates sometimes did elect will not be denied The second Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Bishops shall be null and void 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bernard con ad Eugen. l. 4. c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriously guilty of it and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church says Notes of the Church p. 152. It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head and that there is now no true Pope nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to for by their own Confession a Pope Symoniacally chosen a Pope intruded by Violence a Heretick and therefore sure an
so he has put nothing into their Constitution but what will consist with any form of Civil Polity and has not obliged Republican States to become Monarchies in order to their reception of the Gospel I know nothing the Church has to do with Civil Constitutions nor will I ever be of that Ecclesiastical Communion which cannot subsist in Common-wealths as well as in Monarchies but must overturn Publick Constitutions to make room for its own Settlement And as this Doctrine overturns the Primitive and the Reformed Churches so this Gentleman knows not how great a shock he has given his own by it For Historians tell us that those Famous Bishops who were instrumental in Converting so many in the Northern Parts of our Island to Christianity were ordained by the Abbot of Hye who was only a Presbyter and who knows how far the Line of those Bishops reaches To this the Gentleman has made some reply telling us Reply p. 22. That Archbishop Bramhall has cleared the Northumbrian Bishops from receiving their Consecration of the Abbot of Hye and shews that they had it from the Bishop of Derry under whose Visitation this Abbot lived and that this was to be found in the Records at Derry before the Irish Rebellion But it is a strange piece of Considence in these Men to set up a Story reported by themselves out of I know not what invisible Records Beda Eccles Hist. l. 3. c. 4. Haberesolet ipsa Insula rectorem semper Abbatum Presbyterum c. so to confront the direct words of our most ancient and credible Historians Bede expresly says that Island was wont to have an Abbot for its Governour who was always a Presbyter to whose Jurisdiction all the Province and even the Bishops themselves were subject after the example of their first Teacher Columbanus who was not a Bishop but a Presbyter and Monk and that King Oswald when he came to the Throne Vsher de Eccles Brit. Primordiis p. 701. sent to the Elders of Scotland amongst whom in his Exile he had been baptized to desire that a Bishop might be sent unto him by whose Doctrine and Ministry his Realm might learn and receive the Christian Faith From this Island of Hye and from the College of Monks there Aidan was sent having received the Degree of Episcopacy at that time when Segenius a Presbyter was the Abbot and that Aidan being dead Finan succeeded him being likewise sent by the same Monastery The Gentleman tells us we have the story in the Bishop of St. Asaph to the same purpose with Bramhal but he does not tell us that Sir George Mackenzie has answered him besides it is not the same story for St. Asaph will have it to be the Bishop of Dunkeld that joyned in this Consecration not Derry or Derry-magh if there was any such story in those Records 't is a wonder these Gentlemen should not agree better in the telling of it The ingenious Dr. Vindic. of some Protest Princ. p. 102. Sherlock wisely declines disputing the matter of fact concerning this Abbots Ordination of Bishops and fairly grants that the Church of Rome allows the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign which are but Presbyters to be both valid and regular but says such Ordinations were an incroachment upon the Episcopal Authority and void in themselves which I shall not now question it being sufficient and indeed only proper to my present purpose to shew that Abbots did Ordain and were allowed to do it by the Church of Rome and if such orders be void then the Episcopal Line is broken And who can forbear declaiming against the wretched folly of Men of such principles that will thus unsettle the foundations of their own Churches that they may overturn others and like the Executioners of the three Children will venture a burning themselves that they may be sure to throw others far enough into the fiery Furnace Let us hear how this Gentleman will demonstrate this uninterrupted Line of Succession for He ought to make it as clear as any Article of his Creed there being none more essential to Salvation according to his own account of it And he tells us The very necessity of such a Line is a sufficient reason to prove it no man can be Minister of the Gospel that is not sent no man has power to send who hath not received it by Succession from the Apostles That is to say it is so because it must be so and it must be so because it is absolutely necessary it should be so and if this be not proof sufficient we must go to those that can give us better But 1st Why does he not prove that thore can be no true mission without such a Line we cannot give him credit in a matter of such value and though he repeat it a thousand times we will not regard it till we see it proved We do verily believe with the rest of the Reformed Churches that where-ever the Coetus Fidelium is there lies an inherent fundamental right of chusing and calling persons to the Ministry though this is most regularly exercised by those that are already Pastors and ought not to be done by others where such may conveniently be had but all the World besides the Papists and a few odd Bigotted persons in our own Nation distinguish betwixt an irregularity and a nullity and we believe that both Sacred and Civil Societies agree in this which is founded upon the essence and common principles of all Societies as such that they have a latent power to elect and invest their Officers though by Custom or the Laws of the Community the exercise thereof may be consigned to a particular Order of Men amongst them The Author of the Prejudices challenges Monsieur Claude to produce any Texts of Scripture that give Lay-Men a right to ordain Ministers in any case to which he replies This demand is but a vain wrangling Defence of the Reform P. IV. p. 94 95. for when Scripture recommends to the Faithful the taking diligent heed to the preservation and confirmation of their Faith and to propagate it to their Children it gives them by that very thing a sufficient right to make use of all proper means in order to that end and every body knows the Ministry is one of those means and therefore the obligation the faithful are under to preserve and propagate the Faith includes that of Creating to themselves Pastors when they cannot have them otherwise in short when the Scripture teaches that the faithful have a right to chuse their Pastors it teaches thereby that they have a right to instal them into their Office in case of necessity for that call consisting much more essentially in Election than in installation which is but a formality there is no reason to believe that God would have given the People a Right to chuse their Pastors and to have them installed by others and that he has not given them at the same
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
and that Dissenters are not hereby excused from Disobedience to the State though they be not accountable to the Law for their Non-conformity This as far as I can learn by his Book he grounds upon these two Suppositions 1. That our present Liberty extends no farther than to the removing the Sanction of the Law 2. That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law And having very civilly arraigned the Government as doing that which it ought not to do P. 24 32. in granting this Liberty and predicted I know not what ill Consequences to the Nation and general Interest of Religion which time will shew He concludes with a very great Complement upon himself that he believes the Argument has suffered no damage by the Management of it and that he has so broken the Neck of his Adversaries Objection P. 78. that he had need to be a skilful Artist that shall set it again I must confess this is enough to discourage a man from medling that is conscious to himself how little skill he has in setting broken Necks but however we will venture to examine the matter and if there should chance to be no such mortal blow given the less skill will serve to set all right again I could wish the Gentleman had bestowed a little more pains to make the first Point good for the Question is not what Toleration signifies in the strict or forensick sense of the word nor what Suarez says nor how he criticizes or distinguishes of it for the words of the Statute are to be our Rule in discovering the Extent and Effects of it and not the critical meaning of the word Toleration which we have nothing to do with being a word not to be found in the Act of Liberty from the beginning to the end of it and to lay the stress of his Argument upon a bare word which is not in the Statute is so grand an impertinency as one would not have expected from Mr. Norris and whatever his Admirers may say of this kind of Arguing I am sure the Lawyers will think it receives some damage in the management He tells us Where there is an Establisht National Church all that Toleration can do is only to remove the Penalty P. 15. and it cannot there be a Liberty of Allowance but only of Impunity But what if the very Act it self expresly says it is an Allowance why then either there may be an Allowance to dissent from an Establisht Church or else this Act of Allowance destroys the Establishment let him take whether of these Consequences he pleases it is all one to me The words of the Act are Provided always that no Congregation or Assembly for Religious Worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of such Meeting shall be certified c. Here the Law says such Assemblies so certified are allowed by this Act. Mr. Norris says they are not allowed I hope he will not be displeased if we believe those favourable words of the Law rather than his unkind contradiction But he says It cannot be an Allowance and yet if it be so it can be so and let him argue the Notional impossibility as long as he pleases whilst we have the plain words of the Statute and matter of fact to the contrary but says he if it be an Allowance the National Church is not Establisht why then it is not Establisht for an Allowance it is if we may believe the words of the Law and if this Act of Allowance have destroyed the former Establishment who can help it And yet I see no reason why the Church of England may not be Establish'd and Nonconformity allowed too unless by Establishment something more be meant than that word can necessarily import Indeed if by Establishment he mean a direct positive Command to Worship God according to the Mode of the Episcopal Party I grant it cannot well consist with an Allowance to Worship him otherwise but certainly the Law is not to be set at variance with it self it has but one Voice and speaks distinctly and consistently and therefore if former Laws have said We command you all to Worship God after this manner and a latter Law says We allow you to Worship God after another manner it is plain the last is the present Voice of the Law signifying that it is not its design to tye us up to that particular Mode and that former Command which he accounts the Establishment cannot disannul the Allowance which comes after but if they cannot consist together the former must be vacated by the latter The Church of England has still a Legal Establishment that is to say she has great Priviledges large Revenues the Publick Places of Worship and those she has by Law but as Mr. Norris tells us All that Toleration can do where there is an Establishment is to remove the Penalty So we may reply All that Establishment can do or signifie where there is an Act of Allowance is only to confer such outward Priviledges and as the removal of the Penal Sanction does not always abolish the Command so the continuance of the Praemial Sanction does not continue the Obligation of the Command where an Act of express Allowance has taken it away 2. His other Maxim That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law wants a little explanation too for though I readily grant it will not in all cases have that effect yet I suppose in some it may There are certain Laws that are as well satisfied with the bearing of the Penalty as with obeying the Precept and Mr. Norris confesses as much concerning those Laws that are purely Penal that is as he says that do not oblige absolutely to the Fact but only conditionally either to the Fact or to the Penalty that there are such Laws I grant only in this I differ from him P. 50. Whereas he says these purely Penal Laws bind to the Penalty I think we are not bound to the Penalty by the Authority of the Law but only by the honour and respect due to the Law-giver that is a man is not bound in Conscience to suffer the Penalty if he can avoid it without putting an affront upon the Office of the Magistracy for by our Laws as well as the Law of Nature no man is bound to accuse himself of any thing that has a Penalty annexed to it especially since the repealing of the Oath ex Officio We are thus far agreed that there are Laws that do not absolutely bind to the Fact Now the Question is Whether the Act of Uniformity and the rest as far as they relate to Protestant Dissenters be not some of those Laws that he calls purely Penal Mr. Norris well observes That Human Laws are not therefore purely Penal because Human and no question but he is so far right Human Laws may be so just and
a form it is impossible to perform this Duty aright is as the Vindicator speaks little less than Lampoon upon the common sence of English men and I am sure it is contrary to the whole scope of that excellent Book of Bishop Wilkins called the Gift of Prayer for my part I thank God for the acquaintance I have had with some plain poor People that in their Prayers to God would express themselves in much more proper and pertinent Language than this Gentleman has yet attained to though he be the Author of at least two famous Books 2. In our Gestures that in Prayer they are confused and irreverent I know not what he intends by these Words We judge it our Duty either to kneel or stand in the time of Prayer either of which are postures of Adoration and to sit or loll we utterly disallow unless in case of bodily weakness and inability where they are excused by that Rule God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice I wonder how this Gentleman should come to know our postures better than we do our selves I suppose he has seldom appeared in our Assemblies unless it was in former days when he came attended by his Setters to break them up and then perhaps the Terror of such a One might put the People into postures odd and confused enough but if he pleases to come now when his Thunder-bolts are spent he may satisfie himself that our Gestures are almost as grave though not so genteel as his own But it seems the Dissenters sit and loll and are covered at the reading of the Psalms as for sitting I know not why it should be more irreverent at the reading of the Psalms than other parts of Scripture or than at the singing of the Psalms and at such times I am sure in Churches they generally sit And that we are usually covered either at the Reading or Preaching of the Word is not true and yet I know of no great Crime in it S. B. Esq The Providences of God observed p. 28. especially in Infirm and Aged Persons but I shall refer him to what a Learned Gentleman of the Church of England says in this Case his Words are Though the Act for enjoyning the Common Prayer forbids both Affirmatively and Negatively any other Method or Form of Service Rites and Ceremonies than is there directed some Churchmen are great Nonconformists in disobeying that Rule by several Additions in approach to Popery as in their second Service c. As also in being superabundant to Popery in endeavouring to make a Superstitious Fashion to sit bare during Sermon which is but a new thing in England and not known in any other Christian Church for though the Papists are bare in their Churches out of Service-time whom we endeavour to imitate in that Circumstance yet they are covered during Sermon wherein we outdo them and he tells us That the Minister of Finchly not long since caused one to be committed for being covered whilst he was in his Sermon who bringing his Action against the Justice for false Imprisonment recovered good Damages of him which though sufficient to prove the Churches Usurpation in this matter they do notwithstanding go on in it as a part of that new Popery formerly intended by Laud in his time But the Gentleman is chiefly scandalized at our Gesture in receiving the Sacrament Reply p. 46. wherein he says we sit like Clowns and Bumkins but who told him that we sit so Clownishly A man may sit very decently and handsomely and how does he know but we do so I hope meerly sitting is not the thing that makes a Bumkin for then this Gentleman is forced to be a Bumkin almost all the day long nor sitting in the Service of God for that he does too and why it should have such a peculiar Rustical quality at the Lords Supper rather than in other Ordinances I cannot imagine especially when for any thing that appears our Saviour used it in the very Institution of the Ordinance and the Apostles even when they received it from his immediate hand and though I am not of their minds that think this makes sitting necessary yet I am sure it will at least defend it from the scandal of an irreverent Posture 3. The Habit of our Ministers is not pleasing For says he He who administers in their Divine Service as they call it has no other habit than what is due to and becomes a Tradesman or any other Laick in the Congregation And here again we have Reason to complain that the matter of Fact is not truly represented for our Ministers are generally distinguished from others Tertul. de pallio p. 490. by the use of that very antient Garment the Goak of which Tertullian has writ a Treatise and prefers it before the Gown as a more modest humble Attire insomuch as that à Toga ad Pallium became a Proverb to express a Person growing humble from which Beatus Rhenanus argueth against the costly Wardrobe of the Prelates as not being à toga ad pallium but à pallio ad togam ad purpuram ad mundi pâ—mpam And what if Laicks wear Cloaks too so do Lawyers wear Gowns and the singing Men and Boys have their Surplices and yet I suppose they are not thereby advanced above the Condition of Lâ—icks why then is not our habit as grave though not as Majestical as theirs The Gentleman seems to be exceedingly enamoured of the Surplice and passionately cries out should the Church condescend to gratifie your humour to stript the Priest of his Habit the Emblem of Innocency and Colour of the Robes in St. Johns Vision I must Confess 't is Pitty the Priest should not be Innocent and Heavenly at least in Emblem and yet we find the learned men of his Church Vnreason of Separat Pres p. 83. Iren. p. 64. make but a very small account of this Visional Holy Garment The Bishop of Worcester says As for the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a dispute one way or another and elsewhere I am sure it is contrary to the Primitive Practice to suspend and deprive Men of their Ministerial Functions De rebus Eccles cap. 24. for not Conforming in Habits Gestures and the like and Wulfridus Strabo expresly tells us there was no distinction of Habits used in the Primitive times Can. 14. and the Concil Gangrense condemned Eustathius Sebastenus for making a necessity of the Diversity of Habits and we find Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching the Gospel in his Philosophers Habit and if after all this we must be condemn'd for irreverent Clowns and Bumkins it will be some comfort to us that we shall suffer in very good Company In short The most Learned Conformists that have largely writ in Vindication of these Ceremonies Protest Recâ—n p. 41. acknowledge there is nothing of real goodness in them nothing of Positive Order Decency or Reverence
for which they ought to be commanded The Church her self declares them to be indifferent which they cannot be if the worship of God might not be decently performed without them Bishop Sanderson whose Learning and Spirit were both high and great enough expresly says If any man shall wear a Surplice or Kneel Sermon in Mat. 15.9 p. 20 21. or Cross with an Opinion of necessity for Conscience sake towards God as if those parts of Gods Service could not be rightly performed without them yea though our Church had not appointed them doubtless the use of such Ceremonies by Reason of such his Opinion would be Superstitious to him this is full to our purpose we have the suffrage of this great Prelate that we may Worship God every whit as well without these Ceremonies and if T. W. thinks otherwise one of his own Fathers has condemned him for Superstition Dr. Patrick in his Friendly Debate speaks to the same effect P. 115. Then do we make the Ceremonies parts of Divine Worship when we suppose them to be so necessary that the doing them would be a thing pleasing to God and the omitting of them would be a thing displeasing to him although there were no Humane Law that required the doing of them Now we may thus argue If it were indecent to omit these Ceremonies it would be displeasing to God who has commanded that all things be done decently but we see the Defenders of Ceremonies when they are put to it have no way to defend themselves from the guilt of Superstition and of instituting new parts of Divine Worship but by declaring that these things are in their own Nature purely trivial and the using of them would not be at all pleasing to God nor the Omission displeasing were they not commanded and enjoyned by humane Laws that is to say the Worship of God is not at all the more decent for them nor the less decent without them 4. We come to the point of Order and here indeed we are most blamed by the sober Conformists as acting irregularly setting up distinct Assemblies in Parishes and drawing away the People from the Parish Minister gathering Churches out of Churches which the Presbyterians formerly condemned in others To this we Answer That we really approve of all Prudent Rules for the more orderly and effectual Management of the Ministerial Function and in ordinary Cases we judge it convenient that the Charge of a Minister should be confined within such bounds as our Parishes but we do not think this to be a matter of that Consequence Vind. P. 87. as strictly to oblige us in all circumstances of Affairs and the Vindicator mentioned several Cases wherein this Order may be transgrest without Sin to which the Gentleman has not made the least reply The Learned Writers of their own party Defence of Plural p. 59. tell us that the Division of Churches by Parishes is of a later date and we know it is not so nicely observed by themselves but that many Chappels of Ease have been set up and filled with People of divers adjacent Parishes the Ministers sometimes celebrating both the Sacrament and no Exceptions taken and why may not our Assemblies be look'd upon as such If it be said these Chappels are all under the Parish Minister yet it cannot be denyed but they may be freed from that dependance by Law and made distinct Churches and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Parson or Bishop as several places already are unless we will with Pythagoras curse the Number two because it was the first that did depart from Unity But we acknowledge it were more desirable to have the Parochial way observed interest as well as a due regard to Order would invite us to it if we could comply with those terms that are required of us in Order thereunto Our Case is plainly this The Laws of the Land allow us to Assemble in other places upon such Qualifications as we heartily approve of but admit us not into the Publick Churches without such a further compliance as we cannot in Conscience come up unto I must confess this is that part of the Controversie which I have the least Mind to meddle with not because it is the most difficult but because it may seem to reflect upon the Wisdom or Integrity of many Worthy Learned Conformists of whom I would not speak or think without due respect but the importunate clamours of this Gentleman and men of his temper extort it from us he is often challenging us at this Weapon as in his Reply p. 4. If these men have any thing imposed upon them by our Governours that is sinful let them shew it and their Plea must be allowed but they are forced to confess the terms of Obedience imposed are but indifferent things meer trifles now for a man to disobey his Governours and have no other Plea but this is too mean an excuse from the Transgression of a known Law This he seems to express with a great Elevation of Mind as if it were a killing Sentence when indeed it is as foolish and inconsiderate as his Adversaries can desire For 1. It is not true that we confess the terms of Conformity to be things Indifferent when the Vindicator says they are such by acknowledgment he plainly speaks of the Acknowledgment of the Imposers not of the Dissenters and no Body can understand it otherwise but those that have a mind to be mistaken 2. Our Governours do not now impose such things upon us as terms of Obedience and therefore all the noise he makes about Childrens disobeying their Parents because they suspect the Lawfulness of their commands is out of doors and yet by the way he would be a very severe Father that should force his Son upon the highest Penalties to do a thing Crudelis Pater magis quà m Puer improbus ille which he himself confesses is altogether needless and good for nothing especially when the Son really suspects it to be unlawful and thinks he cannot de it without displeasing God all the World would condemn the Barbarity of such a Father Blessed be God the illustrious Parents of our Countrey are too just and merciful to command such things our Nonconformity is indeed a loss to our selves but no disobedience to our Superiours as has been already argued at large The Authors of the Enquiry and Vindication waved this Point of the Sinfulness of Conformity out of meer Respect and Civility to their Brethren that are otherwise minded and chose rather to infist upon those general precepts of Love and Charity towards weak and scrupulous Consciences which the Scripture abounds with being willing to admit that we are mistaken in these matters rather than to expose the mistakes of others but this Gentleman had not the Civility to make a suitable return but encourages himself by that Modesty of theirs to insult and hector and cry aloud for proof of the sinfulness of Conformity declaring that
be retained since they are neither good in themselves nor have a natural fitness to promote the Common Good were there any usefulness in them we would not reject them meerly because they have been abused but since by their own acknowledgment the Worship of God is not at all the better performed for them we cannot but judge it irrational to retain them a Wise Man will do nothing deliberately in his common Conversation but what he can give some account cui bono to what end he does it And really it is somewhat a hard case that we are in if we use these Ceremonies and know before hand our Duties are never the better for them Conscience and Reason tell us we are guilty of trifling in a Matter of the greatest Solemnity if we use them with an opinion that the Worship of God is better performed with them than otherwise their own Bishops and Doctors tell us we are guilty of Superstition and Will-worship 3. We observe that the Dealers in Ceremonies are apt to grow upon us and if we yield to a few they still urge us with more and indeed the Principle upon which they are defended leaves room to bring in as many as they please provided they be not expresly prohibited in the Word of God which in things of this Nature is not to be expected for it had been an endless task and would have swell'd our Bibles to a Prodigious Bulk to have precluded them all by Name which may be as various and indefinite as the fancies of Men Thus our Canons enjoyn several things which are not required by Law as bowing at the Altar at the Name of Jesus reading some part of the Service at the Communion Table c. and the Practice of some Zealous Men outgoes the very Canons themselves We are very loth to launch out into so vast an Ocean and commit our selves to be tost up and down by the Caprices and Humours of Men which are as uncertain as the Winds and Waves and we know not upon what dangerous Rocks or remote Shores they may at length drive us 4. Those things which we scruple are disapproved by the best Reformed Churches we know it to be so from their own words when the Ministers of the Helvetian and French Churches were desired to give their Opinion about these things they did generally express their dislike of them See a Book Intituled The Judgment of the Reformed Churches Printed at Geneva Octob. 24. 1547. Subscribed by Beza and many famous Divines of those Churches And we cannot forget the Exhortation of the poor Remains of the Bohemian Churches directed to the Reformed especially to that of England by the Learned and Pious Comenius writ in Latine and Dedicated to King Charles II. at his return into England I will transcribe a few Lines because the Book is not in every Bodies hand Contend then P. 8. Oh great Churches among your selves if you please about the Preheminence Strive about the Notion of Faith or for Ceremonies or the Hierarchy as fiercely as you can behold God presents you with a little Child an Infant stript of all Pomp and Dressing considerable for nothing but for Simplicity knows not any thing of preferring it self before others or quarrelling with any or coveting Wealth and Honours only understands how to keep at home to do its own Business not to intermeddle in other Mens Matters but to Serve God in Spirit and in Truth c. And in another Place thus P. 47. As for the Pomp of Church Ceremonies God indeed in the old way of Worship ordained such a thing therein by Shaddows to set forth the Spiritual Mysteries of Salvation which Christ at his coming was to disclose but seeing that since the coming of Christ they have been demolished and levelled by so many Apostolical Strains as Claps of Thunder and Flashes of Lightning directed against them why should we bring them up again still to make use of them Under the Papacy perhaps where the Light of the Gospel is obscured in their Barbarous Generations they might seem to be of some use at least with some colourable pretence but in a Reformed Church I beseech you what use can be made of them Those that have been hitherto retained in England under the Reformed Bishops have not the very Pentificians themselves laught them to Scorn and Derision It is plain to be seen in Weston's Theatre of Life Civil and Sacred Printed at Antwerp 1626. P. 564 c. Where having said that the Religion of the Protestants is without all Religion because they have no Sacrifice Priesthood nor Sacred Ceremonies he adds Some Protestants indeed that they may not appear absolutely Impious and Irreligious use our Missal and Breviary selecting what they please thereof for the Rubrick of their Liturgy and to make the Form of their Worship appear the more goodly they have their Canonical Persons forsooth after the Modes and Customs of the Church of Rome their Caps and Hoods and Holy-Days and such-like Stuff which they say they found in the Synagogue of Antichrist by which very thing it is apparent that the Religion of these Protestants stands guilty of Stealth and Robbery by which it first came into the World or if they will not be taken for Thieves let them go for our Apes These with their whole Service are derided and scorned not only by ours but also by their own the English seem to have driven the Pope out of England in such haste that they have forced him to leave his Cloaths behind him which they as Fools in a Play put on with a kind of Pompous Ceremony of Triumph and so lead the Quire a goodly Reformation it is that they dare not carry it through c. It will therefore be a glorious thing for the Reformed Churches to come back to the Practice of Christ and his Apostles leaving off the Baubles of earthly Riches Honours and Pomp and to look after and busie themselves about things of a higher Nature c. This and a great deal more to the same purpose is there to be seen by which it appears not only that those renowned Martyrs and Confessors called the Taborites disliked our Ceremonies but that the Papists themselves for whose sake they are retained despise and ridicule us for them 2. There are those amongst us that could bear with the use of these things but cannot declare their Approbation of them and their Assent and Consent to all of them this would be to espouse and commend those things which at best they look upon but as Tolerabiles Ineptiae and this Approbation must extend to all things required and they cannot so far dissemble with God and the World There are many things in the Book of Homilies which they like very well but they cannot say so of all there are some very odd Passages which they cannot Assent to P. 160. take one instance of many 2 Hom. of Alms. The same Lesson doth the Holy
Ghost teach us in sundry places of Scripture saying Mercifulness and Alms-giving purgeth from all Sin delivereth from Death and suffereth not the Soul to come into darkness alledging for it Tobit 4. v. 10. and the saying of the Son of Syrach That Alms maketh an Atenement for Sin There are many good Petitions in the Liturgy and good Directions in the Rubrick which we could some of us freely use but we cannot prevail with our selves to Assent to that Notorious Mistake in the Rule for finding Easter nor can well digest that Complemental Prayer Those things which for our Unworthiness we dare not and for our blindness we cannot Ask vouchsafe to give us for the worthiness of thy Son There are excellent Lessons taken out of Scripture and appointed to be Read which our Ministers would gladly do but we cannot approve of those fulsom Apocryphal Tales 〈◊〉 ch 3. ch 5. and 6. about Sarah the Daughter of Reguel and her infernal Spark Asmodeus that killed all her Husbands before they lay with her till at length the Angel Raphael put them into a way to get rid of the Amorous Fiend by burning the Intrals of a Fish which it seems had such a Super-sulphureous stench that the Devil himself could not endure it but quits the Room and his Mistress to the enjoyment of his Rival Tobias I might take notice of the strange and self-contradicting Stories that this pretended Angel told them Of the many odd and gross things we have in Judith and in Ecclesiasticus as where we are disswaded from receiving Strangers to our Houses Ecclus ch 11. v. 34. To be read Octob. 25. for says the Book He will disturb thee and turn thee out of thy own and we are bid give Alms only to the Godly but help not a Sinner give not to the ungodly hold back thy Bread and give it not to him for the most High hateth Sinners Chap. 12.1 2 3. let all Mankind judge how contrary this is to our Saviour's Command Love your Enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you that you may be like your Father which is in Heaven for he maketh his Sun to rise upon the Evil and the Good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust And yet this Apocryphal Doctrine is appointed to be Read in Churches as a Lesson To be read Octob. 30. Concil Laod. Can. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I fear too many have learned and this is part of the Book to which we must subscribe as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God and the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book says nothing is ordained to be Read but the very pure Words of God or that which is agreeable to them to which we must likewise Assent Many more such Passages might be and have been mentioned which contain things false or odd and ridiculous and wholly unfit to take up a place in so Sacred a Thing as the Worship of God There are many amongst us that would willingly submit to a Moderate Episcopacy according to Archbishop Vsher's Reduction but we cannot declare our Approbation of delegating the Power of the Keys to Lay Men nor dare our Ministers promise to Publish all such Excommunications as they send out which may sometimes be levell'd at the most Sober religious Persons in the Parish nor dare they consent to Publish the Absolution of Notorious Debauchees who have given no other Proof of Repentance besides Paying the Fees of the Court we dare not trifle with such things as these nor expose the Censures of the Church to that Scandal and Contempt they lye under by reason of such Practices When this Case was proposed to the Ministers of the Helvetian Churches before-mentioned That the Keys of binding and loosing are not used by the judgment of the Presbyters according to the Word of God but by certain Lawyers and made a Money Business and their advice was desired how far these things ought to be complied with They seem to be amazed at the thing Judgment of Forreign Divines p. 16. as altogether incredible and answer That though things which are ill done by one Party may be born with by another while they cannot change or reform them yet if they shall be forced not only to bear but to approve such things and to Assent to so manifest an Abuse we then exhort them that they will rather suffer any kind of Trouble than act herein against their Consciences 3dly We must not only use and approve these things but must Swear That we will not endeavour any Alteration in the Government of the Church this the Oxford Act requires of us and that in terms as Universal as can be and leaves us no liberty to explain our selves or to say that we will not endeavour by any unlawful means to do it And we remember very well how the Marquess of Argyle was dealt with for putting such a sence upon the like words It is not long since a Great Prelate of our Church openly declared That the Spiritual Courts are the great Grievance of the Nation and it is very hard we must be obliged to Swear that we will not at any time endeavour the redress of such a Common Nusance that we must not Study Write or Petition for it this was a clenching blow indeed to fasten and entail all the faults of the Constitution upon our Selves and our Heirs for ever This is a brief Account of those things that have made us Nonconformists and now keep our Ministers out of the Parish Churches those that would see them more largely and strongly and particularly argued are remitted to the Books before mentioned Let us now see what the Gentleman has said to Vindicate these Impositions and then I 'll bid him farewell till we meet again 1. He endeavours to justifie them by the like Practice amongst the Presbyterians mentioning Three significant Ceremonies imposed by them at the taking of the Covenant viz. The Person must be uncovered must stand up and the right hand must be lifted up bare and these he says were terms of Communion amongst them Now really for my part I am much confirmed in my dislike of these controverted Impositions because I find the Defenders of them are forced instead of justifying to recriminate and all they have to say is the Presbyterians were as bad as they when they had the Power in their hands and if there be any Strength in such a Reply it concludes against themselves for doing that which they condemn in others and all that it proves is that all Parties have been at one time or other transported into unreasonable Severities against each other and surely then 't is time for all to amend unless they resolve to perpetuate these Quarrels and to act them alternately in an Endless round There are not many Dissenters now alive that remember any thing of those days and fewer that were
the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity one to another for he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Unity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be amongst us we be carnal and walk according to the Fleshly Man And St. James saith if ye have bitter emulation or envying or contention in your hearts glory not of it for where contention is there is unstedfastness and all evil deeds c. Nothing is more evident than that the thing declaimed against in this Homily is Schism what else signifie the words cut and mangled divided rent and torn And as plain it is that this rending and tearing and cutting and mangling the Body of Christ is done by contention by the violation of concord and charity without which we cannot be joined to the Head nor one to another it is true it mentions Factions and Sects He speaks of contentious Sects but there may be Factions amongst those of the same external Communion and there are many Sects too in the Church of Rome where the external Communion is the same and so there were formerly amongst the Jews and at this day in the Church of England some are Arminians others Calvinists in points of Doctrine But both the Title of the Homily and the express words and general scope of it make the Rents and Schism in the Coat of Christ to consist principally in the want of Concord and Charity in Emulation envying and heart contentions Which I hope will justifie Mr H. from the censure of having advanced a wild and novel doctrine Now let us examine the Consequences which this Gentleman has drawn out of this Definition First of all From hence it will follow that he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian But before we can tell whether there be any absurdity in this we must desire him to explain himself and tell us what he means by a true admission into the Christian Church If by admission he means Baptism and by true admission Baptism after the form and mode prescribed by his Church I doubt not there are many may be justly called Christians that were never so admitted and if he will take upon him to assert that none can be guilty of Schism but who have been admitted according to their Canons he will fairly acquit a great number of Dissenters from that crime who though they have been Baptized yet not altogether according to their Rubrick As for Mr. H's Words they are plain enough Schism in the Scriptural Sence is only the fault of professed Christians and all professed Christians are visible Members of the Catholick Church 2. That Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. sapposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the Fundamentals of Religion Yes he does suppose so and very justly for those that deny fundamental Truths are without the Christian Faith without the Unity of the Church and where there is no such Union there can be no Schism which always supposes a previous Union As Treason always supposes that a Man be a Subject of the King and Member of the Common wealth If a Man never received the Fundamentals of Christianity he never was a Member of Christ's Body and therefore never a capable subject of that Christian Love and Brotherly kindness the violation whereof is the thing in Scripture called Schism if he has formerly professed the Faith and afterwards renounced it he has by so doing dissolved that principal Fundamental Union with the Christian Church upon which Brotherly Love is built and therefore after such Apostacy cannot be formally guilty of the breach of Christian Charity because he is indeed no Christian and so no capable Subject of such Charity and can no more properly be called a Schismatick than a Stone or Tree can be called blind or any other thing in which there is no capacity of Sight And if the Gentleman do not like this Notion he may if he pleases write a Book to convince the Grand Signior and the Great Mogul and Cham of Tartary See the Review p. 8. that they are all Schismaticks as were their Fathers Jannes and Jambres the Egyptian Sorcerers before them But he adds This is as much as to say the greater the fault the lesser the crime By no means for what if Hereticks be not Shismaticks are they therefore innocent Creatures What if Traytors Murderers Adulterers be not Schismaticks are they therefore Saints Heresie in Fundamentals is a greater crime than bare Schism and the less is merged in the greater And it seems very strange that the same Gentleman who but a line or two before thinks it absurd to call those Schismaticks who were never truely admitted into the Church should think it also absurd not to call those Schismaticks that either never embraced the Christian Faith or have since renounced it 3. The third inference is According to this Definition Alienation of Affection is Schism but Division or Alienation of Communion is not Here he ought to have told us what he means by Division or Alienation of Communion Communion with the same God and the same Mediator and in the same Essentials of Faith and Worship is necessary to the Being of Christianity and an Alienation here is something worse than Schism if he mean personal Communion in the Worship of God in the same place and after the same Mode 't is impossible this should be undivided if by Alienation of Communion be means withdrawing from that particular Church of which we have been members and joyning with another 't is no more but what is allowed to all upon the removal of their Habitations and may be lawful on many other accounts but if it be done without some good reason it is sinful if it be done out of Uncharitableness towards the Church we leave it is Schism now if he would be as plain with us as we desire to be with him there might be hopes of bringing the matter to some issue But the last Inference is most remarkable both for Phrase and Sence and I would desire the Author to review it No one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his Heart it is impossible to know according to this Description that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity except we should enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts and on the contrary People may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and yet no Body can accuse them with it But pray why is this last Sentence said to be on the contrary to the former it 's impossible to know that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity and on the contrary People may
be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and no Body can accuse them Here 's a marvellous contrariety betwixt these two Sentences montibus illis erant crant in montibus illis I suppose by on the contrary he meant on the Tautology at least he must give us leave to take it so But is there no way then to know mens Uncharitableness but by looking into the Secrets of their Hearts Did he never hear of a rule by their Fruits ye shall know them How often does this Gentleman accuse the Enquirer and Vindicator with Malice and Uncharitableness If he had no evidence for this by overt acts we know what to call him but if he had sufficient ground for it then his Inference is spoiled and proves like the former Only thus far we will allow him to argue if Schism consist in such Uncharitableness and Alienation of Affection men ought to be very cautious how they call one another Schismaticks lest they should be guilty of that Sin themselves whilst they are charging it upon others and I suppose this is not the least of our Authors Prejudices against Mr. H's Notion that it will not suffer men to be continually bawling Schismaticks Schismaticks against all that are not of their own Perswasion but I am sure all but Schismaticks will like it the better upon this account that it would lay a restraint upon men that they should not without very good grounds fix such a brand upon their Neighbours nor as heretofore hunt them out of Churches Corporations and out of the World too as far as in them lay by the noisie clamours they have raised about this Word Our Surveyor proceeds to blame this Notion for want of clearness and puts wonderful hard Questions 1st Whether this uncharitable distance must be really amongst those that are Christians But this is the same thing over again and has received its Answer they must really be such as profess Christianity but who are real Christians God knows and if these men will forbear calling Dissenters Schismaticks till that matter be fully cleared the World would be much quieter 2. Qu. What does he mean by Fundamentals of Religion But what strange perverseness is this in those who so often tell us we have all the Fundamentals of Religion in the Apostles Creed He asks Whether Fundamentals of Salvation or Fundamentals of Truth and I answer they are Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation he urges further are they so to every man in his Private Capacity or are they the Fundamentals of Church Communion These are mighty pretty Distinctions pray why should those things be Fundamentals of Church Communion which are not necessary to the Salvation of particular Persons 3. Qu. What does he mean by little things Whether all Manner of little things or Ecclesiastical little things Had this Gentleman look't into the case of the Corinthians he might have answered himself they are such things as relate to the Affairs of the Church which are comparatively small that is small in Comparison of the great things wherein they agreed and of the great heats these things caused From these little quibbles which do no Body harm but himself he returns to his former Practice of falsifying Mr. H's Words for says he Mr. H. tells us Review p. 7. there is but one Scripture in the Old Testament relating to this Affair viz. Num. 11.21 But what if Mr. H. say no such thing Why then all his fine Observations upon it fall to the ground and he must give us leave to observe that he is a very unfair and unjust Writer all that Mr. H. says is The Old Testament will not help us so much in this Enquiry as the new only mentioning that one Text and that not as giving us a proper Notion of Schism but only helping to rectifie some mistakes concerning it Now I 'll be so Civil to this Gentleman as to help him to take this matter aright He ought to consider what that Enquiry was which Mr. H. says the Old Testament will not be so helpful in as the New it was not how many times the Church has been troubled with Schisms it was not his design to write a History of all the Schisms that ever were in the Church either since Christ or before then indeed if he had said the Old Testament will not be so helpful to us the Gentleman might have inferred that the Jewish Church was not infested with this Sin but the Enquiry was What is that thing which the Scripture calls Schism And those Texts were to be principally discussed that have the Word Schism found in them and by considering the circumstances of those Cases and Actions which are charged with Schism he comes to determine the formal Nature of that Sin and there may be a hundred Texts relating to the thing which would not be in the least helpful to Mr. H. in this Enquiry till he had first cleared that to be really the thing called Schism which must be proved by comparing it with that which in express terms is so called This was Mr. H's Method and I think a very proper and rational One and therefore the Cases which this Gentleman mentions of Aaron and Miriam of Jannes and Jambres of Korah Dathan and Abiram were very justly omitted by Mr. H. for how bad soever those Practices were they cannot be proved Schismatical till it be made to appear that they are of the same kind and quality with those which Scripture calls Schisms He is pleased to divert himself with the instance of Eldad and Medad Prophesying in the Camp which he says is forreign to the business 1. Because they were to bear the weight of the Government with Moses under God But was it not in Subordination to Moses Was not he the chief Governour still And are not the Presbyters allowed some share of Government with the Bishops and does that make them incapable of being Schismaticks 2. Their Prophesying was for a sign Well be it so and would have less answered that end if these two had been with the rest of them in the Tabernacle 3. They were acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the Case of our Nonconformists No surely nor of the Conformists neither though they openly declare at their Ordination that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the Office of the Ministry But what if Eldad and Medad prophesied by impulse did not Mr. H. obviate that Objection by putting us in Mind that the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14.22 And though this Gentleman says that Scripture is impertinently alledged yet wiser men as Grotius and others give that sence of it which makes it as pertinent as any thing can be viz. The Spirits of the Prophets are so subject to the Prophets themselves that they are not acted with that urging Violence as will not allow a Compliance with the Rules of Order that is they might if
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
only a diversity of Opinion but dividing into Parties be it so still this was occasioned by their different apprehensions to which the Word plainly refers some said This is the Christ others said Shall Christ come out of Galilee so there was a division among the People about him the connexion leaves no room to doubt but that this division relates principally to their apprehensions He says they were divided into Parties so all men are in their differences of apprehension some think so others thus but I hope he will not call that a separation of Communion for then it will be hard to know where to find one Communion We know the Clergy of the Church of England are of several parties amongst themselves in this sence of the word about another great Person in the World but he adds They censured and reviled one another they did so and this was the effect of that division in their thoughts of Christ like to many at this day that shew very little either of Charity or Common Civility towards those whose apprehensions are different from their own As to the other Text John 9.16 the very reading of the words will satisfie any Man what is meant by that division Some of the Pharisees said This man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath day others said How can a Man that is a Sinner do such Miracles And there was a Division among them That great quarrels did ensue Mr. H. never denied the same may be said concerning the other texts Mr. H. says This diversity of opinion judgment or apprehension cannot be lookt upon as in it self Criminal The Surveyor most disingenuously perverts these words as if Mr. H. meant It was no matter what opinion Men bad of Christ or his Apostles no matter whether they took him for the Messiah or a Mad-man Whereas in the very next words he says where the matter is weighty and reacheth the fundamentals there an Error is Criminal This was plain enough to convince our Author or any Man in the World that Mr. H. was far from intending to Libel Christ or to make an Apology for the Jews and Sadduces in their reviling of him If this Gentleman had not told us I could never have guessed how it could enter into his head to fix such an odious sence upon Mr. H's words but it seems that which led him to it was Mr. H. said This diversity of apprehension and why did he prefix the relative this if not referring to the Antecedent Texts I 'll tell him and it is a shame he should need to be told Mr. H. but a few lines before distinguished of division in apprehension and division in affection and shewed that sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for division in apprehension and then adds this diversity of opinion judgment c. that is this first species or kind of division according to the distinction newly laid down There you have the antecedent to which the relative this refers This division in apprehension is not always criminal but the other division viz. in affection is always so That this is the true Thred and Sence of his Discourse I appeal to any Man of Common Sence and Honesty It is not therefore Mr. H. that knows not what he says but 't is the Surveyor that cares not what he says so he may but render Mr. H. contemptible to the unthinking Debauchees the noble Patrons of his present adventures The Enquiror justly declaims against that mischievous practice of making our own opinions like Procrustes's Bed the Standard by which to measure all others To which the Gentleman replies But if Authority think fit to call Mr. H. to the Standard he is undoubtedly a Subject and I know not why he should not go as well as I. This is really a very fair confession that though he will not yield to a private person in differences about Religion yet he can be of any length of any opinion which Authority shall set up for a Standard and call him to A Man of a malleable ductile complaisant Conscience that can stretch or contract himself to the Standard that Authority sets up in matters of Religion for he is a Subject and must go to it herein the Dissenters differ from him and cannot lay aside their present apprehensions in matters of Religion either upon the call of private persons or of Authority it self until the louder voice of Reason oblige them to it And yet through the Mercy of God Authority has taken down the Standard now not delighting either to cramp or rack the Consciences of Men in matters of Religion It seems the Enquiror and Vindicator have frighten'd this Gentleman into his Devotions and set him a Praying I suppose without the Book for vexatio dat intellectum that he may never stand in need of their Charity and I believe they have as much Reason to pray that they may never stand in need of this Mans Justice for when the Vindicator was making his Apology to any that might think he had treated T.W. somewhat more roughly than such a Man could well bear this Gentleman tells us several times the Vindicator boasted of his rude and malicious usage of the Citizen let this Man learn to be Just before he pretend to be Charitable As for the Vindicators usage of T.W. let it be referred to all the Sober Church-men in Chester where the Man is known as well as the manner of his Writing I am sure some of his own Communion openly said he was treated in that answer with but too much respect But why should this Author be so terrified with the Thoughts of ever standing in need of the Dissenters Charity Is he afraid of the Lex talionis There can be no danger of that unless Authority should ever be on their side and set up its Standard for them and if i◠should do so this Gentleman has declared he is a Subject and must go to it for how ill so ever he may like the Principles of Nonconformity while they are but the Sentiments of private Persons yet if Authority should set them up for a Standard they are become quite another thing he can go to it as well as we and be on the right side still If this be not fairly collected out of his own words I know no tolerable meaning they are capable of In the 19th Page he delivers himself of a Notion which I believe is really his own i. e. That it is as possible for all men to agree about the lesser matters of Religion as about its great and fundamental Articles An assertion contrary to all reason and the experience of Mankind All Protestants acknowledge that the Essentials of our Religion are clearly revealed in Scripture and in these they generally agree but no one ever pretended the same of all circumstantials which are usually proved or disproved by inferences from Scripture and sometimes remote ones too wherein it is common for Disputants to
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
would plainly and expresly have mentioned it We never find him guilty of sparing such Sins and Sinners as these And if he had now to do with those that taught damnable Heresies under that horrid aggravation of fathering them upon himself and upon Christ too which would have added Blasphemy to his Heresie it would have been a great deal too soft and tender onely to have said it has been declared unto me of you my Brethren that there are contentions amongst you such kind of reproof would have born no proportion to the crime but would have been next door to a justifying of them and so far from convincing them of the desperate guilt they were under that it would rather have betray'd them into a good opinion of themselves and their Doctrines It is generally observed that Eli greatly sinned in reproving such flagitious offences of his Sons in that mild language Why do you such things For I hear of your evil dealings by all this People 1 Sam. 2.3 nay my Sons for it is no good report that I hear of you for you make the Lords People to Transgress c. and yet this is much more plain and home than the Words of Paul if he was reproving a crime of that Nature And as we have all the reason in the World to think he would have been severer in the case so he would doubtless have spoken directly to the matter he would have exposed and disowned their Errors and acquitted himself before all the World he would have called them Hereticks and set a black mark upon their Heresies and instead of saying was Paul Crucified for you or were ye Baptized in the Name of Paul would have challenged them did Paul ever tell you that there was no Resurrection did Paul ever give you leave to live in Incest or to Sacrifice to Idols And he would have taken that occasion since a fairer could never offer it self immediately to disapprove and damn those Errors which they had broach'd under his Name and Authority but there being not one word to this purpose but a deep silence in all the Context He must be able to swallow a Camel that can digest such a Notion 3. Had this been the case the Apostle would certainly have made a manifest distinction betwixt the Orthodox and the Hereticks and have plainly advised the Orthodox how to proceed against those Blasphemous wretches But here is no such distinction made but the fault of contention charged upon them all Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul which according to this Gentlemans Comment must be Now this I say that every one of you is turned Heretick and Father your Heresies upon me and upon Christ too I will not be so nice upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to say there were none free but doubtless it must argue a very common faultiness and they were so generally engaged in these foolish contests that he could not have an Account thereof from the Church in Common for Men do not love to inform of themselves but the House of Cloe sent him the bad news now can we think the Apostle would in such general terms have assaulted the Heresies of some particular Persons Would he have laid such a Temptation before all succeeding Ages to condemn the whole Church of Corinth for Gnosticks Certainly his Love to that People and indeed Justice it self would have obliged him in such a case to have distinguished betwixt the Innocent and the Guilty And it is as reasonable to conclude that the Apostle would have commanded the Orthodox to admonish and reject such abominable Wretches from their Communion we see in the case of the incestuous person he did so and certainly he would not have been more favourable to these who according to this Gentlemans account were no better but rather worse than he and indeed as bad as can be imagined 4. The Advice that the Apostle gives to these contending Corinthians shews that he did not speak to Gnostick Hereticks he counsels them to be of one mind and to speak the same thing and to be persectly joined together in one mind and in one Judgment and that there be no divisions among them Our Gentleman thinks this will prove that they were Hereticks and I think it is demonstration on the other side For let it be observed the same persons that he reproves for saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. in the 12. v. and of whose contentions he says he had heard in the 11. v. he advises in the 10. v. to be of one mind and to be perfectly joined together Now if all these he here speaks to were Hereticks would the Apostle have commanded them to be all of one Mind and to be perfectly joined together was the Apostles design to reconcile one Heretick to another the Heretick that was of Paul to the Heretick that was of Apollos was he troubled that the Hereticks did no better understand one another And is this the meaning of that kind and obliging Admonition Dear Hereticks agree amongst your selves and let there be no Divisions amongst you Would not this have been an encouraging and strengthning them in their Confederacy against Christ his Gospel and Church It would be a very suspicious thing for one that pretends to be a Loyal Subject to go to a herd of Rebols that are quarrelling one with another and perswade them to keep together and to avoid Division and to be of the same Mind it would be a better Office to sow the Seeds of Contention amongst them to break their Confederacy that they might be more easily subdued And it is not to be omitted how cunningly this Gentleman alters the Phrase and being perfectly joyned together he expounds be well joynted and compacted in the Church but here 's no colour for such a Paraphrase and to bid Hereticks be joyned one to another is rather forbidding them being joyned to the Church no doubt he would have commanded them to abandon their Devilish Errours and return to the Truth and would have charged the Orthodox to oppose them For the Contention on their side would have been commendable and to Contend earnestly for the Faith delivered to them and not to incorporate with them till they had renounced their Errors but to bid these Hereticks be of one Mind and of one Judgment when there lay an indispensible Necessity on them all to change their Minds is such odd insipid and infatuated Counsel as cannot without a degree of blasphemy be ascribed to an inspired Apostle 5. The Repetition of this matter in the third Chapter affords us further Evidence that this Gentlemans Notion is false 't is true the Apostle upbraids them there with the weakness of their Faith and Judgment that they were but as Babes in Christ and yet that would be a strange Character of the Gnosticks far different from that which this Author gives us but the Apostle proceeds to
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
insists most upon to overthrow Mr. H's Notion that the Corinthian Schism lay in Uncharitable Contentions about their Ministers is that Expression And I of Christ upon which he thus Harangues Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this and it would have been a strange wild Fancy not to be contented with any other Minister excepting him besides it would be hard to assign any Reason why any Body should prefer Paul or Apollos before Christ I always thought our Saviour might have had the Pre-eminence But these Questions have been often put and variously answered some think the Apostle speaks this of himself Chrysost in loc as if he should say Let others chuse who they will for Heads of their Parties I only chuse Christ for mine others say that some few of the Corinthians being wiser than the rest contented themselves with the Name of Christians Partus in loc without any other dividing Denomination But that which seems most probable is that these unhappy Contentions about Paul and Apollos had this effect upon some that they too much slighted them all and pretended to be of Christ in contempt of his Ministers and it is observable that our Old Bibles Printed with large Notes in Queen Elizabeths days and by her Authority give this last as the sence of the place which shews that it was agreeable to the Sentiments of the Bishops in those days otherwise they would not have permitted those Notes to have been gone along with it and we have also there this account of Schism that it is when men who otherwise agree in Doctrin separate themselves from one another Now let this Gentleman take any of these Solutions and it will be abundantly less absurd than this account of the matter which he has given us He tells us That because these Corinthians had not the writings of the New Testament but must be instructed by their Prophets and Evangelists it would be a difficult thing for them to judge betwixt the Orthodox and the Heretical but I cannot apprehend any such mighty difficulty in the Case the Apostles when ever they planted Churches preached unto them the fundamental Articles of the Gospel which are few and plain and therefore easily received and remembred those that believed upon their Preaching could not so quickly forget them nor could they be easily perswaded to think that the Apostles would preach one Doctrine to them and the contrary to others and we may be assured any that should come with such wicked pretensions would meet with a sharp repulse and it was so far from being a difficult thing to discover such impostures that nothing but folly or fascination could hinder them from so doing and therefore when the Galatians were corrupted with the Principles of Judaical Pretenders the Apostle admires at their weakness Oh foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you c. He further informs us That when there were contrary Doctrines preached the proof of each must depend upon the Credit and Authority of those Persons from whom they were derived if from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts as Apollos it was the last great Authority I must confess this is quite above my reach I know not why this Gentleman should fancy such degrees of Credit and Authority as these The Apostles and Evangelists who were at that day infallibly inspired spoke with the highest Authority even that of Christ himself who spoke by them and in them by his Spirit and to distinguish betwixt the Credit and Authority of what Christ spoke and of what the Apostles Preached and writ is not only a vain but a dangerous thing and makes such a difference in the several parts of Scripture as ought not to be made as if there was less Credit and Authority in some than others I suppose the proof of any Doctrine would depend upon this Point rather whether it was really the Doctrine of Christ and his inspired Apostles and Evangelists or no if it could be evinced that any of them had delivered it there was proof sufficient of its Truth and Authority in the highest degree The Authority of the Apostles was not questioned nor any such degrees of Credibility imagined betwixt the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles and inspired Evangelists as to leave room for such pretended Comparisons all the doubt was whether such a Doctrine was theirs or no and there could not want Witnesses in every Church to confront any one that should bring another Gospel under any Name whatsoever The Gentleman has discovered a wonderful Argument for his Opinion in the form of Salutation the Apostle uses in this Chapter 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours from whence says he it is plain the Apostle makes two Parties amongst them the Orthodox and the Hereticks theirs and ours This then must be the meaning of that Preface The Church of God which is at Corinth Sanctified in Christ Jesus and whose members are called to be Saints consists of two Parties 1. Theirs that is to say notorious damn'd Gnostick Hereticks that deny the Resurrection and hold it lawful to live in Incest and to Sacrifice to Idols and that blasphemously ascribe these Doctrines of Devils to Christ and his Apostles these are the first sort of the Holy Sanctified Members of the Church of God at Corinth 2. Ours That is the Orthodox that hold fast the Truth and the form of sound words Grace and Peace be to them both certainly this would be the most scandalous Paraphrase that ever was invented and yet the Gentleman sees this plainly in the Text. But alas it affords no pretence for such a Comment for theirs and ours plainly refer to the Lord Jesus who says the Apostle is both their Lord and ours Theirs that believe on him as well as Ours that preach him to the World or theirs that are Gentiles as well as Ours that are Jews the Common Lord of all the faithful all the World over thus it is understood by the whole band of Interpeters Dr. Hammond himself not Dissenting but when a mans fancy is deeply ting'd with a Notion every thing must be thought to support it or else this would never have been mentioned to such a purpose I now attend his Review of the second instance of Schism 1 Cor. 11.20 I hear that there be Divisions among you c. Mr. H. observes this could not be meant of breach of Communion because they all come together into one place and into the Church too The Gentleman replies there was a notorious breach of Communion even at the Communion Table and very great and scandalous Miscarriages and who ever doubted of that But does he call these things a breach of Communion Then I am afraid it is often broken among themselves when Mr. H. denies that there was any breach of Communion he takes it in
make the Dioceses of Ephesus and Creet to take in one another and the whole Christian World too The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical Power This Gent. undertakes to prove it may but by such kind of instances as signifie nothing but his own inadvertency viz. When two Persons are Heirs to one in the same Estate the Law calls them Successores partiarii But this will not do an Estate may be divided into a Thousand Parts and each of them have the Nature of an Estate still but the Apostolical Power is Universal the same in all places and division here will make it another thing according to the Account that Mr. Bradford Dr. Barrow and the best Protestant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apostle and Bishop Paul as an Apostle had the same Power at Ephesus as at Crete and if Timothy had succeeded in the Apostolical Power he must have had so too His Argument from the Division of the Empire is as defective as the former Empires how great soever are limited within certain Bounds and may be divided it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World as it was of the Apostolical 't is a vain thing to talk of any Provinces to which the Apostolical Power was limited they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World and so must those have too that succeed them in the Apostleship The Vindicator also desired to know how Timothy and Titus could succeed Paul in his Apostleship whilst he was alive and in Plenitude of Power This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle but so it was chuse what the Consequences may be for says he it is evident the Apostle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserved to himself But pray Sir think better of it a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province is not the Plenitude of Apostolical Power and if he reserved any Power to himself within those respective Charges they had not the Plenitude of Power there but were under his Apostolical Jurisdiction still and therefore did not succeed him in it and if the Apostle reserved to himself no Power over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete he divested himself of his Apostleship for he that had not Apostolical Power every where had it no where But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremise the matter betwixt them T. W. must call the Bishops Coadjutors only whilst the Apostles were living and the Vindicator must give them the Title of Successors after their Death And if by Successors he means those that after them were employed in the great Work of the Ministry of the Gospel we grant all true Bishops are their Successors but then we must put him in Mind that the Bishops we read of in Scripture were as much Bishops before the Apostles Death as after and therefore their Episcopal Power did not come to them by Succession nor did there at the Apostles Death any new Accession of Power devolve upon them It was therefore the most needless thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter Review p. 42. what if they call Bishops and Presbyters the Apostles Successors so do we too but do they say that they succeeded them in the Apostolical Power or that the Apostleship was devolved upon them by the Right of Succession and yet it is that T. W. after his weak manner struggles to prove and indeed no less will serve his turn This Gentleman is not so thoughtful as he should be when he says We make it such a mighty Mystery for a Bishop to Constitute his Successour if by Constituting he means Naming or Appointing who shall be his Successor it is not impossible supposing that God preserve his Life and the Church Consent to that Appointment tho' it be very inconvenient and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils but it is impossible for one Bishop to devolve his whole Episcopal Power upon another and yet to keep it himself in as great amplitude as ever Decret par 2. caus 7. Quaest 1. c. 5. Vivente Episcopo Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ c. The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Successor comes not in place till the Predecessour be gone that as long as the Bishop liveth no man can succeed him that there cannot be two Bishops in one Place this is most certainly true in the sence wherein we now speak of Bishops and sufficient to our present purpose That which follows about the certainty of Linus his succeeding Peter of an uninterrupted Succession of the Concession of Papists Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem Aetatem seniorem quadragessimi aut quinquagessimi anni habens Dom. noster c. has already been largely discussed in these Papers It is possible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Bishops and yet be Mistaken in their Order of Succession and 't is certain all is not to be taken for Gospel that Irenaeus reports even in matters of Fact for he tells us our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years and said he had this from all the Elders of Asia who received it from St. John himself How well is it that we have a more sure Word of Prophesie and History too than the Testimony of Irenaeus As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death accounts are so various and the probabilities on each hand so fair that no modest man will be Positive in it but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it and his Disciples make no Question but he has done it infallibly The Vindicator had some Reason to put that Question concerning the Apostolical Succession in the Patriarchal Churches which this Gentleman quarrels with because he observed T. W. made Linus succeed Peter in the See of Rome Simeon James in the Chair of Jerusalem Ananias I suppose it should be Ananias the Cobler of whom before St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria and the account runs upon this Supposition that the Apostles divided the World into several Provinces and each of them was Bishop of his proper district and those are called the Apostles Successors that came into their several Sees after their Death and these being but such a number it would follow that the Succession must be only propagated in these Patriarchats this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the consequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succession which he only erected in those Churches where he had an Apostle at the Head of the Roll he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other that none but the Patriarchs were the Apostles Successors but intimated that such a Succession as T. W. described would only be found in those
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
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
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
of Salisbury who has obliged us with the Account of these Letters adds that he saw other Letters wherein it was asserted that both Cranmer and Ridley intended to procure an Act in King Edward's Reign for the abolishing of the Habits and that they only defended their lawfulness but not their fitness The same Learned Prelate who favoured the World with these ingenious Letters whilst he was beyond Sea has discovered the same Integrity and Regard to Truth and Moderation since his return and in the presence of the most August Assembly expresses himself thus Here suffer me to tell you that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign our Adversaries saw no hopes of retrieving their Affairs Dr. Burnets Thanksgiving Serm. before the House of Commons Jan. 31. 1688. which had been spoiled by Queen Mary's Persecution but by setting on foot Divisions amongst Protestants upon very inconsiderable matters I my self have seen the Letters of the Chief Bishops of that time from which it appears that the Queen's stiffness in maintaining some Ceremonies flowed not from their Counsels but from the practices of some disguised Papists And I have had in my hand the Original Journal of the lower House of Convocation in the fifth year of that glorious Reign in which the matter of the Ceremonies was first argued and when it came to the Vote it was carried by the greater Number of the Voices of the Members that were present to lay down all those Subjects of Contests but the Proxies turned it to the severer side How unhappy the Effects of this Act for Conformity were which in the Convocation turned upon so narrow a Point may appear by the words of a worthy Person then living which are these For some five years together before the Subscription was urged Mr. Nichols Plea of the Innocent p. 206 207 there was such Unity amongst the Ministers and they joyned together in all places so lovingly and diligently that many thousands were converted from Atheism and Popery but when Subscription was urged many godly worthy learned Preachers were silenced and deprived the Nation distracted many good Persons grieved and offended and Papists and wicked men encouraged and emboldened These things were so obvious that divers Lords of the Privy Council earnestly sollicited for Moderation and in an excellent Letter to A. See the Letter at large in Fuller C.H. Book 9. p. 151. Bishop Whitgist and the Bishop of London set forth that a great number of Learned and Zealous Preachers were suspended from their Cures and the County of Essex and other Places and many of their Rooms filled with Persons neither of good Learning nor good Name but chargeable with great faults as Drunkenness Filthiness Gaming Haunting of Ale-houses c. wherein they earnestly entreat the Prelates to take some charitable consideration of these Causes that the People of the Realm may not be deprived of their Pastors being Diligent Learned and Zealous though in some Points Ceremonial they may seem doubtful in Conscience c. Subscribed by the Lord Burleigh Earl of Shrewsbury E. Warwick E. Leicester L. Howard J. Croft Hatton Walsingham But they were put off with the common Answer that the Ministers were Factious and Contemners of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Authors of Disquietness and must not be suffered to exercise their Ministry without further Conformity Not long after Ibid. p. 174. these things were taken notice of in Parliament and the Honourable House of Commons Passed some Bills in favour of the Nonconformists but the Arch-bishop was importunate with the Queen not to give her consent and so nothing was effected Still the Nation grew more and more sensible of the ill Consequences of the Bishops proceedings and in the year 1587. The House of Commons presented to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal a Petition in sixteen Particulars some against scandalous and insufficient Ministers others desiring the abatement of certain Oaths and Subscriptions tendred to persons at their entrance on the Ministry and yet not expresly prescribed by the Laws of the Realm and that Ministers might not be troubled for their omission of some Rites Ibid. p. 191. prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer c. And divers of the Lords approved of this Petition and spoke to it But the Arch-bishop betook himself to his old Weapon cries out the Church was a falling O Dea. cert makes his Prayers to the Queen calls her a Goddess and carries the point against them all Having thus baffled the Parliament they proceed to the Imprisonment of Mr. Cartwright the silencing of Mr. Travers of whom Dr. Fuller gives us such a Character P. 216. as is no way to the credit of those that dealt so harshly with him But this was not all Mr. Udall and divers others were condemned to dye for writing against the Male Government of these Ecclesiasticks which was now become a capital crime by one of the greatest stretches of Law that ever was heard of in England P. 222. We now come to the Reign of K. James the first and here I think it may be seasonable to wipe off that Dirt which T. W. has cast upon the Vindicator for saying that when this Prince ascended the English Throne the Prelatick party dreading lest the Puritans should have too great a share of his favours Bent all their Studies to create prejudices in him against them The Citizen replies The ill opinion which the King had of the Puritans was founded upon his own experience and published long before he had any converse with the English Bishops and transcribes a passage out of his ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΟΠΔΩΡΟΠwhere He says Take heed my Son of such Puritans very Pests in the Church and Common-wealths Whom no Deserts can oblige c. But the Gentleman ought not to have insulted over his Adversary in such opprobrious Language till he had considered That not a word of this was intended of the English Puritanes concerning whom the Vindicator spoke For this Prince had but a little while before writ three Letters to Queen Elizabeth in favour of them and therein speaks very honourably of Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Udal who were esteemed the Leading Men of that party And kindly interceeded for those that Dissented from the Bishops in the things at that time controverted amongst them Nor by the word Puritan did the King mean the Presbyterians as such if we may believe his own words in the Preface to the aforesaid Book wherein he declares That the Name Puritan did properly belong to that Sect amongst the Anabaptists called The Family of Love Because says he they think themselves Pure and in a manner without Sin the only true Church and only worthy to partake of the Sacraments of this special Sect I principally mean when I speak of Puritans divers of them as Brown Penry and others having at sundry times come into Scotland to saw their Popple And indeed I give this Title to such Brain-sick and heady Preachers
their Disciples and Followers who refusing to be called of that Sect yet participate too much with their Humours in maintaining the above-mentioned Errors and the King further adds I Protest upon my Honour I did not mean it generally of all those Preachers or others that like better the single Form of Policy in our Church than of the many Ceremonies of the Church of England or that are perswaded that their Bishops smell of a Papal Supremacy No I am so far from being contentious in these things that I equally love and honour the Learned and Grave Men of either Opinion And that those called Puritans at that time in England were not such Persons as are here described appears sufficiently from the earnest Endeavours both of the House of Commons and Lords of the Privy Council on their behalf and the different account they give of them who must needs be acknowledged very competent Judges and it is observable that the Familists in England took notice of this censure of the King 's Fuller Church Hist Book 10 p. 30. and in their Petition to him when he came into England they disown all Affinity with the Puritans and speak reproachfully of them under that Title themselves I hope this will abundantly acquit the Old English Puritans from being the Persons aimed at in those Royal Reflections and therefore notwithstanding any thing in that Book it may be very true that the Bishops flattered that King into an ill Opinion of them That some of our English Prelates endeavour'd to do very ill Offices betwixt the King and Presbyterian Party even before he came into England is most certainly true and it cannot be imagined that they would be less busie when they had him amongst them Bishop Bancroft was more than ordinary active in such Designs as appeared amongst other things by a Letter from one Norton a Stationer in Edenburgh directed for him and intercepted Calderwood's Hist of the Ch. of Scotland p. 248. upon Examination Norton acknowledged that he was employed by Bancroft to disperse certain Questions that tended to the Defamation of the Kirk and Presbyterial Government The same Bishop writ frequent Letters to Mr. Patrick Adamson the Titular Archbishop of St. Andrews which were many of them intercepted wherein he stirs him up to Extol and Praise the Church of England above all others and to come up to London Ibid. p. 259. assuring him that he would be very welcome and well rewarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury This Adamson had composed a Declaration which passed under the King's Name wherein the whole Order of the Kirk was greatly traduced and condemned The Commissioners of the General Assembly complained to the King of the many false Aspersions contained therein which were so shameful that the King disowned it and said It was not his doing but the Archbishops and prudently discarded that great Favourite and gave the Rents of the Bishoprick to the Duke of Lenox The poor Gentleman thus abandoned professes himself to be truly Penitent for what he had done and makes a full Recantation which he Subscribed in the presence of a great many Witnesses and directs it to the Synod conven'd at St. Andrew's Confessing That he had out of Ambition Vain-Glory and Covetousness undertaken the Office of an Archbishop That he had laboured to advance the King's Arbitrary Power in Matters of Religion and Protested before God that he was commanded to write that Declaration by the Chancellor the Secretary and another great Courtier and that he was more busie with some Bishops in England in Prejudice of the Discipline of the Kirk partly when he was there and partly by Mutual Intelligence than became a good Christian much less a Faithful Pastor c. Now although the King fondly adhered to such kind of Men whilst he hoped to advance his Prerogative thereby yet when he began to perceive the ill Effects of such Conduct Ibid. Preface he still deserted them and in those prudent Intervals would freely declare his good Opinion of the Presbytery and their Form of Government particularly in the National Assembly 1590. He thank'd God that he was King of such a Country wherein says he there is such a Church even the sincerest Church on Earth Geneva not excepted seeing they keep some Festival Days as Easter and Christmas and what have they for it As for our Neighbours in England their Service is an ill mumbled Mass in English they want little of the Mass but the Liftings Now I charge you my good People Barons Gentlemen Ministers and Elders that you all stand to your Purity and Exhort the People to do the same and as long as I have Life and Crown I will maintain the same against all deadly Nay Calder p. 473. when he took his leave of Scotland upon the Union of the two Kingdoms he solemnly promised the Ministers of the Synod of Lothian that he would make no Alterations in their Discipline but when he came up to London those who had been tampering with him and his Courtiers before had a fair opportunity to accomplish their Design which was the utter Abolition of the Presbytery in Scotland and the Suppression of the Puritans in England And saith my Author as soon as the English Prelates had got King James amongst them R. Baylie's Vindication and Answer to the Declarat p. 11. they did not rest till Mr. Melvill and the Prime of the Scots Divines were called up to London and only for their Just Defence of the Truth and Liberties of Scotland against Episcopal Usurpations were either Banish'd or Confin'd and so sore Oppressed that it brought many of them with Sorrow to their Graves and the whole Discipline of the Church was over-thrown notwithstanding the King 's parting Promise to the contrary The Nonconformists in England were so far from being brought over by the Severities of the former Reign that they drew up a Petition about this time Signed by Seven hundred and fifty Ministers desiring Reformation of certain Ceremonies and Abuses in the Church which Fuller gives us at large this was designed to have been presented before the Conference at Hampton-Court but was deferr'd till after The Relation of this so much talk'd of Conference as Fuller reports it out of Barlow is justly suspected of great Partiality and the Historian himself speaks doubtfully of it and yet even in that we have a plain Indication of what temper the Court and Bishops were It looks very odd that when the King had allow'd several of Dr. Reynold's Exceptions he should threaten if they had no more to say He would make them to Conform or hurry them out of the Land or do worse a poor business for a Prince to menace his own Subjects for Non-conformity to that which himself had formerly called an Ill-mumbled Mass in English and even now acknowledged wanted some Reformation But we have this Matter set in a truer Light by Mr. Patrick Galloway in his Account of it
from London to the Presbytery of Edenburgh Calder p. 474. after it was Revised by the King 's own Hand The words are Beloved Brethren after my hearty Commendations these Presents are to shew you that I received Two of your Letters One directed to His Majesty the other to my Self for my Perusal the same I read closed and three days before the Conference delivered into His Majesties Hand and received it back again after some short Speeches upon those words in your Letter the Gross Corruptions of this Church which were then expounded and I was assured all Corruptions dissonant from the Word of God or contrary thereunto should be amended The Twelfth of January was the day of Meeting at which time the Bishops were call'd upon and gravely desired to advise upon all the Corruptions of this Church in Doctrine Ceremonies and Discipline and as they would answer it to God in Conscience and to His Majesty upon their Obedience that they should return the Third day after which was Saturday Accordingly they returned to His Majesty and when the Matter was propounded to them as before they answered All was Well And when His Majesty with great fervency brought instances to the contrary they upon their Knees with great earnestness craved that nothing should be altered lest the Popish Recusants punished for Disobedience and the Puritans punished by Deprivation ab officio beneficio for Nonconformity should say they had just Cause to insult upon them as Men who had endeavoured to bind them to that which by their own Mouths now was confess'd to be Erroneous After five Hours Dispute had by His Majesty against them and his resolution for Reformation intimated to them they were dismissed for that day c. but it appears by the result their importunity overcame him at last Dr. Fuller observes That whereas before this Conference it was disputable whether the North where he long lived or the South whither he lately came would prevail most on the King's Judgment in Church Government now this Question was clearly decided I hope now the Vindicator may be allowed to have some Grains of Shame and Modesty common to Humane Nature though he ventured to say That the English Prelates flattered King James into an ill Opinion of the Puritans and the thing is not so plain or known a Contradiction as the Citizen pretends and for him to tell the World at this time a day of the famous Piety and Virtue of that Prince is ridiculous enough Alas the History of his Reign is too well known his Contending with Parliaments his Encouraging of Papists his Secret Articles upon the Treaties with Spain and France his greedy Desire of Arbitrary Power his Prostituting the Honours and Wasting the Treasures of the Nation after a most inglorious manner produced those ill Effects under which these Kingdoms have laboured and languished ever since till by the late happy Revolution our Antient Rights and privileges were raised out of the Grave recognised and settled upon their true Basis once more The Unhappy Government of K. Charles the First is now sufficiently Unveiled especially by Rushworth's Impartial Collections The Vindicator briefly hinted at those Irregular and Arbitrary Practices that forced the Parliament to take up Arms for the Defence of their Liberties and for rescuing the King out of the hands of those Councellors that had so fatally misled him T. W. calls this Notorious Calumny and says he could answer all the Instances particularly but he refers to the Rolls and Acts of Parliament The Vindicator is willing to joyn issue with him here and appeals to the several Petitions Remonstrances and Speeches made in Parliament as they stand upon Record in the Journals of both Houses and they are now made so publick that no Man but one who has no Reputation to lose would have offered to deny that which all the Nation that can read Books know to be true And I will also tell him that there is not one passage mentioned by the Vindicator concerning the Male Administration of that King but what he may find in the Supplement to Baker 's Chronicle a History never suspected for Disloyalty but evidently partial the other way The Vindicator renew'd the Challenge to Name four Persons in that Parliament Dr. Burnet tells us the Duke of Hamilton was dissatisfied with the Courses some of the Bishops had followed before the Troubles began and could not but impute their first rise to the Provocations that had been given by them Memoirs p. 408. that were not in full Communion with the Church of England when the War began It is true many of them that were for Episcopacy were highly offended at the Behaviour of some of the Bishops as appears by the Speeches of the Lords Falkland and Digby both great Royalists and for my part I desire no other Evidence of the intolerable Usurpations of the Laudensian Party than what those Noble Lords have given us which being now in so many Hands by the Publishing the third part of Rushworths Collections I will not transcribe The Nonconformists indeed generally joyned with the Parliament in that Cause which was doubtless as just and necessary when first undertaken as ever was carried upon the Point of a Sword But that it was without the least design upon the Kings Person their Solemn League and Covenant plainly proves and the many Declarations and Remonstrances which they afterwards made when they saw new designs laid and pursued In the Year 1648. When the Republican Faction was at the highest the Ministers called Presbyterian in and about London fearing that which afterwards happened boldly Published a Vindication of themselves and Exhortation to the People part of which I shall here Transcribe to let the World see how shamefully they have been abused about the Death of that King their Words are these To this Vindication we are compell'd at this time Vindicat. of the Minist Printed for T. Underhil Ann. 1648. Subscribed by C. Burgess D. D. W. Gouge D. D. E. Stanton D. D. T. Temple D. D. G. Walker E. Calamy B. D. J. Whitaker D. Câ—wdrey W. Spurstow L. Seaman D. D. Sim. Ashe T. Case N. Proffect T. Thorowgood E. Corbet H. Roborough A. Jackson J. Nalton T. Cawton C. Offspring Sa. Clark Io. Wall F. Roberts M. Haviland J. Sheffield W. Harrison W. Jenkin J. Viner E. Blackwel J. Cross J. Fuller W. Taylor P. Witham Fra. Peek Ch. 〈◊〉 J. Wallis T. Watson T. Bedford W. Wickins T. Manton D. D. Tho. Gouge W. Blackmore R. Mercer R. Robinson J. Glascock T. Whately J. Lloyde J. Wells B. Needler N. Staniforth S. Watkins J. Tice J. Stileman Jos Ball. J. Devereux P. Russel J. Kirby A. Barham because there are many who very confidently yet most unjustly charge us to have been formerly instrumental toward the taking away the Life of the King and because also there are others who in their Scurrilous Pasquils and Libels as well as with their Virulent Tongues represent us
and like a good Angel made their fetters fall off and the doors fly open others were forced to abscond from their Families and Employments for fear of the Excommunication Writ and these it rescued from impending ruine and indeed it found them all insulted over scorned and trampled upon by the Bigots of the other Party but this Declaration put a respect upon them and gave them the Opportunity of letting the World see they were neither so few nor so bad nor contemptible as their Adversaries had represented them There are two things for which Dissenters are frequently reproached in the late Reign First Their accepting that Liberty with such Addresses of Thanks Secondly Their writing so few Books against Popery I have something to say in their just Defence upon both Accounts As to the First It had been the greatest Madness in the World for them to have refused the Advantages of that Liberty they thought themselves obliged to Worship God according to the Dictates of their Consciences when they run the Risque of Prisons and Banishment for so doing and to neglect it when they were freed from those hazards would have been such a piece of sullen unaccountable perversness as these Gentlemen would soon have upbraided us with I know it is commonly said that Toleration was promoted in favour of the Papists and I believe few of the Dissenters ever questioned it but they knew very well that when it was granted for them to have sate still and suffer'd the Papists alone to enjoy the Benefits of it would have strengthed Popery much more the Papists would have had never the less Liberty though Dissenters had been silent and when they were let loose it was time for all hands to be at work to countermine them and there 's no better weapon to subdue Errour than the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God It is objected this Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power and to accept of it was owning such a Power But the Dissenters never by Word or Writing ascribed any such Power unto the King as to Dispense with the Laws that are for the good of the Nation indeed they always esteemed the Laws by which they were excluded to be very unjust and unreasonable Edicts contrary to the Law of God and the common Interest and that they ought not to have been made or ever executed when they were made they never thought them binding in Point of Conscience and though they were forced heretofore to submit to the Penalty yet they were not so forsaken of common Sence as to court the Continuance of that Penalty or cast themselves into Prison when the Magistrate did not think fit to do it But the Clergy of the Church of England had often in the Pulpit and from the Press told the King that he had such a Power as the Author of Vox Cleri pro Rege shews us in abundance of Instances And the Judges who were of the Church of England had given it for Law as the other had declared it for Gospel and all the Magistrates in England thought fit to acquiesce in it which surely they would not have done if they had not thought it a just and reasonable thing for indeed the Kings Declaration would have signified little if the Magistrates had put the Laws in Execution still and if they did not think those Laws were really suspended they were bound by their Oaths to have done it and their forbearance was a plain acknowledgment of such a Power at least as to such kind of Laws as were hereby suspended but the Dissenters only persisted to do that which they thought themselves obliged to as they had opportunity by the Law of God any thing in humane Laws to the Contrary notwithstanding And as to their Addresses of Thanks it least becomes the Churchmen of all others to Reflect upon them not only because it was their Cruelty that made Indulgence so very pleasant and Oppression sometimes makes a wise man mad but also because they fall vastly short of those high flights of Complement which these men themselves took in their Addresses of a far worse Nature and Occasion If it be so Criminal to Thank the King for not suffering Protestants to destroy one another what shall we say of those that in the most Luxuriant manner thank'd him for dissolving one of the best of Parliaments E. of W's Speech and as a Noble Peer lately told them Were so forward in the Surrender of Charters and their fulsom Addresses and Abhorrences making no other claim to their Liberties and Civil Rights but Concessions from the Crown telling the King every one of his Commands was stamp'd with Gods Authority c. Besides I am informed by one of those that joined in an Address of Thanks to the King in Cheshire that the Nonconformists never moved in it till the Churchmen had led them the way these Gentleman therefore are too Imprudent to provoke us to Recriminations that will be so vastly to their own dishonour I am sure the Dissenters thank'd the Late King for nothing but what our present King and Parliament have Confirmed to them as the likeliest way to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection as the Preamble of the Act speaks and if there was any thing in that Liberty that was serviceable to the Papists it must be in the manner of giving it not in the thing it self as far as we are concerned in it and if the Episcopal Party had been so wise as to have promoted a legal Comprehension when it was in their Power they had disabled the Papists from serving themselves of any Liberty of ours As to the Second That Dissenters writ so little against Popery in the Late Reign it may be very easily accounted for They have sufficiently demonstrated their Abhorrence of Popery at all times and their Leading Men as Mr. Baxter Mr. Pool and the Preachers of the Morning Lecture have acquitted themselves very well in the Confutation of it and Malice it self cannot really believe that they are in the least favourable to the Romish Heresie the Crime that has been generally objected against them has been their too great aversation and distance from it As for the late Discourses upon that Subject that are so much boasted of it is observable that most of them were begun upon Personal Engagements The Preface to the Exam. of the Council of Trent by Catholick Tradition as one of the Principal Managers thereof acknowledges There is says he a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one discourse gives occasion for another c. Now in such Cases it would not been have decent for a Third Person to have stept in and invaded another mans Province Besides there was no manner of Necessity for it the Papists in England have been a baffled party for some Ages and their Errors so often exposed that it
exprest far different Sentiments concerning us and we hope we shall never do any thing to forfeit their Friendly respect but be always as ready to return as receive it I must not omit what this Gentleman has replyed to the Vindicator concerning the Penal Laws as they have been executed upon Protestant Dissenters He pretends they reclaimed many and did a great deal towards bringing English Protestants to Uniformity it was well he did not say to Unity for that had been one of the grossest Fallacies in the World And I will not deny but that many Dissenters went to Church when they had no where else to go their Ministers being some in Prison others beyond Sea and many not daring to shew their Heads and perhaps some of them were forced by those severe Proceedings to comply further than their Consciences could well allow and such kind of Conversions the French Dragoons may boast of too but it is nevertheless certain that these things tend to alienate the Minds of Men one from another and the present numbers of Dissenters may convince him such Methods will never effect a general Unity and it was some years ago observed in Parliament by an Honourable Person That neither the Oxford Act 1680. Coll. of Debates p. 211. nor that of the thirty fifth of the Queen nor any other had ever been executed in favour of the Church that Dissenters were as many if not more than ever And the present Bishop of Worcester will tell this Gentleman Charge in his Primary Visitation p. 25 26. That distance and too great stiffness of behaviour towards Dissenters have made some of them more their Enemies than they would have been That Persecution was a Popular Argument for them the Complaining side having always the most pitty but now that is taken off says he you may deal with them upon more equal Terms Some think Severity makes men consider I am afraid it heats them too much and makes them too violent and refractory That this Gentleman may see that not the Vindicator only but the most eminent Fathers of the Church of England condemn the Severities that have been used towards Protestant Dissenters and how unbecoming as well as imprudent a thing it is in him to justifie them I shall leave their own Words to his Consideration The present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Honours the Metropolitane See more than he can be honoured by it in a Fast Sermon before the Queen Sept. 16 1691. speaking of the Clergy expresses himself thus And it can never be sufficiently lamented no though it were with Tears of Blood that we whose particular Charge and Imployment it is to build up the Souls of men in a Holy Faith and in the Resolution of a good Life should for want of due Instruction and by the Dissolute and Profligate Lives of too many amongst us and by inflaming our needless differences about lesser things have so great a hand in the pulling down Religion and in betraying the Souls of men c. The Bishop of Worcester in his Visliation Charge acknowledges that the Persecution of Dissenters was promoted by the Papists his Words are I hope they are now convinced that the Persecution which they complained lately so much of was carried on by other men and for other designs than they would then seem to believe Indeed we always thought the Papists had the chief hand in it and we are glad others begin to see it None has spoke more freely to this matter than the Bishop of Sarum in his Observations upon Ridleys Letter to Hooper P. 4. he puts this Objection But when the Clergy of the Church of England saw that good and great Men and the glorious Martyrs of Jesus Christ such as Hooper was were offended with these Ceremonies they should have used their utmost endeavours to have gotten them discharged by Law as they were impos'd by Law and not have left them to remain as a standing offence and a perpetual stumbling block to all others of Hoopers mind Now to this he Answers This I confess would be an Objection very much to the Prejudice of the Church of England could it not be truly said that the Clergy did heartily endeavour to procure this ease to scrupulous Consciences though without success for all the eminent Bishops of England in Queen Elizabeths time did labour in this Point and could not prevail with the Queen to Consent to it And a little further blaming the Nonconformists for crying out so much of Persecution excuses it thus If any man take my right hand and therewith bruise and batter my left hand is my right hand therefore become a Persecutor Is it not really persecuted as well as the other and has it not a fellow-feeling and share of the Misery and in his Exhortation to Peace and Union God be thanked for it that there is an End put to all Persecution in matters of Religion P. 27. and that the first and chief right of Humane Nature of following the dictates of Conscience in the Service of God is secured to all men amongst us and that we are freed I hope for ever of all the Remnants of the worst part of Popery I mean the Spirit of Persecution The Seven Bishops in their Petition to the late King declared they would not be wanting in due Tenderness to Dissenters but willingly come to such a temper as should be thought fit when the matter should come to be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation and about the time of the P. of Orange's Landing all their discourse was of Union Comprehension insomuch as that a Reverend Prelate told a dissenting Minister He need never to fear Persecution from the Church of England again adding If any such thing should ever happen let me be accounted a false Prephet I hope these Gentlemen will not give us occasion to say as Demades the Orator was wont to say of the Athenians That they never came to consult of Peace nisi atrati but in Mourning under some Publick Calamity or Danger Our gracious Soveraign when P. of Orange in his Declaration promised to endeavour a good Agreement between the Church of England and all Protestant Dissenters and to cover and secure all those who would live peaceably under the Government from all persecution upon the account of their Religion and has all along strictly adhered to that Royal Promise and Design and in pursuance thereof encircled with his Lords and Commons in Parliament has given us our present Indulgence as that which the Wisdom of the Nation judged the likeliest way to Unite us all in Interest and Affection and I hope the Sentiments of all these will more than ballance what our Gentleman has offered to Vindicate the Execution of the Penal Laws and he must be a man of more than ordinary assurance that durst take upon him to oppose his private peevish opinion to such an august and venerable Determination This Gent. as well as