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
from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan in which Quadratus and Ignatius flourished might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure confused time in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Christians besides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way as Suetonius Tacitus Pliny c. Now to fill up this Chasme Eusebius has carelesly fetch'd things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Hypotyposes of I know not what Clement for it is not Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and out of the Commentaries of Hegisippus a writer of no better Credit than the former These Perplexities the Learned Bishop of Worcester thus relates Irenic p. 322. Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succession is as muddy as the Tyber it self for Tertullian Ruffinus and others place Clemens next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustine and Damasus make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him certainly if the Line of Succession fails us here where we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church And we do not â—â—â—ly meet with these Difficulties near the Head of the Line but many Ages lower The Series of Popes in the Roman See after the eighth Century is very much ruffled and confused as Onuphrius tells us Horum temporum Pontifices neque Praefat. act partem secund de Romano Pontif. perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem c. The Bishops of those times have not any constant certain Writer and a great part of their Affairs are omitted whence it comes to pass that these times are so uncertain and obscure that we cannot tell in what Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put and some new Popes have crept in which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll as Basilius one Agapetus and Dommus the second which are either the same with others under a different name or else were Schismaticks or perhaps were never in being but which of these to affirm is uncertain and doubtful and he tells us that as to John the 11th Leo the 16th Stephen the 8th Leo the 7th and Stephen the 9th He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers but of Luitprandus Ticinensis and says there is a foul mistake in the account of the Martins for there never were any such men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns quanta bone Deus confusio exorta est ex veterum Historiarum ignorantia It seems our Learned Citizen never dreamed that Popish Writers should be so ingenuous as to confess these insuperable difficulties in the Succession for his part he never discours'd with any of them that did not zealously assert it and it may be so but certainly then he never discoursed with the wisest or honestest of them but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himself But 2. Were these Catalogues of Names as clear and certain as they are otherwise yet unless it were equally certain that all of these were truly Bishops and had valid Consecration the Line of Succession is still unproved and how impossible is it to have this demonstrated with that clearness requisite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend For it has been often observed that our Church Historians being left so much in the dark for the earliest Ages are forced to supply the defects of History with bold conjectures of their own and where-ever they met with the Apostles or Evangelists in any place presently they made them the Bishops of that place Irenic p. 302. so Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Millan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus Bishop of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome And through the loss of the Dyptychs of the Church which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering called their Natalitia some have mistaken Martyrs for Bishops and the time of their Apotheosis for that of their Consecration and the Learned Junius reckons among these Anacletus Cletus and Clemens at Rome And how shall we prove that all the persons mentioned in the Lists had such Ordination as is made essential to Episcopacy it is not sufficient to say there were ancient Canons decreeing that no Bishop should be Consecrated but by three at the least this is arguing a jure ad factum which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made and it is as certain they were very little regarded in that state of Apostacy and Antichristianism into which the Churches fell and lay for so long a time we know there are many examples of mens getting into the highest Church Preferments by Murther Simony Sorcery which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Administrations It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture against judging hating and persecuting one another about Ceremonies but if any shall argue from hence there were never any such Practices every age will afford instances enough for their Confutation and if there has been so notorious a contempt of the Laws of Christ Why should we think it strange if the Canons of the Church have been despised too when they have stood in the way of mens Interest Every body knows Ecclesiastical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies whilst the greater sort of Vermine rush through The Council of Lateran decreed Electio facta per civilem Magistratum in sacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat and the Jus Orientale Lib. 3. Inter. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. 4. and the seventh General Council as it is called determine Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magistratibus Episcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam esse and yet that de facto the Magistrates sometimes did elect will not be denied The second Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Bishops shall be null and void 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bernard con ad Eugen. l. 4. c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriously guilty of it and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church says Notes of the Church p. 152. It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head and that there is now no true Pope nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to for by their own Confession a Pope Symoniacally chosen a Pope intruded by Violence a Heretick and therefore sure an
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
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
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
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An