the Primitive Church liable to the same Exceptions But I hope we are not to be blamed for the dullness of his understanding The Expression is Plain and Pertinent He knows very well what Exceptions we make against the Power of our English Prelates c. Now if he can prove that the same Objections lye against the Primitive Episcopacy he shews thereby that they are frivolous and unjust and throws them out of doors as militating against Scripture Bishops as well as ours one would have thought the meanest Citizen in Chester might have understood this but it will never be better when men take upon them to be Authors in spight of Nature and Education He condemns the Vindicator as having no regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity for speaking of Scripture Rules before they were written this lets us see What Mercy we may expect from him when we stand in need of it We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can and as to this matter a few Words will evince that his Reflection is very unjust In his former Paper Arch-Rebel p. 2. speaking of the Progress of the Gospel and planting the seven Asian Churches in St. Johns time he adds Though there was a Multiplication of Churches yet no Variation here the Vindicator enquired What does he mean in saying there was no Variation Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worshop that 's gratis dictum if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules though we are afraid that will scarce hold yet we wish it had been so still Now it seems the Vindicators Errour was he spoke of Scripture Rules in the Apostolical Age and they were not then written No That 's something strange were not the Gospels and Epistles writ by Evangelists and Apostles during the time of their Lives No Legend that ever I heard of tells us of their rising from the dead and writing to the Churches And if they writ their Epistles containing Rules for Divine Worship why may not those be called Scripture Rules What if they were not Collected as soon as they were writ were they not therefore both Scripture and Authoritative And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time and that this awful Sanction If any shall add to these things God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Refers not only to the Apocalypse but to the whole Canon and stands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules that were not written in the Time of the Apostles I despair of ever coming to an agreement with him And it is certain there is a very material difference betwixt us about the Rule and Standard of Controversie which must be first adjusted before we can well proceed any further for if we take different Measures we shall certainly give a very different account Mr. H. desirous to find out the true Notion of Schism takes for his Rule all those places in the New Testament where that Word is found This the Gentleman is offended at and tells him If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed then he had found out the true Standard of this Controversie And the Vindicator thought there was more Reason to be offended with him for declining the sufficiency of the Scripture as the standard of Faith and Practice this he censured as an affront to Scripture and common Sense too for when the Authority of that Creed depends solely upon its agreement with Scripture how senceless a thing is it to make that a truer Standard than Scripture whose Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it What defence now will the Citizen make As good as he can afford no doubt He charges the Vindicator with saying that an Article of Faith is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence which is as false as any thing in the World we appeal to the Readers Eyes and desire no other favour but that he Read true To bring himself off he acknowledges That the Scripture indeed is the truest touch-stone of Sin and Duty but he adds whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed must needs err and we are assured of the Errour by that Article it contradicts Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity yet it will not serve his turn for then he should not have accused Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard but have proved that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Case which are two different things a man may take a true measure and yet mistake in measuring a thing by it but to tell him in the former Paper of not finding out the true standard and to think to come off in this by blaming his Exposition of it is a very sorry shift which his Ignorance or Inadvertency has forced him upon And yet we must not let him go without further Examination about this matter for it is certain he is fallen into a most dangerous Errour making the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture for so he tells us Reply p. 11. We come to be infallibly assured that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture against the Divinity of Christ is False because it contradicts that Article I believe in Jesus the onely begotten Son of God and that in the Nicene Creed God of God very God of very God being of one Substance with the Father This is an Opinion which his own Spiritual Guides are obliged to chastize him for being so contrary to the avowed Principles of all Protestant Churches and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily asserted in their late Writings against the Papists to which I refer him for his better Information amongst others let him consult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock in his Preservative against Popery where having declared that the Protestants abide by that Part 1st P. 49. which they see plainly proved out of Scripture bids us put this Question How shall we know what is the true sense of Scriptures and proposes three ways either by an Infallible Interpreter or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or by such humane means as are used to find out the sense of other Books He rejects the Pretensions of an Infallible Interpreter and disapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Consent of the Fathers and concludes there is no way left but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the Signification and Propriety of Words and Phrases the Scope and Context of the Place the Reason of things the Analogy between the Old and New Testament and the like Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of He is infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ because the Compilers of the Apostolical and
Nicene Creeds have so Interpreted Scripture but what if one should ask him How he is sure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expositions of Scripture Either he must fall into the Circle or resolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church and Compilers of those Creeds and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England and all the Reformed in one of the Principal and most Important Points of Controversie the Resolution of Faith I will not suppose him so ignorant as to think that the Apostles were the Authors of that Creed that goes under their Name Bishop Pearson and Dr. Towerson will tell him the contrary and by the Confession of all Protestants These Creeds are but summary Collections of the most principal Doctrines of Faith put into that form by Fallible Men and are to be received no further and on no other account than as they are Consonant to the Word of God and therefore were never intended as a Standard or Rule of Faith or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is so I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ if he had lived before these Symbols were extant I wonder how he is infallibly assured of the true sence of these Creeds I doubt he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another and so ad Infinitum but if he say the sence of these Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity so is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points and is sufficient Assurance of the Truth of them without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches Whether these odd Opinions are to be imputed to his inconsiderateness of which every Page affords us instances enough or rather to the Happy Illuminations of his great Rabbi Mr. Dodwell I will not determine but the latter is not improbable if we compare it with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes Separation of Churches p. 542. That the Power actually received by Ordained Ministers must not be measured by the true Sence of Scriptures but by that wherein the Ordainers understood them c. Many other Effata of the like Nature have proceeded from that great Oracle which would scarcely have been encouraged or so much as suffered in any Reformed Church besides our own but it was sufficient to make these things passable that they were levelled at the Dissenters and sent them all headlong into the Pit I think it may not be amiss to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice against the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which this Gentleman very unfairly suggests the Passage aimed at is this To say that Bishops Vindic. p. 18. which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in their Apostolical Power is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government and would give the Bishop of Rome as great Power in England as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury when there is any All the Malice lies in this little Parenthesis when there is any and here the Citizen clamours upon him for reviling Gods High Priest Reply p. 18. and speaking evil of the Ruler of his People What Apology will the Vindicator now make Truely if it was my own Case I would desire no better than that of St. Paul under the same Accusation I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest The late Arch-Bishop had been deprived by Law above half a Year before that Vindication was writ and the Metropolitane See was vacant a considerable time after this was Printed and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People to say there was none I will not drive this too far I hope he can give a better Reason for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him If he was the Ruler still What becomes of the Authority of those that deprived him It had been more becoming this Gentleman to have answered that Argument wherein this Parenthesis had its Place than by falling foul upon so Innocent an Expression to expose those thoughts which Prudence would have concealed I know not of any thing else in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatise wherein I have attempted at least to prove that our Congregations are not Schismatical or Unlawful though many of our Ministers were not Ordained by Diocesan Bishops though the Places we meet in be distinct from the Parish Churches and the Mode of our Worship in some things different from theirs And because I find the most Learned of our Adversaries condemn our Present Practice 1. As Inconsistent with Catholick Unity and Communion 2. As Guilty of Disobedience to Superiours Civil and Spiritual 3. And of Scandalous Indecencies and a Breach of good Rules and Order I shall examine the matter as carefully as I can under all these Particulars heartily Praying that whatever Censures I bring upon my self the Interests of Truth and Peace may be promoted ERRATA PAge 6. l. 38. r. retain'd p. 16. l. 13. r. consciousness p. 20. margent r. August p. 33. l. 38. r. Diaboli instinctu p. 37. l. 15. p. 38. l. 12. for rite r. right p. 117. l. 17. for Ananias r. Anianus Several lesser faults will occur which are referr'd to the Reader 's Candor and Emendation A Defence of the Vindication c. CHAP. 1. The true Notion of Catholick Unity distinguished into Political and Moral A Regular Ministry not Essential to this Unity The Judgment of the Fathers and others IT is the observation of an Ingenious Gentleman that the World has never been without some extraordinary word to fill mens mouths and furnish out Pamphlets and by which the Sentiments of men have been for the most part more absolutely governed than by the true reason of things for Reason concludes nothing without disquisition but the other like a kind of spell captivates and determines mens thoughts many times beyond the Relief of the most rational and convincing Arguments Amongst all the Charms of this nature which take place as the Interests and Designs of Parties or posture of Publick Affairs vary and direct I know of none that has been more unmercifully tortured and forced to speak things never intended by it than this of Unity It has been the Motto and Device of every Ascendant Party in the Militant Church to frighten the weak and timorous and chastise the more resolute opposers of Spiritual Usurpation and Tyranny The Papists for the good Service it has done them have preferr'd it to be the Seventh Note of their Church according to the Order in which their great Cardinal has marshall'd them and under the Umbrage thereof have raised the greatest Feuds and Divisions that ever infested the Christian World In their most bloody Persecutions barbarous and funest Tragedies they have still pretended to act by the Commission of Catholick Unity to advance her Interests
it plainly speaks of that Extraordinary Mission of the Apostles to the Gentile World by them as Men infallibly inspired for that End were the great Doctrines of the Gospel delivered and the perpetual Rule of Faith laid down this they must by no means have presumed to do had they not been sent of God and yet without such a Gospel the World had never believed on Christ and this Apostolical Doctrine is still the great Instrument by which God converts Souls sometimes by reading of it themselves sometimes by hearing it from others whether duely ordained or no sometimes by bringing it to their Remembrance when they are neither reading nor hearing it though the usual way is by the Preaching of a faithful Ordained Ministry but to say that it is never done by other means cannot be proved by Scripture and is evidently contradicted by Experience I cannot but have a great value for the Judgment of Monsieur Claude in this particular and shall therefore transcribe his words in that learned Treatise before mentioned Histor Def. Part 4. p. 54. viz. It is the Church that produces the Ordinary Ministry and not the Ordinary Ministry that produces the Church The Church was the fruit of the Extraordinary Ministry of the Apostles and Evangelists That Ministry of theirs produc'd it at first and not only produc'd it but it has always made use of that means or that source for its Subsistence and we may truly say That it yet produces it and that it will produce it unto the End of the World For it is the Faith that makes and always will make the Church and it is the Ministry of the Apostles that makes and always will make the Faith It is their Voice that calls Christians together at this day it is their word that essembles them and their teaching that unites them It is certain that the Ministry of the Apostles was singular that is to say only tyed to their Persons without Succession without Communication or Propagation but it ought not to be thought that it was also transitory as that of other Men for it is perpetual in the Church Death has not shut their Mouths as it has others they speak they instruct they incessantly spread abroad Faith and Holiness among the Souls of Christians and there is not another Fountain from whence those Virtues can descend but from them If any demand of us what is the perpetual Voice that we ascribe unto them We answer That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament where they have set down all the Efficacy of their Ministry and the whole virtue of that Word which gave a Being to the Church there is their true Chair and Apostolick See there is the Center of Christian Unity there it is that they incessantly call Men and joyn them into a Society But as to the ordinary Ministry we cannot say the same thing of them it is not their Voice as distinct from that of the Apostles that begets the Faith that assembles Christians into a Society or that produces the Church They are no more but meer Dispensers of the words of the Apostles or external Instruments to make us the better understand their Voice to speak properly it is not the Voice of the ordinary Pastors that produces Faith where it was not before it is the word of the Apostles themselves They are no more but those External Guides that God has established in the Church to lead Men to the Scripture and even such Guides as cannot hinder us from going thither of our selves if we will Therefore there is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of Ministers the one preceded the Church the other follows it the one has an independent and sovereign Authority with Infallibility on its side the other is exposed to Vices Disorders Errors and humane Weaknesses inferior to and depending on the Church And indeed to affirm that no Man can be truly converted but by a Regular Ministry would involve the Minds of Men in endless Perplexities A Man must know all those things that belong to the due mission of the Preacher and must be assured that all those met in the person by whose Ministry he was helped to believe before he can know that he has true Faith this would keep persons in a dark and uncomfortable state all their days especially if a Line of uninterrupted Succession be necessary to a true Mission for then a Man must be able to prove that the Bishop that ordained his Converter was ordained by another Bishop and that by another and so up to the Apostles which because no man in the World can be morally assured of it is impossible for any Man to know that he has true Faith This is an insuperable difficulty on the one hand And on the other those Persons that know they have true Faith by the powerful effects of it upon their Hearts and Lives must conclude from hence that their Preachers were duely ordained and called otherwise they could nor have been instrumental in their Conversion and yet this would not be true for doubtless there are many honest Souls that fear God and work Righteousness amongst those Sects that have no Regular Ministry amongst them So that this Assertion would rob many Souls of the comfort of a true Faith because of the uncertainty of their Ministers Mission and it would confirm others in an irregular and unauthorized Ministry because of the cerainty of their Faith I hope by this time I may venture to conclude That the essential Unity of the Church consists in Gospel-Faith and Love hereby Men are made Saints and unired to Christ and Members of the Catholick Church Did I think the Chester Gentleman would not yet take it I would be so civil to him as to and some more Testimonies That of Clemens Alexandranus is apposite enough The ancient Catholick Church is but one only Church Strom. l. 7. and assembles in the Unity of one only Faith by the Will of one only God and Ministration of one only Lord all those who were before Predestanted to be just having known them before the Foundation of the World In Cant. Hom. 1. In Maten 16. De Ar◠Patr. l. 1. c. 3 In Psal 35. De coronà indilitis So likewise Origen The Church is the Society of the Saints and else where The Church which God builds consists in those who are upright and full of those Thoughts Words and Actions which lead to Blessedness St. Amtrose tells us The Assembly of the Righteous is God's Tabernacle and that the Saints are the Members of Jesus Christ Terrullian says Where there are Three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith S. In Job c. 26. Jerome speaks to the same purpose saying The Church which is the Assembly of all Saints is the Pillar and Ground of Truth because she has in Jesus Christ an Eternal firmness In Cant. Hom. 1. and elsewhere The Church
ignorant in saying that Timothy and Titus and Linus were made the Successors of the Apostles in their Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles were still living for in this case the Apostles might have outlived their Successors and if we believe some Historians they did so and if this be ignorance in the Vicar it can be no extraordinary piece of Wisdom and Illumination in the Citizen he confesses this is a mystery and so he says is all the Gospel but he must not take upon him to obtrude such stuff of his own upon the World because the Gospel is a mystery thanks be to God a man may easily discern betwixt the mysteries of the Gospel and those of T. W's making But if this Notion won't pass under the pretence of Mystery he will invent a reason for it which we have in these Words They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical Power if the Apostles whilst living had not conferr'd it upon them could the Apostles have ordained then after they were dead No truly no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead but were all that the Apostles ordained their Successors in Apostolical Power then the Presbyters which they ordained must be so too He says The Apostle by ordaining them in his Life-time secured the Succession to them and the Government too in the Apostles absence But I wish he had told us how they could secure the Succession to them unless they could have secured them from dying before them and for securing the Government to them in the Apostles absence that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters but if they were invested in Apostolical Power they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apostles Presence as in their Absence for the Apostles had all the same Power and had it alike whether together or asunder In short if it be really true that the Bishops must either be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles lived or they could never be so we must conclude they could never be so for whilst the Apostles lived they could not have Successors in their Office especially such as claimed their Power by such Succession The second Point is equally censurable viz. That he is no true Bishop that was not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards to the Apostles This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved and that the Papists whose Interest it is to make men believe so confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See The Gentleman replies I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession that all established Catholick Churches do assert it and that in every Diocess it is as sacredly recorded as the Succession of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones and challenges his Adversary to prove the contrary Well I 'll be so civil to him as to tell him that which it seems he knew not before touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succession Eusebius himself notwithstanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Successors of the Apostles Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuously confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But how many or who were the true Successors of the Apostles and thought sufficient to govern the Churches founded by them is hard to say excepting those which perhaps some one may gather out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate says What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures Are all the outcries of Apostolical Tradition of Personal Succession of Unquestionable Records resolved at last into Scripture it self by him from whom all these Pedigrees are fetched Then let Succession know its place and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them There are two things to be done before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line first He must have a true Catalogue of the Names of all such Bishops as have filled the See and then he must be able to demonstrate that none of them came in after a Surreptitious manner without Episcopal Ordination the former is difficult but the latter much harder and yet without it the former will amount to no more than a Wild-goose row of hard Words and Names 1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a satisfactory Catalogue even in that See whose Bishops have made the greatest noise and figure in the World and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will consult Baronius for him I suppose he will forbear making challenges for the future Licet plerique sive vitio Scriptoris acciderit sive alia ex causa c. the learned Annalist shews Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearsing the Catalogue of Roman Bishops down to his own times begins thus In the principal Chair sate first Peter then Linus succeeded to him Clemens to him Anacletus passing by Cletus as thinking him the same with Anacletus but on the other hand Epiphanius omitting Anacletus mentions Cletus speaking thus The Succession of the Bishops of Rome is in this Order Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Clemens Evaristus St. Austin following Optatus omits Cletus thinking him the same with Anacletus St. Jerom speaking of Clemens says he was the fourth Bishop of Rome from Peter that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the second of these Jarring accounts Baronius says Num. 48. Si in ordine tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur The Author of the Roman Ceremonial endeavours to reconcile these things by a fine Conjecture Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse Jesus primum denominatione Successorem constituit ea ratione c. Jesus Christ appointed his Successor by Name and after the same manner Peter also named Clemens but on this Condition that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him but they knowing that this way of naming ones Successor would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church would not accept of Clemens but chose Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter but that afterward when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was chosen by the Senate it self Of these Primitive times the great Scaliger thus speaks Prolog in Euseb Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo c. That interval of time
any way concerned in them And many of those that were at that time most zealous in urging the Covenant and Engagement and Abjuration were the first that turn'd with the Times and became as Troublesome and Vexations on the other Side and yet the instance which this Gentleman brings ought to be a little examined for 't is neither Pertinent nor True as to Matter of Fact It is not pertinent because not appertaining to the ordinary Worship of God that which he calls the Rebellious Covenant was a Solemn Oath whereby Men bound themselves to endeavour in their Places a Reformation both in Church and State according to the Word of God and particularly to preserve the King's Person pursuant to which Clause Thousands of Scotch and and English hazarded all that was dear to them on the behalf of the Royal Family Royal Declar. at Dumferling Aug. 16. 1650. it was deliberately and voluntarily taken by King Charles the Second who professed himself deeply humbled for his Father's Opposition to it and that upon full perswasion of the Justice and Equity of all the Articles thereof he had Sworn and Subscribed it and was resolved to adhere thereunto to the utmost of his Power and to prosecute the Ends of it all the days of his life And it is certain the Restoration of that Prince is very much owing to the Sence which a great many had of the binding Power of that Covenant as Mr. Crofton shews in his Defence of it against Dr. Gauden Now this being a Solemn Oath must needs as all other Oaths require some signal Expression of Consent according to the Custom of all Civilized Nations in some this Consent is signified Viva voce in some by kissing the Book in Scotland by lifting up the Hand and as we had the Covenant from thence so their Signification of Consent was used also being more suitable for the expressing the Joynt Consent of a Multitude than any other but this is nothing to Mystical Ceremonies in the stated Worship of God if no more had been required of us in the late Troublesome Times than to kiss the Book when we were called to take an Oath there would not have been many Dissenters excepting those that scruple Swearing upon any Account Besides it is not true that this Covenant with the manner of taking of it was ever imposed as a term of Communion The House of Commons indeed and the Assembly of Divines took it and most of those that held any Office of Profit or Trust but it was never imposed upon any on Pain of Excommunication or Suspension from the Lord's Supper Rushworth's Coll. Part. 3. p. 475. it was to be tendered to all in general and an Exhortation drawn up for the satisfying of those that might scruple the taking of it but it was forced upon none by any Penalties Corporal or Spiritual if the Ceremonies and Subscriptions had been no otherwise imposed it had been happy for us The Presbyterians neither imposed nor used any Mystical Ceremonies of their own devising in the Worship of God they never tied Men up to the Words of their Directory nor required any to Subscribe to it or declare their Assent and Consent to all things therein contained they never obliged Persons to Swear against endeavouring an Alteration but bound themselves to promote a Reformation of whatever should be found to be contrary to the Word of God and therefore they gave no Presidents for what has been done against them in the late Reigns 2. The Gentleman tells us the Apostles made meer Ceremonies Terms of Communion in their days which is not true and yet if it were would not justifie others in doing so who have not the Commission and Power which the Apostles had The Gentleman instances in having all things Common in their Love-Feasts and in the holy Kiss and affirms that these were meer Ceremonies imposed by the Apostles as terms of Communion but he 's miserably out all along As to the Custom of having all things common nothing more evident than that it was a thing purely voluntary and imposed upon none St. Peter tells Ananias Whilst it remained it was his own Acts 5.4 and after it was Sold it was in his Power he might have done with it what he pleased but the Sin was Lying against the Holy Ghost in pretending they had dedicated the whole to God when part was kept back surely this was more than the omission of a meer Ceremony And he is not more happy in the second instance of the Love-Feasts for as they were no Parts of Religious Worship but either going before or immediately following the Eucharist so it no where appears that they were ever instituted by the Apostles at all much less imposed as terms of Communion and though some Learned Men think the Apostles recommended them to the Churches yet I see nothing in Scripture to ground such an Opinion upon but rather on the contrary for 1 Cor. 11.20 21. the Apostle does not only reprove them for their Disorders in those Feasts but seems to disapprove of the very thing it self and advises them rather to Eat their Meat at their own Houses than to make those Solemn Assemblies Places and Times of such Feasting And the Learned Dr. Lightfoot seems to have a great deal of reason for what he says upon this place viz. That the Jewish part of the Church retained something of the Old Leaven and could not forbear Judaizing in this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper and therefore it must be attended with a Feast as the Passover was And he observes that the Apostle does not only find fault with their abuse herein but with these very Feasts themselves in that they dishonoured the Church by bringing their Meat into it which they should rather have eaten at their own Homes And as ridiculous it is to say that the holy Kiss was imposed by the Apostles as a term of Communion it was indeed the manner of Friendly Salutation a meer Civil Rite used amongst Jews and Gentiles as well as Christians and the Apostles Command relates only to the sincere chaste and honest use of it as became Persons devoted to God and that they should not suffer that Token of Respect to degenerate into an Hypocritical or Lascivious Complement It is so far from being plain that these things were imposed as terms of Communion by the Apostles That it is certain from their own words They determined to lay no burthen upon Christians but necessary things that is things that had some good tendency for that is the softest sence that the word Necessary will bear and our English Ceremonies by the Acknowledgment of all can never come under that Denomination And indeed if the Apostles had made these things terms of Communion in the Catholick Church they must have remained so to this day unless by some latter Apostolical Edict repealed for who will dare to alter the Apostolical terms of Communion and it may be this
of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
process of time their Reverence for these Bishops so encreased that they began to obey them as Children do a Father c. 2dly Not only the same Title but the same Powers are ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture both that of Jurisdiction and that of Orders as they are usually distinguished As to the former we read of ruling Presbyters 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour If this Rule be not the same with their Jurisdiction where lies the difference and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Jurisdiction of Prelates as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters and that Admonition of the Apostle Peter is worthy our observation 1 Pet. 5.1 2 The Presbyters which are amongst you I exhort who am also a Presbyter and a witness of the Sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is amongst you taking the Oversight thereof c. The Spiritual Jurisdiction of Presbyters is here express'd by two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend does not signifie barely to Feed but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family and is often used for Government and sometimes that of Princes but however it certainly signifies the office of a Pastor and is a good Argument that the Pastoral Power is vested in Presbyters The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the oversight or the Episcopal Office doing the work of a Bishop if this will not prove that the Episcopal Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyters I despair of ever understanding the meaning of words The Power of Orders is with the same clearness attributed to Presbyters Timothy himself who they say was a Bishop receives his Office or Gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this the Gent. replies Dr. Hammond says that those Presbyters were Apostles but that is only the Doctors conjecture and yet if the Apostles were concerned in it it is plain they acted as Presbyters whether they were Apostles or Bishops or Evangelists they acted as a Presbytery I doubt not but if it had been said The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Episcopacy these Gentlemen would have presently concluded that Ordination belongs to Bishops as such and would have given us very hard words if we should have dared to dispute it Barnabas and Paul themselves who are called Apostles received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2 3. and it is observable before this neither of them were called Apostles but presently after they were Chap. 14. Vers 14. These things have so gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Diocesan Prelacy that they have not agreed amongst themselves how to find out a tolerable Evasion Dissert 4. Cap 19 20. Vind of Dissert p. 26. but their most famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths Dr. Hammond saw there was no way to come off but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture were Bishops and that there was no inferior Order instituted by the Apostles but that presently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them Now this is as much as we desire for it fully proves that by Divine Right Bishops and Presbyters are the same and that the distinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule but only an ancient Constitution I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all these instances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture by saying Those were not meer Presbyters and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters they answer such as were not also Bishops and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the signification of it nor were there any such meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand says Vnreason of Separ p. 269. That the Apostles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themselves and therefore there was then no Bishop but they were all one with Presbyters but that as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be settled in the several Churches Now though it is most certain the Apostles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themselves but put it into the hands of the Presbyters they themselves still holding an Universal Superintendency yet we gladly accept the Concession of this learned Prelate 't is indeed à regione adverse to Dr. Hammond but will equally serve our purpose the one says there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Bishops the other there were no Bishops superior to Presbyters Our conclusion flows alike naturally and freely from both that in Scripture times Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order 3dly We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Bishops but what are the same with Presbyters in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons described and no mention made of Presbyters because they were the same with the Bishops and unless we acknowledge that we shall be utterly at a loss for a Reason of that Omission and there are few Commentators but understand it so The learned Grotius upon this place says the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Bishops or Inspectors but that afterward that Name was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of them that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of those Elders Ch. 1. v. 5,6 and as a reason it is added For a Bishop must be blameless this would have been no reason had not the Elder and Bishop been the same A late Author thought this so considerable that he puts a new sence upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain Elders in every City as if the meaning were advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Bishops but this is a stretch upon the word which it cannot bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly signifies to constitute and ordain and when the Persons are mentioned it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced as Aristot in Polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the instauration of Princes and Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case if alone always representing the State unto which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had raised them nor do I believe any one instance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer Now if this distinction of Order had been known in Apostolical times it is very strange we should not have a distinct Rule for the Ordination of the one and the Consecration of the other especially since by the acknowledgment of all it is not having many Congregations or Presbyters under him that makes a Bishop but only a peculiar and higher Ordination And yet we find no footsteps of it but on the contrary in the very Directory for Ordination
Religion upon pain of being convicted of Schism by the Word of God and how the effects of such an opinion should be any other than peace I cannot unless it be by an Antiperistasis and the powerful opposition of contrary principles that some Mon have suckt in I confess when these Gentlemen are so often telling us of the loss of peace if Dissenters will not all come to Church it appears to me like a menacing the Government as if they were resolved to throw all into confusion again unless they may be restored to the liberty of trampling us under foot and if our present Indulgence be attended with such dangerous symptoms I believe they do wholly arise from the discontents of some four and haughty Spirits that cannot be satisfied with all their Grandeur whilst Mordecai sits in the Gate and will not bow But says he suppose a Man should introduce the same doctrine into the State and tell people that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies that they need not own the Present Government but where has Mr. H. said any thing like this in the whole Enquiry Does he any where say Men need not to own the Government that God has established in his Church but may act by a Polity of their own I wish this Gentleman can clear himself as well of such a Doctrine as Mr. H. may If he means that it is as unlawful to have several distinct Bishops and Churches in the same Diocess as several Kings in the same Kingdom he deserves the rebukes of the Government much more than Mr. H. or the Vindicator either It is plainly the drift of these Men to make themselves as absolute Governours over the Laity as Princes over their Subjects and if they can persuade Men that it is as great a Crime to leave the Ministration of their Parish Priest what ever he be and go to hear another that is as truly a Minister of the Gospel as to rebel against their Prince and set up another in his room they have taken a great step towards it His harangue about the Present Government about the Title of K. James the Nature and Rights of Soveraignty he may if he pleases reserve for the Illumination of his Brethren that are for distinguishing between Kings de facto and de jure without which Vehicle they could not so easily have swallow'd the Oath of Allegiance or for his dear Friends in the Jacobite Conventicles whom it may be he would willingly excuse from Schism notwithstanding their Separation because they still adhere to Episcopacy and Ceremonies those fundamental Principles of Unity that which follows in the same Paragraph is equally false and impertinent Mr. H. never sets people at liberty to break into parties or to make any such divisions as he speaks of but endeavours to prevent all such things by fixing a brand upon that division in affection which commonly gives the rise to all other sinful divisions amongst men As to the differences betwixt the Presbyterian and the Independant Party in former times with which he upbraids us I shall only say if the Presbyterian Churches were framed according to the Word of God and laid no other Burden upon their Members than necessary things according to the Apostles Canon which all Churches are for ever bound to observe that Separation was Sinful and if it proceeded from uncharitableness it was Schismatical according to Mr. H's Notion And if this Concession will do him any service let him take it and make his best advantage of it And if it be sinful to break off from Particular Church Communion without just cause it is much more so for men to deny and renounce Communion with all Christians and Churches that will not comply with needless inventions of their own We are now come to Mr. H's Description of Schism viz. That it is an Uncharitable Distance Division or Alienation of affection amongst those who are called Christians and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things The Gentleman first charges this Description of Schism with Novelty and Wildness and then proceeds to draw out the consequences But as to Novelty and Wildness if it be the Scripture notion of Schism it will sufficiently clear it self of such imputations The question Mr. H. proposed was not what the Fathers called Schism but what the Spirit of God calls so in his Word it was this which he undertook to answer and if he has acquitted himself well in that he is not concerned what this or that Father calls Schism and this description is founded on the case of the Corinthians They were called Christians and it was fit to put that into the definition for we are not enquiring into the Schisms of Jews Turks or Pagans They agreed in the Fundamentals of Religion that is in all that was absolutely necessary to Salvation otherwise the Apostle would scarcely have given them the Title of Brethren and Saints acknowledging the Grace of God in them That there were contentions amongst them to the prejudice of Christian Love and Charity will not be denied since the Apostle plainly reprimands them for it And that these contentions were occasioned by different apprehensions is equally certain otherwise there would have been no room nor pretence for such contests And that all this was about little things that is comparatively little on which Salvation does not necessarily depend is sufficiently plain from the good account that is given of these persons as to the main notwithstanding these unhappy differences These contentions thus circumstantiated the Apostle calls Schisms and Mr. H. though a man might without danger or offence conclude That an Uncharitable distance or alienation of affections amongst those that are called Christians occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things is Schism according to the Scripture notion and account of it But nothing will please those that have a mind to be quarrelsome this must be bantered for a wild novel and bungling description the latest that ever was Coined And yet if this Gentleman had perused the Homilies of the Church of England before he subscribed to them as in all Reason and Conscience he ought to have done he would have found such an Agreement betwixt Mr. H's description of Schism and the sense of his own Church as would have obliged him for his own sake to have treated it with better language Let him consult the Homily against contention F. 9. and there he will find that the Church of England places the Unity of the Church in Concord and Charity and the Rents or Schisms of the Church in discord contention bitter Emulation c. Oh how the Church is divided Oh how it is cut and mangl'd Oh how that Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all rent and torn Oh body Mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
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