juxta Graecam scilicet versionem respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc autem seu Gubernationis judicanâ—…ique munere inquit Theod. ornati sunt Septuag illi ut constaret populo divinum munus illos consecutos quaedam statim praedixâ—…runt Quod quidem receptior Magistrorum sensui per quam consonum Selden de Synod l. 2. c. 4. Prophets were inspired to be the Rulers of the Nation which I hope these Gentlemen will not as yet pretend to They were all acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the case of our Nonconformists If the Spirit should so rest upon them that they could not forbear preaching he were abundantly worse than Joshua that should complain to my Lord Moses tho it were in the Camp or the stable Eldad and Medad were two of the Seventy designed for government I wish these Gentlemen could afford as good a proof of their Authority to preach They were left behind in the †Duo remanent Eld. Medad non imperii negligentes sed humilitate submissi dum se honore arbitrantur indignos Hieron Ep. ad Fabiol Camp and there the Spirit rested upon them which was a sufficient proof to Moses that God had admitted them to the government altho absent from the Tabernacle Especially considering that they were of them that were written so that he might not exclude them And therefore Mr. H. does impertinently alledge in this case 1 Cor. 14.32 That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the * Theod. quaerit Eldad Medad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipseque respondet eos fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets Neither can he find that any of them scrupled or refused that Religious impertinence of coming to the Tabernacle or to join with the rest in full communion which had been the most eminent circumstance in the whole affair to his purpose Nay lastly the business was chiefly secular and distinct from that which did more peculiarly belong to the Ecclesiastical body and therefore there could be nothing in this case to illustrate the business of Schism But why is this the only Text that occurs in the old Testament Persons of far greater learning and authority in the Church have made use of several others I hope you will say not impertinently when I give you their names That of Aaron and Miriam has been thought by some not wholly unfit to illustrate the nature of Schism they taking occasion from the infirmity of Moses to lessen his authority Ains in loc and to raise their own as Mr. Ainsworth intending no doubt to draw the people from him And therefore their sin is called Aemulation by Clemens Romanus and by him applyed to the latter Schism of the Corinthians as Schism is usually the child and companion of Aemulation which made the Corinthians Schismaticks and their Leaders to break communion with and to rebel against their lawful Presbyters as Aaron and Miriam did against Moses and the people of Israel themselves are taught subjection to the Priests and Levites lest God should do to them as he did to Miriam Deut. 24.8 9. inflict the same punishment for the like fault From which reasoning in St. Clemens it is plain he reckoned Schism in the Church to be like Sedition in the State something more than barely a breach of Charity Vid. opt l. 7. That of Jannes and Jambres was urged by the Donatists your Predecessors against the Catholicks who did not disown the way of arguing but only set the instances right by comparing Jannes and Jambres with the Donatiss and the Church with Moses whom they withstood And St. Paul did not think so slightly of this instance when he alledged it in his 2d. Epistle to Timothy against the Gnostic Schismaticks who led captive silly women laden with sins Vid. Hammonâ—… in loc Clem. Rom. p. 120. Optat. cont Parm. l. 6. p. 167. who did not only break charity but resisted the truth 2 Tim. 3.6 7 8. That of Korah Dathan and Abiram is thought fit to be used by St. Jude v. 11. concerning the Gnostic Separatists v. 9. By St. Clemens against the Corinthians By Optatus against the Donatists calling 'em their wretched Masters the dividers of the people the Masters of the first Schism the Schismatics viz. your Masters c. And yet to Mr. M. H. it does not occur These instances and many more of the like sort produced by St. Clemens and others as that of Cain and Abel Jacob and Esau Joseph and his Brethren Moses and the quarrelling Hebrew c. tho not all of them designed to run upon all four as the Vindicator speaks p. 40. Yet being alledged against Schismatics are intended some to shew the mischiefs of Aemulation and faction which are always the ingredients of Schism Others more nearly to signify the pernicious nature and heinous guilt of making parties in opposition to lawful authority or to contend with them that are truly our Superiors in the Church and by this way of arguing we may learn that according to the sentiments of those primitive worthies Schismatics are guilty of Aemulation which must necessarily be betwixt divided parties and Interests and consequently where there is Schism there is likewise a breach of Communion And secondly that it is in opposition to our Ecclesiastical Governors This must necessarily be the Sense of those who use this way of reasoning but neither of these things could be imputed to Eldad and Medad and therefore their notion of Schism could not be the same with Mr. M. H's and that is I suppose the reason why he neither makes use of their Instances nor they of his By his exception against those Texts which obliged the Jews to worship as he says only in one place viz. at Jerusalem Mod. Enq. p. 3. And to offer only upon that Altar a man will be apt to conclude him extreamly ignorant in the Religion of the Jews and the mystical reasonings upon which it was built To say nothing as yet of our own how far it has any relation to it He supposes first of all that the Jews were bound to worship at one place viz at Jerusalem and secondly that this obligation is vacated by that Gospel rule which wills us to pray every where Enq. p. 3. Which two things if they be true as he supposes then the Male Jews never prayed at all but when they came to Jerusalem Ibid. viz. 3 times a Year at the Feast of Unleavened bread the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles which methinks is a very scandalous account of the Jewish devotion but the whole assertion is false The Jews had their Proseuchae every where without the Cities their Synagogues within the Tabernacle was at Shiloh there was an Altar at Mount Ebal Samuel sacrificed at Mispeh and in Zuph in Gilgal and in Bethlehem Elijah at Mount Carmel They had their daily Sacrifices of the Sabbaths and of the new Moons Nor is it easy
by those before whom he shall have his Tryal provided it be not less than Five Pounds nor exceeding the Sum of Fifty Pounds In this Act they have an Eye to those that might preach it into Contempt So that it was not of such value in the Eyes of their own Ministers but several of those who were at that time in possession of the Pulpits might possibly fall away and preach against it And as for the Service of the Church Men were so far from totally neglecting it that after Ten Years suspension of the Penal Laws they found it necessary to discourage it He that used the Book of Common-Prayer was to be adjudged scandalous ejected out of his Living and expelled the whole Parish for fear lest he should make an Interest against the new Modes So that here it seems Fines Imprisonments and Exile were found as necessary to support the Presbyterian and Independant Worship as the Church-Liturgy and People were then as true to the latter as either Mr. H. or his Vindicator can be to the former But why are Penal Laws only the Props of controverted Ceremonies Vind. p. 2. The Papists as well as other Dissenters were obnoxious to the same Laws as this Gentleman may well remember since they joined their Interest and Malice to have them repeal'd and yet I hope he will not say that the Papists were ever punish'd for not complying with Ceremonies nor can it be reasonably affirm'd concerning their Fellow-Sufferers unless frequenting the Church and receiving the Sacraments disturbing Ministers and holding Conventicles Things which the Penal Laws do principally regard are no more but Ceremonies i. e. in the language of this modest Gentleman all Trifles pag. 2. and Religious Impertinencies pag. 13. I shall not trouble my self with giving further Reasons for the execution of those Laws nor to shew him that Religion has been preserved by such under most Christian Emperors for having shewn it to be the practice of their own R. Parliament and Oliver I suppose it is instar omnium and will go farther with this Vindicator to make it authentick than all the examples from Constantine to our own Age. It will be more proper for us to enquire into Mr. H's peaceable design and how he has managed the Weapon viz. the Notion of Schism which he lately wrested out of the Gladiator's hand Vind. p. 4. it being certainly a matter of no small importance for if his account be so clear as this Gent. makes it all Church Discipline is out of doors their own as well as ours and a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting-house without any guilt if breach of Communion be no Schism as these Gent. alledge But if his account be not clear or his Notion defective or a false signification imposed upon the word Schism then he has acquitted no body the sober moderate and peaceable must come to Church still and only the worst sort of Bigotts remain in the Conventicle The management of this business being therefore of such grand importance upon both accounts let us see how the little Champion has weilded his weapon We have some reason in the first place to question the peaceableness of his design for the Notion it self being contrived to encourage and justifie Separation I am afraid the last result and consequence of it will not be Peace Suppose a Man should introduce the same Doctrine into the State and tell People that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies That they need not own the present Government nor submit to King William's Laws they may govern themselves by a distinct Politie of their own they may be for King James or a Commonwealth according to their several apprehensions The Nature and Rights of Government are things dark and obscure and withal so trivial and light that it is not material what Form of Government or Person prevails so that diversity of Opinion Judgment or Apprehension cannot be call'd or lookt upon in it self a thing criminal Mr. H's Enqu p. 7. provided they still preserve Charity King William will never be so cruel as to hang 'em only because their heads are not exactly of his size ib. p. 19. I fancy those who are at the helm would scarce be persuaded that his designs were peaceable tho' he should second this Discourse with the most earnest persuasions to Charity And if Mr. H. or any body else should attempt to debauch 'em with such anarchical Principles he would be reckoned a mover of Sedition rather than a healer of Breaches and perhaps meet with such a Confutation as the best Vindicator he has would not know what to say to And his attempt is not much better with relation to the Church it being not easy to conceive how he that sets People at liberty to divide and break into Parties as Mr. H. does can be a promoter of Peace for if it be lawful for People to separate and break into Parties there will be no longer any Union than while their Interests and perhaps their Humors as well as their Principles oblige them to it When the several Religious Interests once come to interfere the Parties themselves will fall out and while they are striving for the mastery not only ruin the Ecclesiastical but likewise endanger the Civil Peace Of this we had sufficient experience in the former Confusions when the moderate as well as the fierce were engaged in the Cause and every Man lent a Coal to enflame the Controversy The moderate and peaceable Presbyterian one that had obtained that character among all that knew him could nevertheless tell the world in his Epistle That Churches were not to be own'd after the independent mâ—…de for it would lay the foundation of strife and division in the Kingdom to have two ways of Church-Government which may agree with some Machiavilian but no Christian Policy c. And the Parliament was applauded by another moderate Gent. Because they endeavoured to fence the Vineyard with a setled Militia and then to gather out the Malignants as Stones Cotton upon the first of the Canticles and to make a Winepress therein for the squeezing of Delinquents And the mild Independent is the very same when he comes to be uppermost Good Kings ought to put upon their People Laws and strait binding to the Purity of Religion and the Worship of God It is not an Impeachment to their Christian Liberty as the Anabaptists do vainly talk but an Ornament to their Beauty making their Necks comely as with a Chain of Gold They were not only to chide the Money-changers but to whip them away and overthrow the very Tables lest they should recover their Trade again Dagon is begun to fall before the Ark his Head is off Mr. Bridge but let not so much as the stump remain And if the like disorders should happen again I am very much afraid lest these two charitable Gentlemen Mr. H. and his Vindicator would become as
great Incendiaries as any of the former Mr. H. already is not without grains of malice too often sprinkled among his Charity And as for the Vindicator he is all o're spite and from the beginning of his Book throughout by his false and malicious Suggestions he breaks the Laws of Charity and shews himself a Schismatick according to his own Notion Nay at last when he draws towards a Conclusion lest his Readers should not have noted his many spiteful Reflections he takes care to put them in mind with a great deal of boasting Insolence how roughly i. e. how maliciously he has treated T. W. p. 90. From such Men who are so uncharitable even while they pretend the contrary and such Notions which introduce Anarchy Confusion and Licentiousness little Peace is to be expected whatever is design'd We know it is too much the custom of Politicians to cry Peace Peace even when they mean nothing less and every Man that has but the sense of the Kid in the Fable will easily perceive in the present Case that altho' it may be the voice of the Goat which we hear yet it is really the Wolf that stands at the door Nor is Mr. H. more unfortunate in his Methods of peace than he is in the description of Schism It is certainly the latest that has been coined and perhaps the wildest that ever any man father'd upon the Scriptures or offer'd to set up in contradiction to the received opinion of Sixteen hundred years He tells us p. 15. that Schism is an uncharitable distance division or alienation of affections among those who are called Christians and agree in the fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things From which description of Schism if I understand it right these following particulars may be regularly drawn First of all That he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian For Mr. H. tells us that Schism is among those who are called Christians Secondly Thaâ—… Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. supposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the fundamentals of Religion So that the grossest Hereticks are excus'd from Schism which falls heaviest upon those who differ about the smallest things which is all one as if he should have said the less the fault is the greater the crime For instance If people diviâ—…e from the Church because they will not own the divinity of our Saviour or the doctrine of the Trinity these people are no Schismaticks because they differ in fundamentals but if two Gentlewomen of his own Congregation should happen to fall out and carry at a distance because they could not agree about the upper end of a Seat in Mr. H's Meeting-house this would be the horrid crime of Schism the Arch rebel against God according to every branch of the aforesaid description Thirdly Another inference to be made from it is that alienation of affections is Schism but a division and alienation of Communion is not And consequently no one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his heart It being impossible to know according to this description that people are really Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in charity except we could make enquiry into the secrets of their hearts and discover every thing transacted there And on the contrary people may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward professions of Charity and yet no body can accuse them with that fault If these propositions be duly inferr'd from Mr. H's description I believe he will not find many that will join with the Vindicator in his commendation of it And as for the clearness he talks of there are so many ambiguities still remaining as perhaps may trouble another inquirer to explain to us As 1st Whether the uncharitable distance must really be among those who are Christians or them that are none for people many times call things by wrong names Secondly What he means by fundamentals of Religion Whether salutis or theologicae veritatis Whether those that are so to every man in his private capacity Or those which are the fundamentals of Church Communion Thirdly What he means by little things Whether division of affection about all manner of little things be Schism Or only about Ecclesiastical little things the trifles and Religious impertinencies which the Vindicator so frequently despises The clearing of these particulars had been of no small importance in this controversy and therefore if the describer had been pleased to have explained them to us his notion might have been abundantly clearer than it is But perhaps the Vindicator does not take this description for the clear account and that may be the reason why he minces and alters it himself p. 80. Whether for the better or the worse I shall not say Perhaps the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does the business and the import of those words is the only thing of which he has given us a clear account Vind. p. 4. Let us therefore take a review of that enquiry and see whether there be any just occasion for such mighty boasting Mr. H. tells us p. 4. that there is but one Scripture in the old Testament relating to this affair viz. Numb 11.26 When I observe that if this Text be nothing to the purpose then there is none and consequently either the Jewish Church was in no danger of Schism at least wise not infested with it Or else the inspired writings are seemingly defective that have not one word relating to it And furthermore it is to be noted that in this text there is no mention of any division or alienation of affections and therefore unless it is to be found in some other place which Mr. H. denies there is not one old Testament Schismatick in the whole Bible Or lastly if there were any such guilt among them it could not be of the same nature with that which Mr. H. determines to be the only Schism among Christians But if all or most of these consequences be false or absurd they will give us some occasion to suspect the ingenuity and truth of his first account As to the instance he gives us about Eldad and Medad prophesying in the Camp it is methinks extreamly forreign to this controversy They were to bear the weight of government with Moses under God and to assure both Moses and the people of their Commission from Heaven had the miraculous impulse of prophesie before the Congregation as a full and certain evidence of their newly received authority This prophecying was intended for a sign as appears v. 23 24. and therefore how either the Enquirer or Vindicator can make it a repraesentutive of their preachings I cannot imagine These * Theodoretus ad quaestionem undenam evenirit Septuaginta statui ut praefecti sunt prophetasse postea vero minime
the dignity of a Doctor And altho' some of those ancient Heretics could dispense with Fornication yet they dissuaded People from Marriage teaching them that it was of the Devil That we ought to own our Saviour in times of the greatest persecution is a great Gospel-Truth Luke 12.9 and yet the Corinthian Schismatics taught and practis'd otherwise which Doctrin and Practice St. Paul is likewise thought to oppose chap. 3. ver 11 c. and went so far as to partake of the Idol Sacrifices according to their worldly wisdom that they might escape persecution which made the Apostle argue that point cap. 8. and to determin so peremptorily and severely cap. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils I might give you several other instances of the Gnostick heresy too rife at that time in the Corinthian Church but these surely are sufficient to prove against Mr. H. that they were not all agreed in the great Gospel-Truths Now Heresy includes Schism as it breaks the unity of the Faith one of the indispensible requisites to the unity of the Church And therefore the Corinthian Hereticks being Schismatics likewise i.e. disjointed and loose from the body of the Church the Apostle bids 'em be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well-jointed and compacted in the Church Again in the same mind and in the same judgment i. e by uniting themselves to it both in affection and principles a work surely to be done while men are in this world and if it be not Mr. H. will find it too late when he enters into another I have only two things further to note under this particular First That the Apostle charging the Corinthians to be perfectly join'd together in the same mind and in the same judgment or opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is strange how Mr. H. could observe that they were not obliged to think the same thing And secondly That this Text relating so plainly to difference in apprehension even according to his own exposition it is no less unaccountable to me why it might not as well have been reduced under that head as any one of those which he alledged to that purpose Secondly We must enquire into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this caution which he tells us we have v. 11 12. There were contentions among them v. 11. Now the contention was about their Ministers as Mr. H. assures us p. 11. But I would ask him first of all was there no miscarriage antecedent to that contnetion Yes surely their heretical and wicked opinions which occasioned the antecedent caution viz. That ye all speak the same things In these the Schism was founded and they were probably the occasion of their ascribing themselves to Paul and Apollos and Cephas and Christ For where difference in opinion occasions debates among people not only the merits of the cause but likewise the original of each party and the means of knowing what they pretend to teach others are very frequently enquired into Thus it was in our Saviour's case when he taught something new and extraordinary beyond the common rate of their ordinary Scribes Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works Is not this the Carpenters son Is not his Mother called Mary c And are not his Sisters all with us Whence then hath this man all these things Mat. 13.54 55 56. And there seems to be abundantly more occasion for the like enquiry in the case of the Corinthians as will appear if we consider the circumstances of those early times when this Epistle was written especially what means of knowledge the Corinthians then had and what proofs they might make use of to evince the truth or falshood of any Doctrine in debate They could not have the writings of the New Testament this Epistle being one of the first And it may reasonably be conjectured perhaps proved that of that little which was then written they had seen nothing For neither in their Epistle to St. Paul so far as St. Paul alludes to it neither in his to them is there the least intimation of any such thing And yet in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Gospel of St. Matthew which were of a prior date had they been in their hands they might have found the resolution of some of those cases which they put to the Apostle and therefore saved themselves the labour of that part of their appeal And as for the writings of the Old Testament there were two sorts of errors not to mention any more which were not easily confuted by their authority One was touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection which altho it might be proved from the Old Testament yet the Gnostics who denyed it may reasonably be supposed to have learnt from the Sadduces some of their first Masters how to evade those proofs and as for the other Judaizing Doctrines the Old Testament did so far seem to countenance them that it was not likely that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be able to prove it otherwise And therefore it might become the skill and authority of the great Apostle himself to shew the contrary And as the Corinthians had not the assistance of the written rule either for information or proof in these cases so both must be derived from their Teachers either in word or writing For instruction besides what they had learned from our Saviour and his Apostles they had their Prophets and Evangelists continually among them who being endued with the Spirit were thereby qualified to instruct and educate the younger converts in the Doctrines of the Gospel and from these the Corinthians received their common Instructions But as the Orthodox Prophets had their true inspirations so the Heretical Teachers pretended to the same and as the former had their true miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrines so the latter had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their lying wonders for the confirmation of theirs to deceive if it were possible the very elect And that which made it still more difficult for the ordinary Corinthians to judge betwixt them was because both parties continued in the same communion the Heretics not daring to go out i. e. to separate from the Church till a considerable time after this when many of the Apostles were dead Now where both sides were equal in order pretended to the same inspirations the same miracles and lived in the same communion the proof of each Doctrine must depend upon the credit and authority of those persons from whom it was derived If from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts well learned in the Christian doctrines highly approved and dignified by the Apostles as Apollos was it was of the last great authority Thus St. Paul recommends the authority of the houshold of Stephanas as being the most early Converts in that Region
betwixt those that were genuine and those that were otherwise The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand which is the token in every Epistle c. 3.17 And if this was the practice of the primitive Heretics both before and after the writing of this Epistle to the Corinthians we may reasonably suppose that they did not wholly omit it at this time And therefore I see no reason but rather a great deal to the contrary why any body should be blamed for saying I am of Paul c. save only those Hereticks 'T is not to be supposed that the Orthodox complained of themselves for if they knew themselves herein faulty they might easily have reformed without ever acquainting the Apostle with it And it is something remarkable how Clemens * Clem. Ep. ad Corinth pag. 110. Edit Lond. 1687. Romanus aggravates the latter Schism of the Corinthians by extenuating this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But that siding was less criminal for then ye took part with the Apostles who had born their testimony and a man highly approved by them but now what kind of men are they that have turned you aside c. From which words it is plain That as the latter Schismatics were all of a Party so were the former And therefore the being of Paul and Apollos and Cephas c. is comprehended by St. Clemens under one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that according to the circumstances of those times the reasonings of the Apostle and the account of Clemens Romanus they were all of one Party whom the Apostle reprehends for saying I am of Paul c. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them those who had seen and heard our Saviour pretended to be of Christ i. e. to have received theirs from St. Paul and St. Peter the elder Converts among the rest who had been baptized by Apollos to derive theirs from him So that the Schism of the Corinthians lay in opposing the sound and orthodox Doctors maintaining their wild Heresies under the pretence and umbrage of these great names and all other Heretics who altho' they forsook not the Communion of the Church yet making a Separation within it and forming a Party against the truth and opposing their Orthodox Governors have been reputed Schismatics upon the very same account in all Ages Having thus far given an account of the Corinthian Schism which will do but little service to Mr. H's Notion let us now take a further view of his Enquiry and consider how ingeniously he manages the matter He tells you That Schisms and Contentions are one and the same thing as if Schism and Contention had been convertible terms and every one that contends tho' for the greatest Truths against the most pernicious Heresies were for that reason a Schismatic Mr. H. might as well and as truly have said That Schisms and Factions are the same thing because St. Paul calls them likewise by that name But however to lay the greater Emphasis upon the word Contentions he adds 't is worth noting that Clemens Romanus in that famous Epistle of his to the Corinthians still calls Schisms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentions En◠p. 11. Now from this Note of Mr. H's I hope he will give me leave to make another which is that Mr. M. H. never read that famous Epistle For tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes used in that famous Writer yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other words by which St. Clemens means Schism As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 110 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 108. Edit Lond. 1687. are brought in more frequently but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural scarcely once in that whole Epistle But Mr. H. being a modest as well as an ingenious person was it seems contented to steal a Note out of Mr. Pool's Synopsis rather than undergo the drudgery and Greek of that famous Epistle 'T is strange how Mr. H. in the next Paragraph should say The Contention was about their Ministers Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this and it would have been a strange wild fancy in any Corinthian not to be contented with any other Minister excepting only him If Mr. H's Congregation at the next Election of a Minister should be divided into four Parties and one of them be for Christ and no one else I fancy the rest would conclude that either they were not right in their wits or else that it is purely a trick to have none at all And besides it would be hard for Mr. H. to assign any reason why any body should prefer Paul or Apollos or Cephas before Christ I always thought our Saviour might have had the preference And among all the wild Opinions of that Age I believe neither Mr. H. nor his Vindicator can name one Heretic who ever professed himself to be for Paul c. rather than for Christ He tells you That he that was of Apollos was as much a Schismatic as he that was of Paul which is very true tho' not for the reason which he gives They were all of one side against the Orthodox There being not four Parties among the Corinthians as Mr. H. fancies St. Paul himself makes but two viz. the Orthodox and Heretics as is plain from that part of his salutation ver 2. To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours He tells you pag. 12. That if one went to hear Paul and another went to near Apollos that did not make a Schism no nor if one communicated with Paul and another with Apollos which is certainly true for it would have been no more Schism to hear and communicate as aforesaid than it would be among us to communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London But I would fain know of Mr. H. how they must at that time hear and communicate with St. Paul who was then in Asia how with Christ who was then in Heaven There was no occasion for silencing either Apollos or Cephas for they were of the same mind with St. Paul and the other orthodox Doctors And yet there might be occasion enough to silence some of the schismatical Teachers who made use of their Names to give a reputation to their own Heresies and accordingly you find the Apostle threatning them 2 Cor. 13.2 Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to all other that if I come again I will not spare And in the 10th Verse Therefore I write these things being absent lest being present I should use sharpness according to the power which the Lord hath given me c. which power was not only to silence but to excommunicate those Teachers and inflict that further punishment which then attended those Censures and accordingly the incestuous Doctor was to be so dealt with by the
may be collected from the next verse out of countenance and ashamed 'T is pretty to see Mr. H. bringing in his little things here again as tho Heresies v. 10. to violate the pious design of a feast of Charity v. 20. to be drunken themselves and starve the Poor v. 21. to expose their poverty and put them out of countenance and all this in the Church at their Agapae or feasts of charity were to pass under the title of little things If there had been any quarrels among 'em these according to the Apostle must have been the occasions which surely cannot be little things in the opinion of any man who has not himself a very large Conscience The reason why the Apostle bids them tarry one for another ver 33. was that they might have communion by eating together and not according to their rude and irregular practice take every one before other his own Supper But it is unreasonable to conclude That they quarrelled about the time of their meeting For altho' the time were fully agreed on by every mans consent yet unless all Clocks c. went alike in those days and all mens speed were equal some would come sooner and others later as well as they do now and the first might devour what they themselves brought before such times as the rest could be there to partake with them I shall observe only two things more before I pass to the next Scripture 1. That Mr. H. in his account of this very ingeniously passes over the next and immediate Context ver 21. For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you Now suppose that any man should infer hence that the Schism mentioned ver 20. was occasioned by their Heresies that their Divisions were only into Sects and Parties some being orthodox and some otherwise as it is among us and that hence proceeded the other irregular practices I would fain know what he has to say to the contrary And 2dly It may perhaps try the wit of Mr. H. and his Brethren to give a clear account how St. Paul's reasonings ver 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 and 32 can any way quadrate or be reconciled to his Notion And yet they must be all brought in or else the 33d verse quoted and urg'd by him will bear no manner of relation to the 18th which he designs it to interpret The last place Mr. H. mentions is 1 Cor. 12.25 That there be no Schism in the body I shall pass over his Remarks p. 14. it being sufficient for us that he is pleased to acknowledge pag. 15. that to be Schism which breaks or stockens the bond by which the members are knit together which thing is so notoriously done by separation and breach of communion that whoever is guilty of that may according to Mr. H's Assertion justly be charged with Schism That Bond he tells us is not an Act of Uniformity neither say I is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence And therefore notwithstanding the late Act nay tho' we should have no Act of Vniformity yet all this would not excuse Mr. H. and his Vindicator from being Schismatics according to his own Argument True Love and Charity in point of Affection as Mr. H. assures us is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together And Schism is that which breaks that Bond. That Schism does usually break Charity no man will deny Mr. H. and his Party are sufficient instances of this truth as those persons who have the zeal and courage to oppose their Faction do always find when ever they fall into their hands And that Love and Charity is likewise a means to prevent Schisms as it always pays a just deference to all spiritual Governors cools and abates the violence of Faction makes People humble obedient and docible and causes all to endeavor after peace and unity we do readily acknowledge and for this reason both the Apostles and others have all along in their discourses about Schism pressed men to Charity as a necessary means to bring them over to conformity and unity with a sound and orthodox Church But to infer hence That Charity in point of Affection is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together and that Schism consequently is nothing else but Vncharitableness are Positions only fit for Mr. H. to assert and the Vindicator to justify St. Paul does not say as Mr. H. falsly quotes him That it is the unity of the Spirit that is the bond of peace Eph. 4.3 but exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace so that the bond of peace must needs be something more than barely the unity of the Spirit And by the unity of the Spirit more is certainly to be understood than only Charity as appears by the References made to it in the Context ver 4.7 11 c. which thorowly considered makes this Text little or nothing to Mr. H's purpose And withal it is to be remembred that the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together besides Charity viz. they are incorporated into one society one body as well as animated by one spirit ver 4. united in one hope of their blessed calling ibid. united as Subjects to the same Lord as Professors of one and the same Faith initiated into the same Mysteries and Partners in the same Covenant by one and the same Baptism and united by our union and communion with the orthodox Governors and Pastors of the Church which St. Paul tells us were given us for the perfecting of the Saints or according to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the compacting or knitting together of the Saints ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the edifying or building up of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith c. unto a perfect man c. that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive ver 13 14. From all which it appears that Mr. H. is for one Doctrine and St. Paul for another and therefore having laid both opinions before the Reader I freely leave it to his own choice whether of the two he will follow Charity is certainly the bond of perfectness but what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 3.14 Mr. H. has not informed us which surely he ought to have done before he had made any inference from these words whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mercifulness Hammond in loc as it does Luke 6.36 or perfectness in all the duties of Christianity Charity may either way be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bond of it for Charity is a very large and comprehensive virtue The Apostle tells us it is the fulfilling
talk of Lewd and Extravagan Caresses between Ambitious Princes and Aspiring Churchmen Vind. p. 28. while those of his own Party are extant and may be seen Though it should be granted That Ceremonies have no Moral Goodness in them as he says is acknowledged p 28. yet Decency has which we think will not easily be preserv'd without them and that it is fit they should be chosen and impos'd by the Authority and Wisdom of Superiours For if otherwise Religious Offices were to be perform'd according to the Opinion and Will of every Rude and Phantastical Person we see by the Practice of Conventicles where that Liberty is taken how awkardly they would be manag'd to the great Scandal and Offence of the more Ingenious and Sober People Nor is it easilie to be imagined That God Almighty should be better pleas'd with the Rudeness of their Worship than with the Decency of ours Especially considering That besides the Practice of the Church in all Ages we have the Injunction of the Apostle That all things be done decently and are to Worship God with our Bodies as well as with our Souls which are God's As to the Ceremonies of our Church in particular they are so few and easie that he must certainly be a Man of more than ordinary Peevishness or less than ordinary Sence that can take 'em for Incumbrances upon the Worship of God The Vindicator himself upon Second Thoughts will not under pretence of Spirituality Vind. p. 38. reject the Natural Decorum of an Action in the Worship of God which I am very glad to hear And if he will but do One Thing more viz. allow the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation to be fitter Judges of that Decorum than every mean and half-witted Pastor there would be very little more requir'd from him I am confident when this is done that people will be better reconcil'd to our Ceremonies than to suffer themselves to be Excommunicated and Damn'd for not complying with them as the Vindicator talks page 28. In the mean time if any Man be so stiff and peevish or malicious against the Church as to deprave her Ceremonies and so far despises her Jurisdiction and Government that he will not vouchssafe an Appearance to the most Legal Summons nor yield to the most Reasonable and Just Monitions in that Case she does pursue our Saviour's Rule He that neglects to hear the Church we think ought to be reckon'd as an Heathen Man and a Publican or in the Language of the UNITED MINISTERS When all due Means for the reducing him prove ineffectual Heads of Agreement Tit. 3. Sect. 4. he having hereby cut himself off from the Church's Communion the Church may justly esteem and declare it self discharg'd of any further Inspection over him And in this practice the mildest Protestant Churches agree with us Eccles Dis of the Reform Churches of France transl into Eng. 1642. The Reformed Churches of France having us'd a Coercive Power over their inferiour Members Those that should stir up Strife or Contention to disâ—…oyn or break the Vnion of their Church concerning some Point of their Doctrine or Discipline or about the Method Matter or Stile of the Catechism though of Humane Composition or the Administration of the Sacraments Publick Prayers c. shall be censur'd as Rebellious Persons And in case they will not renounce their Errors then they are to be cut off from the Church If the Pastor or Elder do it he shall presently be suspended from his Charge and Imployment and be proceeded against at the next Ecclesiastical Synod If he teaches False Doctrine and persists after Admonition If he is not obedient to the Admonition of the Consistory or Convicted of Heresie Schism or Rebellion against Ecclesiastical Order he is to be depos'd If he thrusts himself into the Ministry where there is pure preaching already and will not deâ—…it when warn'd of it he is to be quite cut off and proceeded against as the Synod shall think fit And the same Course is to be taken with all his Followers And at the End of that Book we are told That this Order and Discipline had been resolv'd and concluded on by no less than Twenty Seven National Synods from 1559 to 1637 c. Now if these Reformed Churches of France were not to be Censur'd as Uncharitable for the Establishment and Exercise of this Discipline I know no Reason why ours should lie under that imputation In the next Paragraph he finds fault with T. W's Notion of of the Communion of Saints but gives none of his own whether for fear lest he should mistake or lest his own Party should be condemn'd by it I shall not now enquire It is certainly a nice Point for Separatists to manage It being hard for those that neither Pray with nor receive the Sacraments nor live under the Government of any Church to Demonstrate plainly how they hold Communion with all as this Vindicator confidently pretends However though he could establish nothing himself yet that he may do something towards finding fault with T. W. he proceeds to examine his aggregate description of the Communion of Saints which he tells you consists of these things First A firm belief of all the Articles of Faith contain'd in the Apostolical Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Now this mightily offends him 1st Because it was not said in Scripture as if he that believes those Creeds did not believe Scripture Those Creeds tho of human composition Symbolum Apost exigi coepit ubi variae Haereses in Ecclesiam irruperant Voss de tribus Symb. Dis 1. c. 14. yet are according to Scripture and contain the Faith into which Christians are Baptized They are the Symbola wherein the Orthodox of all Countreys agree and whereby they have distinguished themselves in several Ages from those Hereticks which did not assent to them The two former have been generally received and admitted into the Liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches and therefore it is strange how the Vindicator can suppose that the Greek and other Eastern Churches are shut out by this condition of Communion 'T is true in the Article of the Procession they objected against the Latins the addition of Filioque in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed and perhaps not untruly considering that in the old Ordo Romanus published by Hittorpius wherein that Creed is ordered to be used in both Languages these words tho in the Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex patre filioque procedit qui cum patre filio simul adoratur Hittorp Ord. Rom. de Div. Offic. p. 39. Ed. Col. 1568. Vide Voss de tribus 9. symbol Diss 3 c. 20. c. yet are omitted in the Greek But nevertheless they us'd the Creed and from them it came Originally into the Latine Church And as to that which we receive under the Name of Athanasius those among the Greeks who thought it to be his had always a very great veneration
A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H's NEW NOTION OF SCHISM AND THE Vindication OF IT IMPRIMATUR March 10. 1691 2. Guil. Lancaster R. P. D. Henrico Epo. Londin à Sacris Domest LONDON Printed for E. Mory at the Bible in St. Paul's Church yard 1692. A Review of Mr. M. H's New Notion of Schism and the Vindication of it THE Vindicator begins with a Complaint of the unhappy Flames which have been kindled amongst us about matters of Church Government and Worship And tells us further Vindic. p. 1 That he must be as great an Enemy that would not contribute his utmost to the extinguishing of them And so far I confess we agree with him but whether Mr. H. and his Vindicator be the sole Extinguisher is a Question that may deserve some further debate More has been said to the former already than he is at leisure to answer and therefore I shall only add one thing at present viz. That those who have learnt out the first occasion of Mr. H's Book tell me That it was to satisfy the Scruples of some particular persons whom his Followers would have allured and drawn into his Conventicle It was not to reconcile the differences amongst so many learned Men as are engaged in this Controversie Neither was it to inform the world concerning that mighty secret the true cause of our Animosities viz. That all other wars and fightings proceed from our lusts that war in our minds Ib. p. 3. St. James was aware of that long before Mr. H. And as for his New Notion of Schism the breach of Love it was calculated for the Ladies and the great design of his Book was to make two Female Proselytes Mr. H's Attempt was indeed modest because this was all he aimed at but this Vindicator abuses him by ascribing too much to him To place him in the Chair of Controversy and make him the determining Oracle over those two learned Partles the Churchmen and Dissenters is enough to make any Man's head giddy if he be not extremely confident and is so plain an Abuse upon Mr. M. H. as must needs put him if he be not very stupid quite out of countenance Especially if he does but remember what little success his Book had with those for whose sake it was written For if it were not able to unsettle the minds of one or two of the weaker Sex surely he cannot expect it to controul the sentiments of wise and learned Men. And therefore it was an Abuse upon Mr. H. and an high piece of Arrogance in the Vindicator to make so many his Pupils as if all the Conformists and Nonconformists understood nothing at all either of the Duty of Charity or the Cause of Animosities or the Nature of Schism till Mr. H. first informed them and shewed 'em their mistake The Churchmen are absolutely condemned if this Gentleman be Judge for imposing unnecessary suspected terms of Communion meer Trifles Vindic. p. 1. 2. under fevere Penalties Fines Imprisonments Exile c. And certainly they were extremely to blame if all this were done and no body reclaimed as it seems his experience has sufficiently convinced him P. 2. But other Mens experience makes 'em of a contrary Opinion who notwithstanding all the constancy which this Man boasts of found the Dissenters generally so good natur'd and flexible that during the little time the Laws were executed a dangerous Faction was broken and more done towards bringing English Protestants to Vniformity than ten thousand such little blue Books as these of Mr. H. and his Vindicator will be able to effect The good English Protestents tho' a little fond of Novelty yet when once the Teachers were supprest whose interest it was to bellow against all Establishmets soon came into the Church and without any fear of those Mormos wherewith they had been formerly terrified did readily and chearfully join with us in full communion And perhaps the Teachers themselves might have learnt Vniformity by this time through the execution of those penal Acts as well as their Predecessors and Brethren did before ' em For the Nonconformists are not such absolute despisers of the things of this world as never to look about 'em for secular advantage tho' not so much I hope as to debauch their Consciences yet enough to open their Eyes And therefore when they saw themselves deprived of those goodly Tythe-Barns which had so plentifully fed them and that the Government was firmly setled which turned them out and withal knew they should have spoiled one another if they had all Conventicled they thought it high time to make further Inquiry into the terms of our Communion and finding them at last to be much better than they imagined many of the ablest and best thought fit to comply Ib. p. 2. More I am sure they were than either five or six and therefore he needs not upbraid us with that number being departed from us it being no wonder if five or six Clergymen in all England should be so ill preferred and so little deserving as to find it their interest to go over to the Conventicles upon the opening of a Toleration where less Learning will serve and they will be much better paid and thought of than we could find them worthy Ib. Nor are the Penal Laws any more the Support of our Trifles than the Penal Ordinances formerly were of theirs I mean the Directory witness that 23d of August 1645. That if any Person or Persons whatsoever shall at any time or times hereafter use or cause the aforesaid Book of Common-Prayer to be used in any Church or Chappel or publick Place of Worship or in any private Place or Family within the Kingdom of England or Dominion of Wales or Port and Town of Berwick every such Person so offending therein shall for the first Offence pay the Sum of Five Pounds lawfull English Money for the second Offence Ten Pounds and for the third shall suffer One whole Years Imprisonment without Bail or Mainprise More of this kind may be seen in that Ordinance but from this it is evident 1. That our Ceremoniâ—…s did not fall into such Contempt as the Vindicator supposes p. 2. when the Enforcements were taken away that being done by a former Ordinance Jan. 3d. 1644. for if they had there had been no occasion for these severe Penalties 2. That Enforcements were necessary to support the Directory And lastly That they were necessary to preserve it from Contempt for thus it was ordained Aug. 23d 1645. That what Person soever shall with intent to bring the said Directory into contempt or neglect or to raise opposition against it preach write print or cause to be written or printed any thing in the derogation or depraving of the said Book or any thing therein contained or any part thereof shall lose and forfeit for every such Offence such a Sum of Money as shall at the time of his Conviction be thought fit to be imposed upon him
to imagine that they should all go once a week from the most distant places to Jerusalem unless they had very little business at home or were extraordinary Travellers They had their Proseuchae and Synagogues for publick worship and their private devotions which might be said any where All inferior Altars and places of worship were in communion with the supream one and the persons who did legally and regularly communicate at them were likewise understood to partake thereby of that one Altar and therefore if the Synagogues be certainly the patterns of our Christian Assemblies Ibid. pray Sir assign us an Altar with which we must hold communion which will surely be that of the Bishop according to the sentiments of the primitive Church Nor was the precept of offering only upon one Altar so purely ceremonial but that it was founded upon very rational tho mystical principles according to tne sense and interpretation of the Hellenistical Jews the end of it was to distinguish the Segullah or peculiar people those that were in special Union and Covenant with the Deity from those that were not or had broken off from it The principle and archetypal head of that Union was God himself to whom none but the Segullah were united The Segullah were united by Sacraments which were the legal Symbols and Ratifications of that Union the High Priest was the representative of the Archetypal head so that none could be in Union with God unless united to the High Priest None united to the High Priest unless they did partake of that Altar where he offered and those which were dependant upon it And therefore the Sacraments belonging to Schismatical Altars viz. that of Samaria and its dependents erected in opposition to that of the true High Priest did not unite them to God neither consequently were the Worshippers at that Altar to be reckoned of the Segullah or peculiar people but rather as the Altar of Samariah was against the Altar of Jerusalem so were the Samaritan worshippers against the true Israelites Now the Christians I hope are as well united to the Father and the Son as ever the Jews were They are as truly the Segullah or peculiar people and the ways of transacting that Union by the Evangelical Sacraments and Priesthood as certain And therefore have been maintained by the Primitive Fathers and Mr. Dodwell upon the same manner of reasonings which the Jews used See his one Altar And if this way of reasoning be good there are two other Texts in the old Testament which will help to discover the notion of Schism one relating to that Altar of the Tribes beyond Jordan Joshuah 22. the other to those of Jeroboam 2 Kings 17. Nor is any thing in this foolish paragraph conclusive against these reasonings which it was either designed to Answer or else it is very impertinent No man ever denied that Christians might pray every where in any Kingdom City or place wheresoever they come only we desire it may be remembred that the Jews had the same liberty And if private Christians may pay their devotion to Almighty God any where in the Church in their Families in their Closets in the Fields and any other place they certainly have the liberty to pray every where and yet this cannot vacate the obligation of holding communion with one Altar for the Jews themselves had the very same liberty while they were under that obligation If Christians have a liberty to build their Oratories and Churches for the public service of Almighty God wheresoever they please without being excluded or confined to any place they may certainly fulfil the Gospel rule of praying every where and yet this will be no prejudice to their holding Communion with the Bishop of the Diocess For if Uniting our Selves to a Congregation in communion with the Bishop be any violation of that Gospel rule because they meet in a particular Church and the Bishop lives in a particular City I cannot see how Mr. H. and his Vindicator will acquit themselves from the same guilt whose Congregations are confined to a particular house or a particular stable Their people must be with their Teacher where ever he assembles ours with their Priest at the place of publick worship And if we are to be condemned for breaking this Gospel rule I can see no reason why Mr. H. and his followers should plead not guilty 'T is true we are not confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem the obligation was taken away by the authority of our Saviour Joh. 4.21 in his answer to the woman of Samaria The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father Not that it was forbidden to worship at either of those places in the times of the Gospel but the true Evangelical worship should not be confin'd to either the Jewish dispensation was to be laid aside and a more spiritual one introduc'd the literal to be exchanged for the mystical Israel The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth v. 23 24. That which under the Gospel was to answer the High Priesthood should not be confined to one City or one Mountain and that which corresponded to the worship she then discoursed of namely the sharing in the same Sacrifices should be henceforth so spiritual and free that all people might partake and communicate in it however distant their residences were which they could not do before This as it is the genuine sense of our Saviours discourse so methinks these following observations may be drawn from it 1st That there is something under the Gospel which does really correspond to that solemn worship at Jerusalem for it being that only which the woman discoursed of to our Saviour his answer must necessarily bear a relation to it And therefore the worship at Jerusalem and the spiritual worship were a type and antitype one of another So that as all the Jews did communicate at one Altar in the like manner Christians must partake in the same spiritual Sacrifices 2dly That as the design of those anniversaries was to keep 'em in the same Communion so that spiritual worship here spoken of is for the very same end 3dly That as the Priesthood and Altar were the principles of unity amongst them so there is a mystical Priesthood and Altar which do the same thing among us 4thly That as he who broke the communion with that Altar was off from the Church of the Jews So he who separates from ours is divided from the body of Christians And 5thly That as in one case they forfeited the Jewish priviledges so they do likewise the Christian in another These two last observations were included in the discourse as is plain from our Saviours confining Salvation to the Jews For the conclusion bearing a
relation to all the premises the true worshippers under the Gospel are parallel with those under the Law And therefore as Salvation was of the Jews and belonged only to those who did worship at Jerusalem so likewise Salvation under the Gospel must for the same reason be confined to the spiritual Worshippers that is to those who are united to the one Christian Altar as the Jews were to that of Jerusalem and by the same parity of reason all others excluded So that I can see no cause why Mr. H. should conclude that the binding of the Jews to communicate at one Altar is nothing to us For if we are under a parallel obligation to do the same thing to preserve that unity in the spirit which they did in the letter If the Jewish Church was a representation of the Christian and their Altar and Priesthood a type of ours Surely something is to be learned by us from what they did Unity and Communion is something more than a Ceremony and Schism which is the breach of it is I suppose the same thing in the Christian that it was under the Jewish OEconomy St. Paul is pleased to argue from the Jewish precedents for the right of maintenance that they who minister about holy things â—…ive of the things of the Temple they which wait at the Altar should be partakers with the Altar and that even so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Mr. Dodw. one Altar Plainly supposing that our Clergy answers the Levitical Priesthood our Churches their Temple our Communion Table their Altar and that what was thought equal in their case in the provisions of the old Testament is for that very reason to be taken for ordained in the case of the Gospel Ministry Vid. Mr. Dod. one Alt. p. 23. there being no other Evangelical ordinance And why we may not argue from Jewish precedents in the case of Schism having the Apostles example for it in case the of maintenance I cannot understand St. Paul argues from the Aaronical to the Melchizedechian Priesthood from the Priesthood of mortal men to the immortal Priesthood of the Son of God from the rights of the literal to those of the mystical Altar and tells us that the Law was a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and yet Mr. M. H. is so apt a Scholar that in one of the most eminent and principal instances he can find nothing to his purpose Sigon de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 8. The Synagogues Mr. H. allows were the patterns of Christian Assemblies but not the Temple p. 3. I should rather have thought the Synagogues and Temple too especially if we believe the account which Sigonius gives in which he is follow'd by other learned men viz. That Synagogues were first erected in the time of the Captivity that they who wanted the Temple to pray and teach in might have some place like the Temple in which they might assemble to perform that sort of duty Now Mr. H. tells us that Synagogues were the patterns of Christian Assemblies Sigonius that they were like and instead of the Temple and therefore any man would believe that the Christian Assemblies and the Temple being both like the Synagogue were also like one another and consequently the Temple as well as the Synagogue the pattern of Christian Assemblies But I suppose Mr. H. daâ—…es not allow the Temple to be a pattern for fear of the Altar and the Vindicator we find is for Prophets rather than Priests p. 41. The Priests he tells us were engag'd principally in the Ceremonial but the Prophets in the Moral part of Worship which was discovering the Mind of God to the People and pressing them to Obedience and it is to this rather than the Priestly Office that a Gospel Minister succeeds ib. So that according to this Gentleman Preaching is the whole business of a Christian Minister and Prayers and Sacraments which are the work of a Priest are to pass for Cyphers and Religious Impertinencies Our Author might have considered that the Spirit of Prophecy so long as it lasted did accompany the Priesthood and when at last the Scribes succeeded in the place of the Prophets Ezra himself was both Priest and Scribe and accordingly prepared his heart to teach Gods Precepts and Judgments in Israel Ezr. 7.10 and the Prophecy that sometimes accompanied the High Priesthood seems to outlive all the rest as appears from the instance of Caiaphas who foretold the death of our Saviour And as the Apostle declares this spake he not of himself but being High Priest that same year he prophesied John 11.51 So that Prophecy and Priesthood being united in the same person if the Gospel Minister succeeds to the one why not to the other or if he succeeds to the Jewish Prophets why not to such as were Priests as well as Laymen or if only to the Laymen pray who were the persons after Prophecy ceased among them to whom the Gospel Minister succeeded or had he no Representative at all perhaps you will say it was the Scribe who being Interpreter of the Law was for that reason a Type of the Gospel Minister like as the Synagogue where he taught was of Christian Assemblies And thence we may infer That the Scribe and the Synagogue are as like Mr. H. and his Congregation as two Beans and yet I am afraid the Synagogue will not suit his purpose any more than the Temple the Archisynagogus will spoil his Pattern as well as the High-Priest For as there is no such an Officer in the independent way so both the Ordination and Government of the inferior Scribes belonging to him he so far resembles one of our Bishops that I fancy Mr. H. and his Vindicator will neither of them like him The Instance of Eldad and Medad and Mr. H's Opinion of the Old Testament being thus far considered let us now attend him into the new for there he tells us the special Enquiry lies p. 6. And the Enquiry he there makes is after the signification of the word Schism and the Reason he gives for so doing is because words as he tells us are the significations of things Whether there be not a little Nonsense in this weighty Reason which he lays as the foundation of his notable Enquiry I refer to the captions being willing rather to excuse it in a Man of his parts But he must pardon me if I make bold to search more strictly into his ground work 't is in kindness to the Superstructure which will not abide a Storm if the Foundation be sandy That Mr. H's is so will appear if we consider that altho' words do signify things yet one word does not always signify only one thing neither is the same thing always signified by the same word And therefore as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have several meanings so other words in the new Testament may express the nature of Schism as well as that
of the Law So that every duty you can name is included in it and every sin a violation of it The Thief breaks Charity when he picks his Neighbour's Pocket The Murderer when he cuts his Throat The Traytor when he conspires against his Prince And the Schismatic who makes Broils and Factions in the Church But still if any one should ask you Pray Sir What is Treason and you should answer Vncharitableness What is Murder Vncharitableness What is Theft Vncharitableness What is Schism Vncharitableness I believe no man would take you for a Conjurer in Logic any more than in Divinity And yet this is all that Mr. M. H. has done towards furnishing the world with a New Notion of Schism and to acquire to himself the glorious Titles of Modest and Ingenious which the Vindicator so liberally bestows upon him pag. 3. which how well he deserves let the Reader judge and upon these doughty premisses he founds his Description of Schism which ought I suppose to have been a definition that being much more proper for a Man of Art and much more suitable to his design of giving you the true nature or formalis ratio which are things a little too nice to be regularly inferred from every bungling Description And having thus far enquired into Mr. H's Account let us now return to the Vindicator I fancy they are both of a Family and therefore let us see whether he may not put in a better claim to the aforesaid Titles He acquits Mr. H. pag. 4. from being Author of the Reply fearing lest he should have a share in the credit of it of which there was no great danger for every body at first sight was willing to discharge Mr. H. it being not easy to imagine that he that could be the Author of such a Book as that of Schism should ever be able to make any tolerable Vindication In the next page he condemns T. W. for preferring Churchmen before Dissenters i.e. his Friends before his Enemies To this I shall only answer That it is natural to all Mankind and his own usual practice and therefore I may as well blame the Vindicator upon the same score especially for so partially preferring Mr. H. before Dr. Hammond p. 49. He boasts pag. 6. how early he and his Party were aware of the Advances of Popish designs I would fain know where their Eyes were during the whole Reign of King James II. and the Toleration of King Charles when according to the sense of all wise Men the Popish Agents were most industrious In all the glare of Gospel-light these Gentlemen could see no danger but rather did all they could to shelter and hide the design from other observing Protestants Dr. W. * Vox Cler. p. 10. had 100 l. for writing a Book to that purpose Lobb and Owen were in Fee with King James Several of the principal Nonconformists assisted in the management of the Jesuitical Intrigue Many of their present Patrons were the Men pitcht upon at Court to compleat our Ruine by repealing the Penal Laws and Tests and thereby letting Papists into the Parliament and their Priests into our Churches No Man among them opened his mouth against the common Foe or endeavoured to fortify his Conventicle against Popish delusions And in the whole Catalogue * Vid. Catalogue of all the Discourses published against Popery during the Reign of K. James II. p. 33. printed at Lond. A. D. 1689. of Authors that appeared during that Reign in the defence of our Religion there were but Two Nonconformists in all England who had the Honesty and Courage to set Pen to Paper in those Controversies So that altho' these Gentlemen can be aware of Popery as soon as any People living perhaps when the greatest danger is what themselves invent yet as the wise man observes A Gift blindeth the Eyes Sprinkle a little Money among their Leaders and give a Toleration to the rest that the Subjects may be paying in the Countrey while the King pays them at London they are all easy and well satisfied while they are all getting money so that do what you will they apprehend no danger I appeal to the Memory of all England whether this be not the Case I appeal to your own Consceences wishing that you may repent and beg pardon For I must tell you further and perhaps it will be a kindness to let you know it that however successful you may seem to your selves in preserving your Reputatton among the less discerning Mob yet the more sober and thinking People are very much scandaliz'd at these Practices and sometimes do not stick to say That your zeal against Popery is all counterfeit your design only to get uppermost and that you can either rail against the Papists or join with them whether way soever does best fit your purpose of ruining the Church Nay some uncharitable People go further and say That since you join'd with Popery against the Church more than ever you did with the Church against Popery they are afraid lest if that Religion should prevail which God forbid you would be a great deal better Conformists than you are now He is again angry with T.W. for mentioning those great Men who have written in defence of the Church pag. 6. and endeavours to oppose him with another Catalogue of baffled Names Reynolds Cartwright Blondel Amies Daille c. People that have been so fully answer'd and confuted by Mr. Hooker Dr. Hammond Bishop Pearson Mr. Dodwell and others that if the power of Reason could ever prevail against Interest and Prejudice a Man would think there needed no further Arguings with these Gentlemen whether this be so or not we are willing to refer with him to the judgment of all disinterested persons if the Vindicator will but tell us where we may have a Councel of those who are truly such For to me the whole Christian world seems to be concerned in these Controversies Those who have a Liturgy and Ceremonies or Bishops as well as we and those that would have all these if their circumstances were so happy are certainly for us And as for that smaller Party who are for none of these and are most of them confined within our King's Dominions they are all biassed and interessed against us so that in rejecting the judgment of every interessed Party methinks the Gentleman learnedly appeals to no body at all Only perhaps the Turks Jews and Heathens in his Opinion may be proper Judges who I confess are not much interess'd in the quarrels among Christians And yet taking in all Mankind which must surely comprehend those that lived in former Ages as well as the present and I am sure they do not appear to be the Patrons or Friends of his Schism the Jews must condemn him upon the same Principles as they did the Samaritans the Turks and Persians laid too much stress upon the business of Succession and the most rever'd Laws of the noblest body of Heathens that
this Case the Line would be right enough and all that can be said is That there was One Vsurper in the Line of Jurisdiction who never was within the Line of Order and consequently could make no intercision in it And perhaps to prevent any Irregularity in the Succession of that Order the Apostles gave the Example and the Church enjoyn'd That a Bishop should be ordain'd by Three at least Apâ—…st c. 1. Con. Nican c. 4. Con. Areâ—… c. 21. Con. Laodic c. 12. Con. Paris 1. c. 6 c. and likewise that he should be Constituted with the Approbation of his Metropolitan and Com-Provincials which practices were certainly a very great security to the Right Succession it being not very likely That all the Bishops of a Province should be so extreamly careless to suffer an irregular Ordination and the Persons concern'd to Consecrate all void of that Character which they pretended to bestow After all That ever any Abbot that was no Bishop did ordain Bishops I do utterly deny Adamnanuâ—… in his Life of Columba Adamn Vit. Col. Vsh Primorâ—… makes mention of a Bishop in the Abby of Hy and that there was always one residing there is confirmed by Bishop Vsher out of the Vlsleâ—… Annals And perhaps the Bishop of Dâ—…nkeld as the Learned Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures joyn'd in the Consecration of Bishop Aldan Finan Bp. of St. Asaph of â—…h Gov. p. 102. and Colman had the like Ordination But Tuda the next in Succession was ordain'd a Bishop among the South Scots in Ireland So that should we allow his Instance true viz. That Aâ—…dan Finan and Colman were ordained by the Abbot yet that Succession at Lindisfarn in all likelihood fail'd in Colman and the Line of Order was right in Tuda and consequently his Marginal Instance is nothing to the purpose an Instance that has been frequently urg'd by the Nonconformists against Episcopacy and as often confuted from the most Authentick History of those Times by divers Learned Men Vind. C. E. cap. 9. Vind. Ignat. par 1. c. 10. Orig. Brit. Ch. Gov. c. 5. Barbos Past p. 2. All. 3. Num. 3.4 c. Maur. de Alz. de Prac. Episc Dig. p. 2. c. 5. Num. 6 7 8 9. Aquin. Sup. q. 38. ar 1. Res ad ter Vid. Victor in Sum. Num. 216. Sect. de Sac. Ord. Non facile credeâ—…em Victor in sum Num. 237. quem seq Vivald in Candel aureo p. 1. tit de Sacram. Ordin Num. 17. In fine asserenti se vidisse quandam Bullam Papae concedentem facultatem sacerdoti conferendi Diac. Sub. Diac. Barbos Past p. 2. Al. 3. N. 4. Ap. c. 67. Nicaen c. 19. Con. C. P. c. 4 Bishop Bramhâ—…ll Bishop Pearson the present Bishop of Worcester and St. Asaph and Mr. Dodwell have so fully Answer'd this business of Hy that a Man would wonder at the Confidence of this Gent. that he should still hope to impose the same Mistake upon the World Nor does the Church of Rome allow that an Abbot who is no Bishop should Consecrate a Bishop They are so far from allowing it that their Canonists generally declare that the Pope himself cannot impower any Presbyter to Ordain so much as a Deacon An Abbot who has Jus Mitrae Bacuâ—… a Cardinal or an Ordinary Presbyter by Commission from the Pope may confer the lesser Orders but not the greater or those which are called Sacred viz. those of Bishop Priest and Deacon nay even as to the lesser Thomas Aquinas Joh. Major and Paludanus Affirm that it is safer to receive the Order of Sub-Deacon from another than from such a priviledged Presbyter And altho Anguianus and some few more are of opinion that the Pope might Impower a Presbyter to confer the Higer Orders yet it never was the allowed practice of that Church And I challenge him to produce so much as one instance of any Abb t that was no Bishop who ever Consecrated a Bishop As for Sub-Deacons and such people who are sometimes Ordainâ—…d by Abbots the Gentileman knows well enough we have no occasion for 'em in England and therefore the Succession of our Bishops may be just and regular notwithstanding this first Case As to the Second viz. Whether this line of Ordina ion may be continued in a Schismatical Church We Answer 1st That such was the care of the Primitive Church so great a regard they had to a right Succâ—…ssion that they who thought the Ordination of certain Hereticks void such as the Paâ—…lianists and Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. decreed 'em to be Ordained by a Catholick Bishop And it is likewise determin'd by the first Council of Constantinople concerning the Ordinations made by Maximus Cymicus that they are all null they neither allowing him to be a Bishop not those Ordained by him to enjoy any Function among the Clergy And in the Roman Church Bâ—â—n Tâ—m 9. p. 2â—4 Pâ—â—tin dâ— Vâ— Pont. p. 22.4 Contra â—â—ephanum III. alâ—s IV. Mabill in Ordiâ— Rom. Com. p. cxix particularly those ordain'd by Constantine the Lay-Invader of the Papal Chair were by a Council under Stephen the Third or Fourth to return to their former Orders unless they were in great Esteem with the People and in that Case they were to be re-ordain'd by the Church and for fear of laying the Foundations of a future Schism it was further decreed That none of 'em should be promoted to any higher degrees By these and many other Instances it is plain what Care the Church has taken to re-ordain or utterly silence those whose Orders they thought void And lest any such persons should creep into strange places and there invade that Office to which they had no Right No Man either of the Clergy or Laity Ap. 〈◊〉 12. con 〈◊〉 30 con 〈◊〉 c. 33. 〈…〉 C. 〈◊〉 c. 7. con 〈◊〉 c. 12. con Elizbeâ—â— c. 51. was to hold Communion with 'em under pain of incurring the Ecclesiastical Censures No Clergy Man was to go abroad without Commendatory Letters no bishop to be ordain'd without the Knowledge and Consent of his Metropolitan and the Neighbouring Bishops No Heretick to be admitted into Orders and if ordain'd to be depos'd No Man to ordain in another's Province By which and seveâ—â—l other Canons it became extreamly difficult for any such Hereticks or Schismaticks whose Orders they thought void to make any considerable intercision in the Line of Succession But I can see no Reason why the Line of Ordination may not pass through a Schismatical Church For although by Schism People are out of the Church and while they continue so cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments yet to say That â—â—â—h are absolutely destroy'd and nullify'd so that a â—â—â—â—…matick lâ—â—â— the Characters and can neither be a Christian 〈…〉 i. e. not the Subject of Apostolical Power 'till he be 〈◊〉 â—â—â— baptiz'd and ordain'd is an Assertion beyond all that I câ—â—â—…d ever yet meet with The
the Instances of Popular Elections that can be found in Scripture but from none of 'em is it evident that the Election of the People did contribute any thing that was Essential to Holy Orders The Reason why it was admitted was that they might confer the Power and Character upon the Best and most Unexceptionable Persons such as were of Honest Report which could not so easily be known without consulting the Multitude Cyp. Ep. LXVIII Ed. Oxon. And this is all the Use that St Cyprian makes of the aforementioned Instances who tells us That it was so order'd in the Case of Eleazar the Son of Aaron and ought to be so that the Crimes of ill Men may be Detected and the Deserts of Good Men Extoll'd And that the Apostles proceeded so diligently and warily in the Choice of Matthias and the Seven Deacons lest any Unworthy Person should creep into the Service of the Altar or obtain the Degree of Priesthood And he adds further That in his Time it was the Custom for the Neighbouring Bishops of the same Province to Meet and Chuse a Bishop in the presence of the People who fully understood each Man's Life And after this manner they advanced Sabinus into the Place of Basilide All this seems to be plainly allow'd by the Council of Laodicea which will have none to be made Bishops but such as are of Known and Approved Conversation Con. Laod. Can. 12. and provides that they should be constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Discretion of the Metropolitans and Neighbouring Bishops In which Poâ—…nts it agrees exactly with St. Cyprian s Model Can. 13. anâ—… yet the Canon immediat ly following will not allow the People to chuse those that are to be advanced to the Priesthood and therefore surely their Consent was not then thought Essentially Necessary to the making of a Bishop Nay so far was the Church from the Opin on of this Author that upon the Death of Auxentius Theod. H. E. l. 4 c. 7. the Arian Bish p of Milan the Synod petition'd the Emperour That he would chuse one to suc eed him in that See which certainly they would not have done if they had thought that his Nomination would have made him such a Monster as our Author speaks of viz. A Creature not to be found in Scripture or the Primitive Times I might add several other Instances of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs chosen to their respective Charges by the Discretion of the Emperour and other Princes but I suppose it is not necessary As to the Nomination of our English Prelacy suppose it had been of right Originally in the Clergy and People yet they by their Representatives in Parliament 25 H. 8. c. 20. have confirm'd it to the Prince So that it is his by Law And for my part I know no Reason why it should not so continue Episcopacy is the same chuse who Names it being not the Nomination but the Ordination that makes the Bishop And if that be the same now which it was in the Primitive Times our Episcopacy must needs be the same with theirs Page 33 and 34. The Gentleman is willing to be try'd by the Pattern of those Churches which are truly Primitive but I find he dares not venture far among 'em for fear of losing his Cause He complains That a Century or Two made a considerable Change in the Features of their Government and Worship but in which Century that Change was wrought he durst not inform us However if he pleases to venture his Cause upon it let him take any of the first Fifteen to prove Congregational Episcopacy and provided he will allow the Writers of that or the next Age to be credited before those that liv'd later I shall freely joyn issue with him We have a Specimen of his Abilities already page 34 and 35. where he tells us That Ignatius charges the Bishop to take a personal cognizance of every Member of his Church not excepting the very Servants And Secondly That it was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's Day and that they never receiv'd it nisi ex antistitis manu but from the Hand of the Bishop What could such Bishops be more than Pastors of single Congregations To which I Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. First That Ignatius does indeed require of the Bishop to discourse people singly as God should enable him But how does this prove That he was to take a Personal Cognizance of every particular Member of his Church Had he no body to assist him in the Remoter parts of his Charge Why could no Man else acquaint him with the Frailties and Misdemeanors of particular persons but all must depend wholly upon his own Cognizance and Observation Or because he was not to content himself barely with Publick Preaching but was to discourse 'em particularly as he found occasion Does it therefore follow that he must needs be acquainted with every Member o his Church How if they were too numerous or liv d too remote to be all Personally discours'd with All that Ignatius requires is so far as God shall enable him Which kind of Expression methinks implies some difficulty Let Assemblies be held often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Enquire after all by their Names do not despise or behave thy self insolently towards the Men-Servants or Maid-Servants This I suppose is the Passage to which our Author principally refers Though if he had been able to have quoted it we might have been abundantly more certain However from this it is not to be concluded that he must take a personal Cognizance of every Member of his Church or that he was the Pastor only of One single Congregation For how does he prove That those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be only at One Place Why might not the several Assemblies in his Diocess be as well comprehended under that Title Again how does our Author prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more but the Ordinary Congregations Why not the more Extraordinary Assemblies when the Bishop Visited Perhaps the Bishop had a Scroll wherein the Names of Christians were enroll'd and in calling them over at his Visitations might enquire into the Faith and Manners of particular Persons and call for the Men themselves and as he found Occasion discourse 'em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Doct ine Admonition or Reproof Or peradventure he might call over the Nâ—…mes of the Congregation where he himself was present that he might hereby discover who were heretically inclin'd For even then such Persons began to withdraw from the Communion of the Church and to hold Conventicles though very privately And if we take it in the latter Sence it will contribute little to his Cause unless he could first prove That the Bishop's Congregation would not be a Pattern to the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Id. ad Smyr
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Vid. Dodw. in Irenae Dis 1. Sect. XVII and that there were no Subordinate Presbyters to do the same thing by the Bishops Order in other Congregations within his Diocess And that there were more Congregations than one under the Bishop of Smyrna is evident from that Passâ—…ge of Ignatius in his Epistle to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ig. ad Smyrn Let no man perform any of those things which belong to Publick Assemblies without the Bishop That Eucharist is to be thought valid which is either under him or at least which he allowed What had he to do to allow the Eucharist in Congregations Independent upon him and to talk of giving allowance to himself in his own is to great a Blunder for Ignatius to be charged with So that all the distinction here made is betwixt a Congregation under the Bishop viz. that where he was Personally present and another Congregation Assembled by his permission and allowance and must consequently imply that in the Church of Smyrna there were several Congregations under one Bishop what relates to Servants is nothing to this purpose in Ignatius whatever it was in our Authors Head Nor is the Second Alligation more regular or just than the former Antistitis manu in Tertullian for thence it came Originally by way of Mr. Baxter to our Author referring not to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistitâ—… manu contestamur nos Renunciare Diaibolo c. Eucharistiae Sacramentum in Tempore victus Omnibus mandatum a Domino etiam antelucanis Caetizbus nec de Aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus Tert. De Cor. Milit. c. 3. but to the Form of Renouncing the Devil c. which was preparatory to Baptism and the persons to be Baptized did it sub Antistitis manu for ex as this Man quotes it would have made it Non-sence Tertullian does indeed speak of the Lords Supper not to be Received nisi de Praesidentium manu But this will do our Author no Service The word Praesidentium including the Bench of Presbyters as well as the Bishop in Cathedra Vid. Pears Vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Assert 2. Dod. in Iren. Dis 1. Sect. VII Nor will the Passage out of Irenaeus which he so hastily misapplies if fully cited and understood afford any advantage to his cause Presbyters in that Father oftentimes denoting the Age rather than the Office of those Persons meant by it as divers Learned Men have already observed And in that Sence not only Presbyters but likewise Bishops Deacons and Laymen might be comprehended under that Title And accordingly Irenaeus distinguishes by divers Characters telling them what sort of Elders they were to hearken to Qua propter eis qui in Eccles sunt Pres obaudire oportet hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episc Successione charisma veritatis Certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Iren. l. 4. c. 4 3. Iren. l. 4. c. 43 viz. First Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt those who are within the Pale of the Church Secondly Hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis c. those who had the Succession from the Apostles and who together with the Succession in their Episcopal Charge did receive the sure Gift of Truth according to the Will of the Father Whence it is plain that Irenaeus in this place means Bishops only when he talks of the Apostles Successors And therefore our Authors Inference in behalf of Presbyters having their Succession from the Apostles as well as Bishops is out of Doors Irenaeus reckons up the Bishops of Rome in order as they Succeeded to Eleutherius then Bishop who was the Twelfth from the Apostles concluding Hac Ordinaâ—…ione Successione c. by this Ordination and Succession that Tradition which is in the Church from the Apostlâ—…s and the Preaching of the Truth is handed down to us From which it is plain that Succession in their days was more than bare Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship For they Succeedded the Apostles First In Power and Authority So Irenaeus quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias Committebant quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum Locum Magisterii tradentes Secondly In Place So Linus was constituted the Successor of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome and Irenaeus tells us further that they made him Bishop And therefore if his Successors afterwards mentioned kept up to the Apostles Model they must likewise derive their Office as he did from Persons invested wâ—…th the same Character and Consequently as Linus was Ordained by the Apostles who had that Episcopal Authority in themselves which they conferred upon him So the rest down to Eleutherius must be Ordained by Bishops And if so let our Author consider with himself whether his Notion or ours is nearer in all Points to the sense of those Times When I consider how nice and strict this Gentleman was in the Notion of Succession P. 19. 20 that he could not allow Two Bishops to Succeed One Apostle nor One to Succeed Two I cannot but wonder that in the Writing of 16 Pages his Head should grow so loose as to make it no more than Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship Surely if this be the truest Sence as the Gentleman affirms One Bishop may Succeed Two Apostles or One Apostle be Succeeded by Twenty Bishops without any such absurdity or Blunder as our Author cries out against in the fore-quoted Pages We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such particular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules and impose no new or needless Terms is to Act Schismatically because such willfull Separation when nâ—… cause is giuen cannot be without breach of Charity with our fellow Christians Page 37. Yes it may through the prejudices of Education or for want of understanding People may take that to be New which is very Old and that which is very Decent and Fit to be Imposed to be altogether Needless and withdraw themselves from particular Churches fram'd according to Scripture Rules when purely out of mistake they think them otherwise They may be led by Interest or won over by perswasion to a new Communion and yet have no hard thoughts of that Church or its Members which they left I cannot believe that every Dissenter at his first going off from the Church of England does immediately hate us I find several of 'em very Kind aâ—…d Affable Persons And yet if our Author has granted Right all their Charity though a very good and commendable thing cannot excuse 'em from the Guilt of acting schismatically And because our Author has granted this I shall grant likewise That Schism is frequently the Effect of Uncharitableness which perhaps was all that honest Mr. H. meant when he call d it formalis ratio People
are sometimes froward and peevish and apt to take Peâ—… at little things and when they are once angry and out of charity will forsake the best friends in the world tho perhaps for worse Company And the new Acquaintance if he be not very dull will be ready enough for his own advantage to find out Suggestions true or false to confirm and improve the Quarrel Again Uncharitableness is otherwise the Effect of Schism when People have no way to justifie their Separation from an Orthodox Church and to support and propagate the Cause which they have engaged in but by vilifying and aspersing its Members and abusing every thing that belongs to its Communion And when by the long continuance of these Practices they have so far wrought upon their own belief as to think those Objections right which at first were only taken up to serve a Passion or Design and that both Persons and Things are really as bad as they have been us'd to represent 'em When they look upon others as the Enemies of God and Opposers of his pure Worship as Reprobates and Damn'd themselves and Hinderers of the Salvation of others It is no wonder if they make no Scruple of the most Violent and Uncharitable Practices Especially when Ambition Covetousness and Vain-Glory go along with these Conceits And yet in the very height of Violence and Cruelty it will be no mean Task to perswade 'em That they are uncharitable nor consequently Schismaticks in Mr. H s Notion For Charity is seated in the heart which no Man can look into and therefore the breach of it not otherwise Visible than by outward Practices And as to those be they never so Villainous yet it is in vain to object 'em while they are committed under the Patronage of a Rjghteous Cause and also with a great Appearance of Devotion and Sobriety If you are robb'd and plunder'd by One of these People you are not to call him a Thief or to say he was Uncharitable for thus undoing his poor Neighbour for it was only the spoiling of an Egyptian or in another Phrase the weakening of the wicked If they kill you it cannot be Murder so long as the Example of Phineas stands upon Record Or if he destroys his Prince yet if he can but once pass Tyburne he 's no Traytor there is Scripture enough as he thinks to discharge him from that Guilt And as for the more puny Instances of Uncharitableness such as Lying and Slandering and raising Tumults and the most Grave and Solemn Perjuries to promote the Cause either the Love of Good Men or Zeal for Reformation will easily excuse 'em among Friends And to prevent Scandal among other People if they be done one Day they may be denied the next If any Tradesman appears more than ordinary in Defence of the Church no Schismatick is to have any Dealing with him and if you say he is Uncharitable he tells you No surely He has the Management of his own Purfe and may lay out his Money where he pleases If any injur'd Catholick goes about to Right himself in a Court of Judicature get a Jury of Donatists and he is so far from obtaining any Relief or Benefit of Law that he is sure to be Condemn'd And if you say the Jury was Unjust they will bring their Action Take Warning by your Neighbour for they went according to their Consciences and you are not to question their Reputation If any Clergyman appears against 'em in Defence of the Church it shall be their whole â—…usiness to make him Odious to expose his Faults in case he be any way oâ—…noxious which Charity would rather cover and by Detraction and Calumny to lessen and deprave the Character of the most Excellent Persons If he be of a Grave and Reserv d Conversation they shall accuse him of Pride if more chearful and free he shall be Reputed Dissolute if Thrifty Covetous if Liberal and Charitable it shall be said that he does it out of Vain-Glory or the hopes of Merit And if he be more than ordinarily strict in the Duties of Fasting and Prayer he shall be reckon'd Superstitious and the best Title he can obtain will be that of a very great Formalist In fine be they Clergy or Lay-people the violent Schismatick he that either manages the Faction or hates the Church will never speak well of 'em where he can find the least Occasion or pretence to speak ill And as in all these Instances the Charge of Uncharitableness is confidently evaded so I would know of these Gentlemen how Schism in their Notion may be discover'd so as that a Dissenter may be Convicted if he be really Guilty For if it be one of the blackest Crimes the Arch-Rebel of all in Christ's Kingdom it is very fit that it should be reprov'd and discountenanc'd But I cannot see how this can be done till we first know how to fix it upon particular Persons We desire therefâ—…re a plain Answer First of all by what Rules that is to be done And Secondly Whether those who are concern d in the fore-mention d and such like Practices are not realâ—…y Schismaticks For if they are we hope that Mr. H. and the rest of his Way who boast what Power they have within themselves to Admonish Suspend and Reject Scandalous Persons will so order the matter that thâ—â— may be no such People in any of their Congregations For otherwise if we see a Book written to prove Uncharitableness to be Schism and the Crime of Schism therein aggravated to the highest degree and yet the Author 's own Congregation crowded with Uncharitable People what can we think of the Discourse but that it was all meer bantâ—…r And that all the Power of Admonishing c. which they so eagerly challenge is to be employ'd only for the Advantage of the Conventicle but never against any of those Practices though never so violent or scandalous that serve to promote its Interest What he says to p. 40. has been already Answer'd as far as it is material And there ends his Vindication of Mr. H's Notion So that having examin d him hitherto with as much Patience as he did T. W. I shall pursue him no further hoping that I need not trouble my self about the Remarks on either side FINIS