A DEFENCE OF Mr. M. H's Brief ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF SCHISM And the Vindication of it WITH REFLECTIONS Upon a Pamphlet called The Review c. And a Brief Historical Account of Nonconformity from the Reformation to this Present Time LONDON Printed by T. S. for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the Lower End of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1693. THE PREFACE I Expect to hear from all Sides that such Controversies as these at this time a day are very inopportune and Ill advised I confess we have as much reason to value our present Ease and Quiet as any People in the World and to avoid every thing that may disturb or indanger it And we have not so abandon'd the Principles of Self-preservation as willingly to expose our selves to repeated Severities And if I had not some Cause to believe that our silent disregard of the Abuses put upon us will be made by Innuendo's a Confession of Guilt and will harden and encourage our Adversaries against us I would have took no notice of the Citizen's Reply but have left him and his Learned Cabal to the sweet Delights of a fancied Conquest I know we may safely appeal from his sordid Calumnies to the juster Sentiments of the soberest and wisest of the Episcopal Perswasion who have been full as severe in the Censure of his Pamphlets as is necessary for us to be but I am also assured there are too many in this emancipated Age that are passionately fond of any thing that throws dirt upon Dissenters and true or false sence or nonsence it is all one to them whose insatiable Lusts have left them neither Time nor Capacity to search into the true state and merits of the Cause I wonder upon what Inducement this Gentleman should take upon him to quarrel with Mr. H's Enquiry unless it were that he might make himself the Favourite of such a Generation of Men or that his Ghostly Fathers had obliged him to do Pennance in those Sheets I know not what could have been writ more fair and inoffensive than that Book Schism was the Word that had animated Men with a strange Blind Zeal against all those upon whom their Leading Men had fixed the mark and it was given out with so much Industry as if it had been the Shibboleth of the Party reserved for some special Service against a convenient Season Mr. H. kindly endeavoured to undeceive them and by enquiring into the Quality of those Actions upon which this Sin is charged in Scripture to discover its true formal Nature that Men might not fight in the dark and build vast and endless Controversies upon a single Word and that too not rightly understood He observes that the word Schism is not used in Scripture in any sence applicable to the present Case save only three times in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians those places he has particularly examined He shews that those Schismatical Corinthians met in the same place still but contending with one another about some lesser matters to the breach of Christian Love and Mutual Alienation of their Affections fell into the Sin there called Schism Enquiry p. 9. concluding from hence that the formal Nature of this Sin consists not in Separation of Communion but in the Violation of that Love and Charity there ought to be amongst Christians Acknowledging nevertheless that many Overt Actions may be and are Schismatical as they proceed from this Uncharitableness and he mentions such as these Judging and Condemning one another about the Circumstantials of Religion reproaching and reviling each other making approving and executing Penal Laws about such things and Separation from Communion with those we have joyn'd our selves to without cause that is as he explains it without regard had to any thing amiss in the Church we separate from or any thing better in that we joyn our selves to which he calls Separation for Separation's sake This is Schism not barely because Separation but because animated by that Uncharitableness and Disaffection which in Scripture is known by the Name of Schism The Gentleman could not digest a Notion so far different from what he had imbib'd Reply p. 2. but tells us Mr. H's Book had not much more of Schism than of the Philosopher's Stone in it He was loth so heavy a Charge should lye against Uncharitableness which being a main Ingredient in his own Constitution must be more softly and tenderly handled he thinks it more Prudent to lay the Fault so as he may bear the least share of it himself Arch-Rebel p. 10. and therefore boldly affirms that Diversity of Communion is the Ratio formalis of Schism and more than that says he has proved it to be so The Author of the Vindication justly blam'd him for so rash and confident an Assertion as giving the Lye to the Word of God which Charges the Corinthians with the Guilt of Schism when there was no such diversity of Communion and can there be a Schism where that is wanting which he calls the true formal Nature of Schism Can a thing exist without its Essential Form To this the Gentleman replies Shall a Cut in the Arm be truly Schism and not the separating the Arm from the Body If Paul condemned the Corinthians of Schism for preferring one Minister before another Shall that far greater Crime of separating from them be excluded from Schism This Gentleman is a topping Accuser But we cannot Complement this Gentleman so far as to call him a Topping Defendant For the Question was not Whether there may not be a Separation that is really Schismatical Mr. H. granted that But whether Separation be the very Essence and formal Nature of Schism If so then there can be no Schism without such Separation which is false as in the Case of the Corinthians nor any Separation without Schism which is equally false for in many cases we may be obliged in Duty to separate His Comparison of Cutting the Arm from the Body is like it self Lame and Defective for sometimes such a Scissure may be necessary to keep the Body from perishing In short if Separation be needless it is sinful if Uncharitable it is Schismatical if neither needless nor Uncharitable it is a Duty And let it be observed by the way that in this Reply the Gentleman acknowledges the Corinthians were guilty of Schism though they did not Separate when before he told us he had proved that the Ratio formalis of Schism consists in Separation let him reconcile these things at his leisure He thinks if such Uncharitableness be Schism it must follow à minori ad majus diversity of Communion is much more so but the reasoning is not good for Uncharitableness can in no case be lawful but Separation may He himself acknowledges that if any of their terms of Communion be sinful our Separation is justifiable and yet even in that case Uncharitableness would be a Sin If this Gentleman must needs let
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
Societies off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and then the whole thread of his discourse is spoiled which every where makes Schism to be Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which he says truly there is no true Ministry nor Sacrament 2. If all Schismatical Societies are Unchurched then either they lose the Apostolical Succession and Power or else there may be Apostolical Power where there is no Church And it would be very strange to find a Power to Ordain and to Administer Sacraments in Societies where there can be no Ministry nor Sacraments Church Power without a Church a Right to Gevern the Church by Apostolical Succession and yet no Right to the Church or any of its Priviledges The power which is an adjunct without the Church which is its Subject These are mysteries which I am no more worthy to understand than that of Transubstantiation 3. If the Papal Churches through which this Power is conveyed be not Schismatical then he makes the Founders of his own Church so for he says There 's no way of holding Communion with the Universal Church Arch-Rebel p. 6. but by holding Communion with the Particular Churches we live amongst if they be not Schismatical Instead of speaking plainly to these things he asks us whether Re-ordination of those that come over from the Church of Rome to the Reformed was ever required We answer No and can give a good reason for it upon our Principles but it will be hard to do so upon his We do not think the validity of the Ministry depends upon such Line nor do we believe that either Schism or Heresie as such do utterly destroy their Church state indeed a renunciation of any of the fundamental Articles of our Faith would do it but every heresie will not We believe the Church of Rome to be both Schismatical and Heretical but do not therefore say their Church state is utterly lost though greatly corrupted for then it would be hard to allow their Ordinations especially if we thought Ordination so necessary and that the Validity thereof depended upon the Administrators as this Gentleman affirms Therefore where he says the Vindicator attempts to unchurch the Church of England because our Bishops derive their consecration from Rome he utterly mistakes himself the Vindicator spoke ad hominem and only shewed him what would be the consequence of his own arguing He tells us It is the Judgement of all Reformed Divines that formal Schism can never invalidate the power of formal and regular Ordination But if those Reformed Divines thought as be that formal Schism utterly excludes out of the Catholick Church they must needs acknowledge that where there is formal Schism there can be no such things as regular Ordination and 't is strange this Gentleman that makes Schism such an unchurching thing shall talk of a regular Ordination in a formal Schism one would think the regularity would have been spoiled if the Essence thereof should happily escape Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 107 108. And yet some of our Doctor make this the very reason why the Dissenters Ordinations are Null because they ordain in a Schism granting that in case of necessity they may do it But as to the Reformed Divines if they allow the Ordination of Schismaticks to be valid it is either because they think the validity of the Orders does not depend upon the quallfications of the person conferring there or that Schism does not necessarily exclude a Person or People out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and here lies this Gentlemans Error he would tack the candid conclusion of the Reformed formed Churches to the unmerciful Premises of his own but they will by no means comport This Notion of the Necessity of an uninterrupted Line of Succession for the conveyance of Power like Water by Pipes and Conduits the Vindicator made bold to call a Whimsie which has exceedingly raised the Gentlemans Spleen A Whimsie says he that 's some Phantastick device or the Creature of an unst able unsettled Brain which being applied to Prelates that bear the Authority of Christ can be no less than Blasphemy But the Vindicator never charged this Whimsie upon the Prelates the greatest part of whom I dare say will not thank this man for hanging their Authority upon so slender a thread 't is his own Whimsie and so silly a one that we will never charge it on any that do not expresly own it and yet if a Man should venture to say of some Prelates that they are unstable and their Brains unsettled as namely the late Bishops of Oxford and Ely c. I know not how it can be proved Blasphemy nor will any man call it so that has not made an Idol of the Mitre or the Head that wears it unless these clamours proceed from the same Principle with those of the Ephesians who were as tender of their Diana as these men are of the Hierarchy and this Image of Succession that dropt down from Jupiter After all we have said against the Necessity of such a Line yet if this Gentleman or any for him will clear it we will have as much Benefit by it as himself having largely proved that Presbyters are the same with Bishops by the Law of God and therefore our Ordinations are as valid as theirs but we will never so far betray the Honour of the Church nor the Peace of mens Consciences as to make all depend upon that which is impossible to be proved and certainly if it be a thing of that consequence this Gentleman makes it the proof should be as strong and clear as that of the most essential Doctrines of our Religion and to say as Mr. Dodwel is forced at last that a Presumptive Title may serve is to unsay all and to confess that it is not the reality of such a Line on which the Power depends but the strong Conceit and Presumption of men which is the worst Basis that Episcopacy has ever yet been fixed upon 2. The second thing in our Plea is That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and the Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws of the Land And this I think will follow from the former if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God it must be from the Laws of the Land Here I expect some will reply Datur tertium there is the Jus Ecclesiasticum resulting from the Customs and Canons of the Church by which Bishops formerly laid claim to this Power even when there was no Christian Magistrate but this will be soon answered For 1. This Jus Ecclesiasticum has not the proper nature of a Law nor does it oblige by virtue of strict Authority we are not bound in Conscience by the Canons of Ancient Foreign Churches any farther than the matter of them brings the stamp of Scripture along with it Grot. de Impsum Potestat p. 168. The
Religion upon pain of being convicted of Schism by the Word of God and how the effects of such an opinion should be any other than peace I cannot unless it be by an Antiperistasis and the powerful opposition of contrary principles that some Mon have suckt in I confess when these Gentlemen are so often telling us of the loss of peace if Dissenters will not all come to Church it appears to me like a menacing the Government as if they were resolved to throw all into confusion again unless they may be restored to the liberty of trampling us under foot and if our present Indulgence be attended with such dangerous symptoms I believe they do wholly arise from the discontents of some four and haughty Spirits that cannot be satisfied with all their Grandeur whilst Mordecai sits in the Gate and will not bow But says he suppose a Man should introduce the same doctrine into the State and tell people that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies that they need not own the Present Government but where has Mr. H. said any thing like this in the whole Enquiry Does he any where say Men need not to own the Government that God has established in his Church but may act by a Polity of their own I wish this Gentleman can clear himself as well of such a Doctrine as Mr. H. may If he means that it is as unlawful to have several distinct Bishops and Churches in the same Diocess as several Kings in the same Kingdom he deserves the rebukes of the Government much more than Mr. H. or the Vindicator either It is plainly the drift of these Men to make themselves as absolute Governours over the Laity as Princes over their Subjects and if they can persuade Men that it is as great a Crime to leave the Ministration of their Parish Priest what ever he be and go to hear another that is as truly a Minister of the Gospel as to rebel against their Prince and set up another in his room they have taken a great step towards it His harangue about the Present Government about the Title of K. James the Nature and Rights of Soveraignty he may if he pleases reserve for the Illumination of his Brethren that are for distinguishing between Kings de facto and de jure without which Vehicle they could not so easily have swallow'd the Oath of Allegiance or for his dear Friends in the Jacobite Conventicles whom it may be he would willingly excuse from Schism notwithstanding their Separation because they still adhere to Episcopacy and Ceremonies those fundamental Principles of Unity that which follows in the same Paragraph is equally false and impertinent Mr. H. never sets people at liberty to break into parties or to make any such divisions as he speaks of but endeavours to prevent all such things by fixing a brand upon that division in affection which commonly gives the rise to all other sinful divisions amongst men As to the differences betwixt the Presbyterian and the Independant Party in former times with which he upbraids us I shall only say if the Presbyterian Churches were framed according to the Word of God and laid no other Burden upon their Members than necessary things according to the Apostles Canon which all Churches are for ever bound to observe that Separation was Sinful and if it proceeded from uncharitableness it was Schismatical according to Mr. H's Notion And if this Concession will do him any service let him take it and make his best advantage of it And if it be sinful to break off from Particular Church Communion without just cause it is much more so for men to deny and renounce Communion with all Christians and Churches that will not comply with needless inventions of their own We are now come to Mr. H's Description of Schism viz. That it is an Uncharitable Distance Division or Alienation of affection amongst those who are called Christians and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things The Gentleman first charges this Description of Schism with Novelty and Wildness and then proceeds to draw out the consequences But as to Novelty and Wildness if it be the Scripture notion of Schism it will sufficiently clear it self of such imputations The question Mr. H. proposed was not what the Fathers called Schism but what the Spirit of God calls so in his Word it was this which he undertook to answer and if he has acquitted himself well in that he is not concerned what this or that Father calls Schism and this description is founded on the case of the Corinthians They were called Christians and it was fit to put that into the definition for we are not enquiring into the Schisms of Jews Turks or Pagans They agreed in the Fundamentals of Religion that is in all that was absolutely necessary to Salvation otherwise the Apostle would scarcely have given them the Title of Brethren and Saints acknowledging the Grace of God in them That there were contentions amongst them to the prejudice of Christian Love and Charity will not be denied since the Apostle plainly reprimands them for it And that these contentions were occasioned by different apprehensions is equally certain otherwise there would have been no room nor pretence for such contests And that all this was about little things that is comparatively little on which Salvation does not necessarily depend is sufficiently plain from the good account that is given of these persons as to the main notwithstanding these unhappy differences These contentions thus circumstantiated the Apostle calls Schisms and Mr. H. though a man might without danger or offence conclude That an Uncharitable distance or alienation of affections amongst those that are called Christians occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things is Schism according to the Scripture notion and account of it But nothing will please those that have a mind to be quarrelsome this must be bantered for a wild novel and bungling description the latest that ever was Coined And yet if this Gentleman had perused the Homilies of the Church of England before he subscribed to them as in all Reason and Conscience he ought to have done he would have found such an Agreement betwixt Mr. H's description of Schism and the sense of his own Church as would have obliged him for his own sake to have treated it with better language Let him consult the Homily against contention F. 9. and there he will find that the Church of England places the Unity of the Church in Concord and Charity and the Rents or Schisms of the Church in discord contention bitter Emulation c. Oh how the Church is divided Oh how it is cut and mangl'd Oh how that Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all rent and torn Oh body Mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is
is the Assembly of all the Saints And again The City of the Lord is the Church of the Saints the Congregation of the Just St. Austin speaking of the visible or mixt Church De Bapt. Con. Donat. l. 7. c. 51. distinguishes it into two Nations Jerusalem and Babylon the Faithful and the Wicked the latter may be in the Visible Church but are not really of the Church and says The Rights of the Church belong only to the Faithful Amongst the Divines of the Reformed Churches the Incomparable Jurieu speaks as fully to the purpose as we can desire Pastoraâ— Lett. Vol. 1. p. 151. He describes the Unity of the Church by the Unity of the Spirit the Unity of Doctrine and the Unity of the Sacraments and exposes the Bishop of Meaux for making the Unity of the Ministry necessary to Salvation saying They must have lost their Senses that suffer themselves to be deluded with such Imaginations as if the Medicine must be given by such a hand or else it would not heal but poison them and adds Ah my Brethren open your Eyes upon this Folly and be ashamed thereof be sure every hand that gives you the true Doctrine is good in that respect the saving remedy of Truth heals from whomsoever it comes And the same Person reckoning up the Innovations of the Third Age mentions amongst the rest Cyprian's corrupt Idea of the Church thereby opening a Door to the most cruel Doctrine that ever was advanced of which he thus speaks He made a false Idea of the Unity of the Church which be encloses in one external Communion and because the Unity of one visible Head was not yet invented he imagined I know not what Unity of Episcopacy which all the Bishops did individually possess whereof nevertheless each administred but a part This inconsistent Imagination gave place afterwards for the substitution of one single Head to the end that a visible Head might be given to the Unity of the visible Communion which might be the Center thereof The Bishop of Meaux brags much of four or five Passages in Sr. Cyprian P. 149. that ancient Doctor goes so far as to say There can be no Martyr but in the Church that when a Man is separated from its Unity 't is in vain that he sheds his Blood for the Confession of Jesus Christ This Maxim in a large signification may be suffered for indeed there may be Hereticks who confessing the Name of Jesus Christ but on the other side ruining the Foundations of the Christian Religion may die for the Religion of Jesus Christ to no advantage But the Application which St. Cyprian makes thereof is one of those Faults over which wise Men ought to draw a Curtain he proceeds so far as to apply it to the Nevatians Now it must be known that the Novatians were good Christians a thousand times better than the Papists since they did not ruine any of the Foundations but retained and believed all the Christian Verities only they were something severe in Discipline and would not receive those that fell in times of Persecution to the Peace of the Church was not this a fine occasion to say as Cyprian did That a Novatian was no Christian O what temper are the Doctors of the Roman Church that make use of those Excesses which ought to be hid out of honour to those Great Men that fell into them It was Cyprian's Zeal for the Peace of the Church and the Harred he had for Schism that ran him into that Excess as to think or say P. 150 151. That out of I do not know what Exterior Unity of the Church a Man could not be saved and it was in this Age that Men begun to corrupt the Idea of the Church I have transcribed thus much out of the Letters of this Illustrious Divine because some noted Men amongst us lay much stress upon the Authority of Cyprian in this Notion or One Communion and One Episcopacy though they can make bold to censure him themselves in the case of Rebaptizing Ep. 68. Ed. Goulart p. 201. and the Peoples Duty of withdrawing from the Communion of a Debauched Bishop in which he is very Positive and I know not why they should deny us that Liberty they take themselves But it may be the Opinion of an Eminent Divine of the Church would go further with some People than either Scripture or Fathers or foreign Authors And is it not the common sence of that Church that has so often told the World there is none upon Earth so Learned and Wise as her self that without the Unity of Episcopacy there can be no true Church no Sacraments no Salvation I confess her Chieftains have been free enough of such kind of Language when it has been her Glory to tread upon the Necks of poor Dissenters but when the Tables were turned and she had to do with an Adversary that could make as great a Noise about Catholick Unity and Communion as her self she learned more Modesty and Discretion Though they all acquitted themselves well in their late Rencounters with the Papists yet I know none that have come off more cleverly than the Examiners of Bellarmine's Notes of the Church Upon the seventh Note the Union of the Members amongst themselves We have this Account of Church-Unity P. 164 165. There is the Unity of submitting to One Head the Lord Jesus There is the Unity of Professing the Common Faith that was once delivered to the Saints There is a Unity of Sacraments a Unity of Obedience to all the Laws and Institutions of Christ the Union of Christian Affection and Brotherly Kindness The Unity of Discipline and Government by retaining for substance the same Form that was left in the Church by the Aposties an Unity of Communion in the Worship and Service of God Now to speak clearly there ought to be all these Kinds and Instances of Unity in the Church but we see evidently they are not all thore I mean in every part and Member of the Church and therefore they are not all necessary to the being of a Church but some of them are and they are The Acknowledgment of One Lord the Profession of One Faith and Admission into the state of Christian Duties and Privileges by One Baptism And this is all that I can find absolutely necessary to the Being of a Church And if they be the same Persons that Vindicate the Discourse of the Notes they speak yet plainer thus Vindic. p. 20 22. In such a divided state of Christendom as this is meer External Unity and Communion cannot be the mark of a true Church All true Christian Churches are United in the most Essential things Ephes 4.5 6. They have one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all and this makes them one Body animated by the same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church but still they are not One entire Communion
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
Gentleman's design is to revive these old Ceremonies of Feasting and Kissing and having all things common not only for the sake of their Apostolical Institution but as being all of them Ceremonies of very comfortable importance to a Man of his Temper and Circumstances But after all if it were plain that the Apostles made meer Ceremonies terms of Communion it will scarcely follow that our Bishops may do so too no more than that they may write Canonical Epistles and make Laws to bind the whole World as the inspired Apostles did To make terms of Communion is a very great Power especially if out of Communion there be no Salvation for then to make terms of Communion is to make the terms of Salvation and to put such a Power into the hands of weak and fallible Men is a thing of such dismal Consequences to the Souls of Men that we may be sure our Blessed Redeemer would never do it He has in his own Person and by his Apostles whom he inspired fixed that Law by which he will justifie and condemn Men and has not left it in the Power of any Mortal to add thereunto and to pretend to such Power is not only to impose upon Men but upon God too as if he must ask them leave whether he shall have a Church upon Earth or no. REFLECTIONS Upon a PAMPHLET ENTITULED A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H ' s. new Notion of Schism and the Vindication of it THE Title of this Paper imports that there has been some kind of Answer already made to the Enquiry and Vindication but such as the Zealous Club judge Lame and Impotent and therefore have thought fit to order a Review great things surely may be expected from this which comes to supply the defects of the former Methinks the Author of the Reply is more concerned in this thing called a Review than either the Enquiror or Vindicator Reply p. 2. for 't is a scurvey intimation that his own Confederates do not believe him when he boasts that he has run down his Adversary and proved and shewed and demonstrated every thing for if they had entertain'd as good an opinion of the success of his last expedition as he himself has it had been the most superfluous thing in the World to have come with a Review before the other had received an Answer these things would almost persuade a Man to think P. 35. that T. W's Reputation is not so great amongst the party as he pretends But whether this latter comes out on purpose to Affront the Citizen or whether it be with his consent upon conviction of the miserable weaknesses of his Reply I neither know nor care my business is to enquire whether the valiant Second has done any greater seats than he that first engaged in the quarrel This Gentleman must not expect an Answer to his famous and innumerable Oxford Jests I consider the humour of his party and how dull and insipid every thing is to them how rational soever that has not a great mixture of Farce and Comedy in it for my part I shall take no more notice of them than I would do of those little ludicrous wanton Creatures that can make themselves excellent sport with their own Tails and Shadows As to the Enquiry there are two very material things he encounters in it the Design and the Management He will not allow the Design of it to be Honest and Peaceable to allay heats and create a better understanding amongst us as the Vindicator pretends that design it seems is too high and the Vindicator ascribes too much to Mr. H. in saying he endeavoured to create a better understanding betwixt parties that had been so long and learnedly contending this is to place him in the Chair and make him an Oracle and I do not know what so uneasie a thing it is to Proud Men to hear any body commended but themselves it seems the Reviewer had no design to accommodate differences or to contribute any thing to a better understanding betwixt Church-men and Dissenters he modest man will not pretend to take so high an aim for my part I believe this was not his design but then I am sure it must be something worse that is to enflame the differences and perplex the controversie and no doubt he has managed such a design as well as he could He tells us Mr. H's design was no greater than to satisfie the scruples of some persons and to make two Female Proselites which is a great piece of news to Mr. H. for he declares he knows nothing of it and desires the Gentleman to name the Persons that were to be drawn in and to tell us at what Gossipping he pickt up this Story or else we must lay the Brat at his own Door I leave it to the Reader to judge what expectations Mr. H. could have from this Book when he found so notorious a Fiction in the very first Page And truly he goes on as he begun telling us that Mr. H's Notion of Schism will turn all Church Discipline out of Doors Review p. 3. for if breach of Communion be no Schism as these Gentlemen alledge a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting House c. It is not without good reason that some Men have so great a spight at the Stool of Repentance there are a sort of Men that hate it as a Thief hates the Gallows the Citizen could not forbear it in his Book But to let that pass I wonder where this Gentleman finds any such a Sentence in either of the books he pretends to review as that breach of Communion is no Schism let him produce it or confess himself worse than a trifler Both those Books acknowledge Separation of Communion to be Schism if it be uncharitable and to be sinful if it be without good reason and how this can be prejudicial to Church Discipline I know not unless by Church Discipline be meant that uncharitable unchristian and tyrannical thing that has been sometimes acted under that Title and if that should be turned out of Doors by this account of Schism all wise men will love it better upon that score He proceeds We have reason to question the peaceableness of his design Review p. 4. for the Notion it self being contrived to encourage and justifie Separation I am afraid the last result and consequence of it will not be peace this has as little honesty in it as the former there is not the least tendency in Mr. H's Notion to encourage or justifie any sinful Separation nay it lays the strictest tye upon persons to see to it not only that the cause of their Separation be just but the manner of it peaceable and charitable too if the Cause be not just it is sinful and if it be not managed peaceably and charitably it is Schismatical Nay it obliges persons in the same Communion to avoid uncharitable contentions about the lesser matters of
the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity one to another for he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Unity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be amongst us we be carnal and walk according to the Fleshly Man And St. James saith if ye have bitter emulation or envying or contention in your hearts glory not of it for where contention is there is unstedfastness and all evil deeds c. Nothing is more evident than that the thing declaimed against in this Homily is Schism what else signifie the words cut and mangled divided rent and torn And as plain it is that this rending and tearing and cutting and mangling the Body of Christ is done by contention by the violation of concord and charity without which we cannot be joined to the Head nor one to another it is true it mentions Factions and Sects He speaks of contentious Sects but there may be Factions amongst those of the same external Communion and there are many Sects too in the Church of Rome where the external Communion is the same and so there were formerly amongst the Jews and at this day in the Church of England some are Arminians others Calvinists in points of Doctrine But both the Title of the Homily and the express words and general scope of it make the Rents and Schism in the Coat of Christ to consist principally in the want of Concord and Charity in Emulation envying and heart contentions Which I hope will justifie Mr H. from the censure of having advanced a wild and novel doctrine Now let us examine the Consequences which this Gentleman has drawn out of this Definition First of all From hence it will follow that he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian But before we can tell whether there be any absurdity in this we must desire him to explain himself and tell us what he means by a true admission into the Christian Church If by admission he means Baptism and by true admission Baptism after the form and mode prescribed by his Church I doubt not there are many may be justly called Christians that were never so admitted and if he will take upon him to assert that none can be guilty of Schism but who have been admitted according to their Canons he will fairly acquit a great number of Dissenters from that crime who though they have been Baptized yet not altogether according to their Rubrick As for Mr. H's Words they are plain enough Schism in the Scriptural Sence is only the fault of professed Christians and all professed Christians are visible Members of the Catholick Church 2. That Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. sapposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the Fundamentals of Religion Yes he does suppose so and very justly for those that deny fundamental Truths are without the Christian Faith without the Unity of the Church and where there is no such Union there can be no Schism which always supposes a previous Union As Treason always supposes that a Man be a Subject of the King and Member of the Common wealth If a Man never received the Fundamentals of Christianity he never was a Member of Christ's Body and therefore never a capable subject of that Christian Love and Brotherly kindness the violation whereof is the thing in Scripture called Schism if he has formerly professed the Faith and afterwards renounced it he has by so doing dissolved that principal Fundamental Union with the Christian Church upon which Brotherly Love is built and therefore after such Apostacy cannot be formally guilty of the breach of Christian Charity because he is indeed no Christian and so no capable Subject of such Charity and can no more properly be called a Schismatick than a Stone or Tree can be called blind or any other thing in which there is no capacity of Sight And if the Gentleman do not like this Notion he may if he pleases write a Book to convince the Grand Signior and the Great Mogul and Cham of Tartary See the Review p. 8. that they are all Schismaticks as were their Fathers Jannes and Jambres the Egyptian Sorcerers before them But he adds This is as much as to say the greater the fault the lesser the crime By no means for what if Hereticks be not Shismaticks are they therefore innocent Creatures What if Traytors Murderers Adulterers be not Schismaticks are they therefore Saints Heresie in Fundamentals is a greater crime than bare Schism and the less is merged in the greater And it seems very strange that the same Gentleman who but a line or two before thinks it absurd to call those Schismaticks who were never truely admitted into the Church should think it also absurd not to call those Schismaticks that either never embraced the Christian Faith or have since renounced it 3. The third inference is According to this Definition Alienation of Affection is Schism but Division or Alienation of Communion is not Here he ought to have told us what he means by Division or Alienation of Communion Communion with the same God and the same Mediator and in the same Essentials of Faith and Worship is necessary to the Being of Christianity and an Alienation here is something worse than Schism if he mean personal Communion in the Worship of God in the same place and after the same Mode 't is impossible this should be undivided if by Alienation of Communion be means withdrawing from that particular Church of which we have been members and joyning with another 't is no more but what is allowed to all upon the removal of their Habitations and may be lawful on many other accounts but if it be done without some good reason it is sinful if it be done out of Uncharitableness towards the Church we leave it is Schism now if he would be as plain with us as we desire to be with him there might be hopes of bringing the matter to some issue But the last Inference is most remarkable both for Phrase and Sence and I would desire the Author to review it No one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his Heart it is impossible to know according to this Description that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity except we should enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts and on the contrary People may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and yet no Body can accuse them with it But pray why is this last Sentence said to be on the contrary to the former it 's impossible to know that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity and on the contrary People may
be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and no Body can accuse them Here 's a marvellous contrariety betwixt these two Sentences montibus illis erant crant in montibus illis I suppose by on the contrary he meant on the Tautology at least he must give us leave to take it so But is there no way then to know mens Uncharitableness but by looking into the Secrets of their Hearts Did he never hear of a rule by their Fruits ye shall know them How often does this Gentleman accuse the Enquirer and Vindicator with Malice and Uncharitableness If he had no evidence for this by overt acts we know what to call him but if he had sufficient ground for it then his Inference is spoiled and proves like the former Only thus far we will allow him to argue if Schism consist in such Uncharitableness and Alienation of Affection men ought to be very cautious how they call one another Schismaticks lest they should be guilty of that Sin themselves whilst they are charging it upon others and I suppose this is not the least of our Authors Prejudices against Mr. H's Notion that it will not suffer men to be continually bawling Schismaticks Schismaticks against all that are not of their own Perswasion but I am sure all but Schismaticks will like it the better upon this account that it would lay a restraint upon men that they should not without very good grounds fix such a brand upon their Neighbours nor as heretofore hunt them out of Churches Corporations and out of the World too as far as in them lay by the noisie clamours they have raised about this Word Our Surveyor proceeds to blame this Notion for want of clearness and puts wonderful hard Questions 1st Whether this uncharitable distance must be really amongst those that are Christians But this is the same thing over again and has received its Answer they must really be such as profess Christianity but who are real Christians God knows and if these men will forbear calling Dissenters Schismaticks till that matter be fully cleared the World would be much quieter 2. Qu. What does he mean by Fundamentals of Religion But what strange perverseness is this in those who so often tell us we have all the Fundamentals of Religion in the Apostles Creed He asks Whether Fundamentals of Salvation or Fundamentals of Truth and I answer they are Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation he urges further are they so to every man in his Private Capacity or are they the Fundamentals of Church Communion These are mighty pretty Distinctions pray why should those things be Fundamentals of Church Communion which are not necessary to the Salvation of particular Persons 3. Qu. What does he mean by little things Whether all Manner of little things or Ecclesiastical little things Had this Gentleman look't into the case of the Corinthians he might have answered himself they are such things as relate to the Affairs of the Church which are comparatively small that is small in Comparison of the great things wherein they agreed and of the great heats these things caused From these little quibbles which do no Body harm but himself he returns to his former Practice of falsifying Mr. H's Words for says he Mr. H. tells us Review p. 7. there is but one Scripture in the Old Testament relating to this Affair viz. Num. 11.21 But what if Mr. H. say no such thing Why then all his fine Observations upon it fall to the ground and he must give us leave to observe that he is a very unfair and unjust Writer all that Mr. H. says is The Old Testament will not help us so much in this Enquiry as the new only mentioning that one Text and that not as giving us a proper Notion of Schism but only helping to rectifie some mistakes concerning it Now I 'll be so Civil to this Gentleman as to help him to take this matter aright He ought to consider what that Enquiry was which Mr. H. says the Old Testament will not be so helpful in as the New it was not how many times the Church has been troubled with Schisms it was not his design to write a History of all the Schisms that ever were in the Church either since Christ or before then indeed if he had said the Old Testament will not be so helpful to us the Gentleman might have inferred that the Jewish Church was not infested with this Sin but the Enquiry was What is that thing which the Scripture calls Schism And those Texts were to be principally discussed that have the Word Schism found in them and by considering the circumstances of those Cases and Actions which are charged with Schism he comes to determine the formal Nature of that Sin and there may be a hundred Texts relating to the thing which would not be in the least helpful to Mr. H. in this Enquiry till he had first cleared that to be really the thing called Schism which must be proved by comparing it with that which in express terms is so called This was Mr. H's Method and I think a very proper and rational One and therefore the Cases which this Gentleman mentions of Aaron and Miriam of Jannes and Jambres of Korah Dathan and Abiram were very justly omitted by Mr. H. for how bad soever those Practices were they cannot be proved Schismatical till it be made to appear that they are of the same kind and quality with those which Scripture calls Schisms He is pleased to divert himself with the instance of Eldad and Medad Prophesying in the Camp which he says is forreign to the business 1. Because they were to bear the weight of the Government with Moses under God But was it not in Subordination to Moses Was not he the chief Governour still And are not the Presbyters allowed some share of Government with the Bishops and does that make them incapable of being Schismaticks 2. Their Prophesying was for a sign Well be it so and would have less answered that end if these two had been with the rest of them in the Tabernacle 3. They were acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the Case of our Nonconformists No surely nor of the Conformists neither though they openly declare at their Ordination that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the Office of the Ministry But what if Eldad and Medad prophesied by impulse did not Mr. H. obviate that Objection by putting us in Mind that the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14.22 And though this Gentleman says that Scripture is impertinently alledged yet wiser men as Grotius and others give that sence of it which makes it as pertinent as any thing can be viz. The Spirits of the Prophets are so subject to the Prophets themselves that they are not acted with that urging Violence as will not allow a Compliance with the Rules of Order that is they might if
disagree and easie to be mistaken whereas the Fundamentals being more directly and positively asserted in the Word of God admit of clearer demonstration 'T is true indeed those that think it their duty in all the lesser matters of Religion to follow their Leaders and that make their Commands in these things the Standard of Sin and Duty have found out an easie Rule of Controversie and this seems to be his opinion for he says if Mr. H. were better acquainted with Church History he would find that whole Churches and Nations had their peculiar Customs and Ceremonies and yet their Members agreed well enough in their opinions about them And I will venture to add if this Gentleman be as well acquainted with Church History as he pretends he knows in his Conscience that he imposes upon his Reader and would obtrude a great fallacy upon the World The first Attempt for the introducing such Customs and Ceremonies into the Worship of God occasioned a great deal of Contention and Discord in the Apostles times and the Imposers were severely check'd by them for their Arrogance Gal. 5.1 and all Christians commanded to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not suffer themselves to be entangled with the yoak of Bondage and so great a Disturbance was raised by urgeing such Ceremonies v. 12. that the Apostle wishes they were cut off that troubled the Church with them And after the Apostles were dead when Ceremonies began to encrease though they were not for some time enjoyned but the People took them up partly of their own accord partly upon the example of those they had a great Veneration for yet they occasioned great Animosities and Discord in the Churches of which Socrates gives us many instances Lib. 5. c. 21 22. Sozom. l. 7.19 And when Victor would needs impose his Observation of Easter such Feuds and Heats were raised thereby as made them the scorn of the Pagans and were greatly lamented by all sober Bishops and Christians and both Cyprian and Irenaeus greatly blame him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stretching the Rigour of his Government Euseb l. 5. c. 24. not only beyond his line but also to Causes of indifferency which would not admit of such severe Censures And as Ceremonies and Impositions encreased Contentions grew up with them till at last a great part of the Christian World was laid in a dead sleep with that Poison poured into the Church and for a long time became like Issachar a strong Ass submitting to every Burthen then indeed there was almost a Universal Agreement about Ceremonies and a general Prostitution of Conscience to the dictates of the pretended Catholick Church but that was the darkest and worst state wherein Christianity ever was in the World I come now to examine this Gentleman's Account of the Corinthian Schism and indeed hic pes figendus this is the Core of the Controversie and the hinge upon which it turns if he be right in this he has broken Mr. H's Measures and put him upon a new Enquiry Mr. H. supposes that these Corinthians who are reproved for their Schismatical Contentions were agreed in the fundamental Articles of Faith and great Truths of the Gospel but engaged in foolish and uncharitable Contests about the Apostles some commending Paul and preferring him before the rest others crying up Cephas and a third sort Apollos thus having the Faith of Christ with respect of Persons This Gentleman has learned from Dr. Hammend to say That the Persons reproved for these Contentions were the Gnostick Hereticks Review p. 20 21. that denied the Resurrection of the Dead and lived in Incest and disswaded the People from Marriage and sacrificed to Idols that they might escape Persecution some of them pretend they had their heretical Doctrines from St. Paul P. 22. others fathered theirs upon Apollos others upon Cephas and another sort pretended they had seen Christ himself and received those Doctrines from his Mouth And he affirms they were Heretical Gnosticks only and not the Orthodox P. 24. who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos and concludes that the Schism of the Corinthians lay in opposing the sound Orthodox Doctors and maintaining their own wild Heresies under the Umbrage of these great Names Were it not for these Gnostick Hereticks I know not what some Men could do to misunderstand plain Scripture if we meet with any smart Reproofs in the Apostolical Epistles still they must be levell'd at the Gnostick Hereticks if any were guilty of Fornication it was the Gnosticks if any of Temporizing or of Schism they were Gnosticks as if all besides them had been Pure and Innocent This is too great partiality and savours much of the Pharisaical Humour of some Modern Men that are for casting the Odium of every ill thing upon those they are pleased to call Schismaticks that under this Blind all the Sons of the Church may come off clear and be thought in every thing blameless and inoffensive Now although I make no question but there were such Hereticks in those days and that they were as bad as he describes them that some of them lived amongst the Corinthians and that the Apostle sometimes speaks concerning them though I seldom find that he speaks directly to them yet that these were the persons here reproved for Schism much less the only persons I can never believe For these reasons 1. 1 Cor. 1. The Character which the Apostle gives of these contentious Corinthians in the context will by no means fit the Gnostick Hereticks for we find he calls them the Church of God Saints and in the 9th verse Persons that were called into the Fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord and in the very same verses wherein he admonishes them of their Schismatical Contentions he calls them Brethren v. 10. Now I beseech you Brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions amongst you For it hath been declared unto me of you my Brethren that there are contentions among you Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul c. Can any Man imagine these such gross and damned Hereticks as the Gnosticks have been always described Can we believe the same Apostle that was so sharp upon those that urged the Jewish Ceremonies as to call them Dogs and Evil Workers and bid the Christians beware of them would be so tender and kind so affectionate and endearing to the vilest corrupters of the Christian Faith as to call them Saints and Brethren and all the good names imaginable I am sure the Church of England seldom speaks to Protestant Dissenters in such obliging language and yet I hope we are not altogether so bad as the Gnostick Hereticks 2. If the fault here reproved had been Herefie and such as this Gentleman speaks of there 's no question but the Apostle
reprove them for Envying and Strife and Division in saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. And adds Who is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed I have planted Apollos hath watered and God gave the increase What sence can any man put upon this but that the fault here censured lay in their glorying too much in Instruments some in one some in another and therefore he adds Let no man glory in man for all things are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Would all this have been true of the Gnostick Hereticks or would this have been a proper way of dealing with them for their recovery 6. Clemens Romanus in the passage this Gentleman cited would have undeceiv'd him P. 110. if it had been considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Take into your hands the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul which he wrote unto you in the beginning of his Gospel for he being divinely inspired admonished you that there were sidings and factions amongst you concerning Himself and Cephas and Apollos But there was less Sin in that siding than in your present Contentions for there you sided with the Apostles c. Now I would fain know were these Corinthians Gnosticks too to whom Clemens here writes If the other were these must be so to for he says the Apostle admonished you that there were sidings among you Clemens here tells us that the Contending Corinthians whom St. Paul reproved sided with the Apostles which he mentions as a thing which did extenuate their Crime did the Gnostick Hereticks do so Can we think that by siding with the Apostles he means fathering their damnable Heresies upon the Apostles surely that would rather have aggravated than lessened the fault this Gentleman tells us the Gnostick Hereticks here reproved opposed their Orthodox Governours which agrees but very sorrily with what Clemens says of the Corinthian Schismaticks siding with the Apostles That Schism which Clemens reprehends he says was worse than that censured by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Schism they sinned less than in the latter but what could be worse than the Gnostick Heresie and fathering it upon God himself If those to whom Clemens writes were worse than the Gnosticks 't is strange we should not hear him taxing them with monstrous Errors and horrid Crimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 106. but that on the contrary he should tell them they had one God and one Christ and one Spirit poured out upon them and one calling in Christ and he aggravates their Sin in casting off their Faithful Elders because it was done by the Godly and says It was without President that the just should be rejected by Godly Men and nothing is more evident by the whole Series of that Epistle than that the Schism there reproved was not any Heresie or Apostacy from the Faith but that for the sake of a few factious Persons they had slighted and cast off their faithful Presbyters by whom not by any one single Person that Church was governed and the great fault is laid upon the want of Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great Encomiums upon Charity P. 114. and his earnest pressing of them to it shews that he look'd upon Uncharitableness to be the very Soul of their Schism whereby it was informed and acted which agrees so well with Mr. H's account that this Gentleman should have called it any thing rather than new but if this was the latter Corinthian Schism and if the former was not so criminal as this surely it could not be that damnable Blasphemous Gnostick Heresie which this Gentleman speaks of 7. If I thought what has been said were not sufficient I could add that the account which Jerom and many after him give of this Corinthian Schism will by no means quadrate with the Gnostick Heresie the Passage is very Trite and Common Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent Comment in Tlt. 1. diceretur in Populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Now though I can by no means grant that upon this very Schism Episcopacy was instituted for the Reasons already given yet it is sufficient for the present purpose that it was upon a Schism of the same kind and therefore the Nature of Schism may be understood hereby it consisted in contending about their Ministers that governed them in Common and instead of paying a due and equal respect to them all some cried up this another that probably every one would magnifie him by whom he had been Converted and Baptized and at length it seems it infected the Ministers themselves and they begun to challenge a special Propriety in those they had Baptized as if by Baptism men had been united to them not to Christ for the Prevention whereof one was chosen from amongst the rest and the Government of the whole principally committed to him and by this means they endeavoured to prevent such contests about the Preheminence for the future Let the Gentleman apply this to the Gnostick Heresie and he will find it to be the most unapt and discordant thing in the World were those Hereticks under the Common Government of the Presbyters of Corinth No he says they opposed their Orthodox Governours and puts the grossest abuse upon the Apostles making them Haeresiarcha's and what would it have signified to such men as those to have one of their despised Presbyters made a Bishop How would this have put an end to the Heresie What tendency could it have to make them change their Minds and renounce those Opinions for which they pretended Apostolical Authority Would they think that as soon as the Presbyter was advanced to the Quality of a Bishop he presently commenc'd infallible and therefore they must necessarily speak and think as he dictated to them The World has not found Episcopacy to be such a Soveraign Cure of Heresie the Arians had their Bishops and so have the Papists and prodigious great ones too but they are generally the greatest promoters of Heresie of all others I would now willingly consider any thing that has the least colour of reason to prove that the Corinthian Schism was the Gnostick Heresie and I have searched as diligently as I could those three or four pages which the Gentleman has writ upon this Point but I must needs say his whole discourse upon it is the most confused Jargon that ever I read from a man pretending so high as he does The thing which he
insists most upon to overthrow Mr. H's Notion that the Corinthian Schism lay in Uncharitable Contentions about their Ministers is that Expression And I of Christ upon which he thus Harangues Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this and it would have been a strange wild Fancy not to be contented with any other Minister excepting him besides it would be hard to assign any Reason why any Body should prefer Paul or Apollos before Christ I always thought our Saviour might have had the Pre-eminence But these Questions have been often put and variously answered some think the Apostle speaks this of himself Chrysost in loc as if he should say Let others chuse who they will for Heads of their Parties I only chuse Christ for mine others say that some few of the Corinthians being wiser than the rest contented themselves with the Name of Christians Partus in loc without any other dividing Denomination But that which seems most probable is that these unhappy Contentions about Paul and Apollos had this effect upon some that they too much slighted them all and pretended to be of Christ in contempt of his Ministers and it is observable that our Old Bibles Printed with large Notes in Queen Elizabeths days and by her Authority give this last as the sence of the place which shews that it was agreeable to the Sentiments of the Bishops in those days otherwise they would not have permitted those Notes to have been gone along with it and we have also there this account of Schism that it is when men who otherwise agree in Doctrin separate themselves from one another Now let this Gentleman take any of these Solutions and it will be abundantly less absurd than this account of the matter which he has given us He tells us That because these Corinthians had not the writings of the New Testament but must be instructed by their Prophets and Evangelists it would be a difficult thing for them to judge betwixt the Orthodox and the Heretical but I cannot apprehend any such mighty difficulty in the Case the Apostles when ever they planted Churches preached unto them the fundamental Articles of the Gospel which are few and plain and therefore easily received and remembred those that believed upon their Preaching could not so quickly forget them nor could they be easily perswaded to think that the Apostles would preach one Doctrine to them and the contrary to others and we may be assured any that should come with such wicked pretensions would meet with a sharp repulse and it was so far from being a difficult thing to discover such impostures that nothing but folly or fascination could hinder them from so doing and therefore when the Galatians were corrupted with the Principles of Judaical Pretenders the Apostle admires at their weakness Oh foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you c. He further informs us That when there were contrary Doctrines preached the proof of each must depend upon the Credit and Authority of those Persons from whom they were derived if from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts as Apollos it was the last great Authority I must confess this is quite above my reach I know not why this Gentleman should fancy such degrees of Credit and Authority as these The Apostles and Evangelists who were at that day infallibly inspired spoke with the highest Authority even that of Christ himself who spoke by them and in them by his Spirit and to distinguish betwixt the Credit and Authority of what Christ spoke and of what the Apostles Preached and writ is not only a vain but a dangerous thing and makes such a difference in the several parts of Scripture as ought not to be made as if there was less Credit and Authority in some than others I suppose the proof of any Doctrine would depend upon this Point rather whether it was really the Doctrine of Christ and his inspired Apostles and Evangelists or no if it could be evinced that any of them had delivered it there was proof sufficient of its Truth and Authority in the highest degree The Authority of the Apostles was not questioned nor any such degrees of Credibility imagined betwixt the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles and inspired Evangelists as to leave room for such pretended Comparisons all the doubt was whether such a Doctrine was theirs or no and there could not want Witnesses in every Church to confront any one that should bring another Gospel under any Name whatsoever The Gentleman has discovered a wonderful Argument for his Opinion in the form of Salutation the Apostle uses in this Chapter 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours from whence says he it is plain the Apostle makes two Parties amongst them the Orthodox and the Hereticks theirs and ours This then must be the meaning of that Preface The Church of God which is at Corinth Sanctified in Christ Jesus and whose members are called to be Saints consists of two Parties 1. Theirs that is to say notorious damn'd Gnostick Hereticks that deny the Resurrection and hold it lawful to live in Incest and to Sacrifice to Idols and that blasphemously ascribe these Doctrines of Devils to Christ and his Apostles these are the first sort of the Holy Sanctified Members of the Church of God at Corinth 2. Ours That is the Orthodox that hold fast the Truth and the form of sound words Grace and Peace be to them both certainly this would be the most scandalous Paraphrase that ever was invented and yet the Gentleman sees this plainly in the Text. But alas it affords no pretence for such a Comment for theirs and ours plainly refer to the Lord Jesus who says the Apostle is both their Lord and ours Theirs that believe on him as well as Ours that preach him to the World or theirs that are Gentiles as well as Ours that are Jews the Common Lord of all the faithful all the World over thus it is understood by the whole band of Interpeters Dr. Hammond himself not Dissenting but when a mans fancy is deeply ting'd with a Notion every thing must be thought to support it or else this would never have been mentioned to such a purpose I now attend his Review of the second instance of Schism 1 Cor. 11.20 I hear that there be Divisions among you c. Mr. H. observes this could not be meant of breach of Communion because they all come together into one place and into the Church too The Gentleman replies there was a notorious breach of Communion even at the Communion Table and very great and scandalous Miscarriages and who ever doubted of that But does he call these things a breach of Communion Then I am afraid it is often broken among themselves when Mr. H. denies that there was any breach of Communion he takes it in
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not