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
is the Assembly of all the Saints And again The City of the Lord is the Church of the Saints the Congregation of the Just St. Austin speaking of the visible or mixt Church De Bapt. Con. Donat. l. 7. c. 51. distinguishes it into two Nations Jerusalem and Babylon the Faithful and the Wicked the latter may be in the Visible Church but are not really of the Church and says The Rights of the Church belong only to the Faithful Amongst the Divines of the Reformed Churches the Incomparable Jurieu speaks as fully to the purpose as we can desire Pastoraâ— Lett. Vol. 1. p. 151. He describes the Unity of the Church by the Unity of the Spirit the Unity of Doctrine and the Unity of the Sacraments and exposes the Bishop of Meaux for making the Unity of the Ministry necessary to Salvation saying They must have lost their Senses that suffer themselves to be deluded with such Imaginations as if the Medicine must be given by such a hand or else it would not heal but poison them and adds Ah my Brethren open your Eyes upon this Folly and be ashamed thereof be sure every hand that gives you the true Doctrine is good in that respect the saving remedy of Truth heals from whomsoever it comes And the same Person reckoning up the Innovations of the Third Age mentions amongst the rest Cyprian's corrupt Idea of the Church thereby opening a Door to the most cruel Doctrine that ever was advanced of which he thus speaks He made a false Idea of the Unity of the Church which be encloses in one external Communion and because the Unity of one visible Head was not yet invented he imagined I know not what Unity of Episcopacy which all the Bishops did individually possess whereof nevertheless each administred but a part This inconsistent Imagination gave place afterwards for the substitution of one single Head to the end that a visible Head might be given to the Unity of the visible Communion which might be the Center thereof The Bishop of Meaux brags much of four or five Passages in Sr. Cyprian P. 149. that ancient Doctor goes so far as to say There can be no Martyr but in the Church that when a Man is separated from its Unity 't is in vain that he sheds his Blood for the Confession of Jesus Christ This Maxim in a large signification may be suffered for indeed there may be Hereticks who confessing the Name of Jesus Christ but on the other side ruining the Foundations of the Christian Religion may die for the Religion of Jesus Christ to no advantage But the Application which St. Cyprian makes thereof is one of those Faults over which wise Men ought to draw a Curtain he proceeds so far as to apply it to the Nevatians Now it must be known that the Novatians were good Christians a thousand times better than the Papists since they did not ruine any of the Foundations but retained and believed all the Christian Verities only they were something severe in Discipline and would not receive those that fell in times of Persecution to the Peace of the Church was not this a fine occasion to say as Cyprian did That a Novatian was no Christian O what temper are the Doctors of the Roman Church that make use of those Excesses which ought to be hid out of honour to those Great Men that fell into them It was Cyprian's Zeal for the Peace of the Church and the Harred he had for Schism that ran him into that Excess as to think or say P. 150 151. That out of I do not know what Exterior Unity of the Church a Man could not be saved and it was in this Age that Men begun to corrupt the Idea of the Church I have transcribed thus much out of the Letters of this Illustrious Divine because some noted Men amongst us lay much stress upon the Authority of Cyprian in this Notion or One Communion and One Episcopacy though they can make bold to censure him themselves in the case of Rebaptizing Ep. 68. Ed. Goulart p. 201. and the Peoples Duty of withdrawing from the Communion of a Debauched Bishop in which he is very Positive and I know not why they should deny us that Liberty they take themselves But it may be the Opinion of an Eminent Divine of the Church would go further with some People than either Scripture or Fathers or foreign Authors And is it not the common sence of that Church that has so often told the World there is none upon Earth so Learned and Wise as her self that without the Unity of Episcopacy there can be no true Church no Sacraments no Salvation I confess her Chieftains have been free enough of such kind of Language when it has been her Glory to tread upon the Necks of poor Dissenters but when the Tables were turned and she had to do with an Adversary that could make as great a Noise about Catholick Unity and Communion as her self she learned more Modesty and Discretion Though they all acquitted themselves well in their late Rencounters with the Papists yet I know none that have come off more cleverly than the Examiners of Bellarmine's Notes of the Church Upon the seventh Note the Union of the Members amongst themselves We have this Account of Church-Unity P. 164 165. There is the Unity of submitting to One Head the Lord Jesus There is the Unity of Professing the Common Faith that was once delivered to the Saints There is a Unity of Sacraments a Unity of Obedience to all the Laws and Institutions of Christ the Union of Christian Affection and Brotherly Kindness The Unity of Discipline and Government by retaining for substance the same Form that was left in the Church by the Aposties an Unity of Communion in the Worship and Service of God Now to speak clearly there ought to be all these Kinds and Instances of Unity in the Church but we see evidently they are not all thore I mean in every part and Member of the Church and therefore they are not all necessary to the being of a Church but some of them are and they are The Acknowledgment of One Lord the Profession of One Faith and Admission into the state of Christian Duties and Privileges by One Baptism And this is all that I can find absolutely necessary to the Being of a Church And if they be the same Persons that Vindicate the Discourse of the Notes they speak yet plainer thus Vindic. p. 20 22. In such a divided state of Christendom as this is meer External Unity and Communion cannot be the mark of a true Church All true Christian Churches are United in the most Essential things Ephes 4.5 6. They have one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all and this makes them one Body animated by the same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church but still they are not One entire Communion
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
and to make her glorious in the World when in the mean time Christianity it self has been rendred odious and contemptible Ridente Turce nec dolente Judaeo Turks Jews and Pagans have beheld her flames with pleasure and warmed themselves and said Aha thus we would have it It must not be denied but that Catholick Unity where it is so happy as to be understood acquaints us with something very sacred and venerable of which we cannot be too fond or tender it bears the Image of Divinity and if it were not in it self a most excellent thing the name of it could never be made so specious a pretence It has been often and confidently asserted that all the Dissenters in England have departed from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church This lies as a mighty prejudice in the minds of many both against our way Arch-Rebel p. 28. Reply p. 1. and persons too and their common Inference from hence is That we are out of a State of Salvation have no right to any of the Promises of the Gospel that all our Hopes are unwarrantable and groundless Fancies that we are contemners of the Peace and Unity which Christ has bequeathed to his Church and if they will demonstrate that our case is indeed such as they describe it we will not persist in it a day longer for we cannot be so fond of the Inconveniencies of Non-Conformity here as meerly for the sake thereof to purchase to our selves greater Miseries hereafter But that we may evince how void of Reason and Humanity the Sentence which they have past upon us is let us enquire wherein the Catholick Unity and Communion of the Church consists and then try whether none of our Dissenting Congregations be within the Verge of it By this Catholick Unity our Adversaries understand not that which is accidental may be present or absent without the destruction of the Subject which some Churches may have and other True Churches may be without for then it would not serve their purpose which is to conclude all that want this Unity to be in a State of Damnation and indeed it is the truest acceptation of the word to make it signifie Essential Universal Unity Uniformity in accidentals belonging more properly to the common place of order in this sense therefore we shall speak of it that we may come up as close to their thoughts as we can Nothing then belongs to the Catholick Unity of the Church but what belongs to the being of the Church that which makes it a Church makes it one Ens Unum being convertible and nothing can dissolve its Unity which does not destroy its Essence and certainly the being and the state of the Church must not be confounded Many things are required to the due and orderly state and form in which the Church ought to be and appear in the World and which may contribute to her stability beauty and enlargement which suppose her Essence but do not constitute it This Essential Catholick Unity whereof we speak may be distinguished into Political and Moral Political whereby all the True Members of the Church are united unto Christ the Head and that is by true Faith And Moral by which they are United one to another and that is by Christian Love which in some degree always follows the former those that have a mind to it may quarrel with the terms of this distinction but if I may but express my meaning by them I shall not be at all concerned about it 1. The Political Unity is that which does primarily necessarily and immediately constitute that Sacred Society the Church of God which was therefore by the Primitive Christians as well as our first Reformers frequently known by this short definition Catus fidelium the Congregation of the Faithful sometimes the Body of Christ the Temple of God Divin Instit l. 4. c. 13. and such like So Lactantius Ecclesia est verum Templum Dei quod non in parietibus est sed in corde fide hominum qui credunt in eum vocantur fideles The Church is the True Temple of God which does not consist in the bare Walls but in the Hearts and Faith of Men that believe on him and are called Faithful and before him Ignatius in the same sense calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Congregation Ep. ad Trall vid. Isidor Pelus Epist l. 2. Ep. 247. the Assembly of the Saints To the same purpose speak all those Fathers who affirm that the Church was built upon the Faith of Peter not upon his Person or Authority a great Cloud whereof the Illustrious Chamier has collected to our hand proving thereby that our Union with the Church De Oecumen Pont. l. 11. c. 4. is founded in our believing on Christ the True Foundation and Chief Corner Stone nothing therefore can dissolve this Union but what is inconsistent with True Faith in Christ And this agrees fully with the tenour of Holy Scripture which every where lays the Salvation of Men upon their believing Ephes 3.17.4.13 1 Pet. 2.6 Behold I lay in Zion a Chief Corner Stone elect precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded By this Faith Men are United to Christ and therefore cannot be divided from his Body which is the Church St. Paul calls the Church of God the House or Family of God and how a Man comes to be a Member of that Noble Family we are told Eph. 2.18 by the Spirit i. e. working of Faith we have access unto the Father and are no more Strangers and Forreigners but Fellow-Citizens of the Saints Gal. 6.10 and of the Houshold of God and therefore this Houshold of God is elsewhere called the Houshold of Faith In short nothing is more evident than that the Apostles received Men and Women into the Visible Church by Baptism upon the Profession of their Faith in Christ and thereby invested them in all the Sacred Priviledges of the New Covenant which belong only to the Church of God This Excellent Grace of Faith from whence our Union with Christ and his Body the Church doth flow is a very comprehensive thing it includes our solemn and hearty Choice of the Eternal God as our chiefest Happiness and hereby all the True Members of the Church are United in the Love and Service of One God and so distinguished from the Pagan World and in an humble affiance in One Mediator in whose hand alone they are brought back unto God and hereby are distinguished from Mahometans and those that call themselves Deists they are also United in the gracious Influences of One blessed Spirit and hereby are distinguished from all impenitent sensual persons who have grieved and quenched that Spirit And they are hereby United in One Rule of Faith Worship and Obedience not that they all understand this Rule alike or are fully conformed unto it but in this they agree that they all take it for their Rule
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
Church or the Salvation of her Members My Reasons are these 1st This would be to confound the Unity of the Church with its Order which must be distinguished here where we speak of Essential Unity that which belongs to the Order of the Church always supposes its Essence a thing must first be before it be capable of Order Thus the Excellent Monsieur Claude argues Histor Def. of the Reform Part 4. p. 57. To admit that to be a true Church where the Ministry is and deny that to be a true Church where the Ministry is not is a vain deceitful and illusory way of reasoning For the true Church naturally goes before the Ministry and does not depend upon the Ministry but the Ministry on the contrary depends upon it as in the Civil Society the Magistracy depends upon the Society and not the Society on the Magistracy In the Civil Society the first thing that must be thought on is That Nature made Men afterwards we conceive that she Assembled and United them together And lastly from that Union which could not subsist without Order Magistracy proceeded It is the same thing in a Religious Society The first thing that Grace did was to produce Faith in the hearts of Men after having made them believe she united them and formed a mutual Communion between them and because their Communion ought not to be without Order and good Government from thence the Ministry arose So that a Lawful Ministry is after the true Church and depending upon it And a great deal more to the same purpose 2dly This would make it utterly unlawful for the Laity to Reform the Church from idolatry or other Abuses unless the Clergy would joyn with them in it and so would condemn those Princes and Churches in Germany and elsewhere that Reformed without their Bishops yea against their Wills and repeated clamorous Prohibitions Either the Popish Bishops and Clergy were the regular Ministry of those Churches before the Reformation or no if they were not then there was no Regular Ministry amongst them and the Line of Succession failed and either they had no Churches or else their Churches reâ—ain'd their Beings without the Ministry But if the Popish Clergy were the Regular Ministry Then either those that Reformed without them were cut off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and Reformed themselves into Hell as the Papists speak or else they were still in the Unity of the Church though at present without a Regular Ministry Those that will needs thrust the Unity of the Episcopacy into the Desinition of the Catholick Church would do well to consider Every Nation was not so happy as England in having Bishops so willing to comply with their Rulers in a Secession from Rome or in having Rulers so Potent and resolved as ours were And yet God forbid any Protestant should say they ought to have delayed their Reformation till they had disgusted Princes and complying Bishops to lead them on Surely the lawfulness of our Departure from Rome does not depend upon such contingencies How few Bishops there were that gave the least countenance to Luther's Proceedings none can be ignorant that has read any thing of the History of that Reformation the Ministry they had was generally chosen by themselves out of the most learned of the Laicks some few of the Priests and Monks falling in the Nobles themselves sometimes devoted their Gifts to the Service of the Church as the Prince of Anhalt Du Plessis Sadeel and others they never insisted upon an uninterrupted Line but maintained That where the true Faith and Doctrine were there was the true Church Claudes Hist Def. Part 4. p. 58. and that it is the Call of the Church and the Approbation of the most competent Judges therein that makes a Lawful Call of Persons to that Office and that the Church has a full and entire Right to set up Ministers for its Government supposing it have the true Faith 3dly If there can be no true Church without a Regular Ministry what becomes of the Being of a Church when its Ministers are dead and banished and no other yet chosen By this Notion the Church must be dissolved and die with them and the Death of the Shepherd must be the Damnation of the Flock for if the Regular Ministry of each particular Church be the great Ligament by which that part is fastned to the whole it must needs follow that upon the Failure of the Ministry it falls off from the Body and consequently from Christ the Head If it be replied that such Societies remain in the Unity of the Church whilst they desire a true Ministry and endeavour to get one though at present they are without it That 's as much as we demand for then it is not essential to Catholick Unity that there be a Regular Ministry but that there be a desire of it and no doubt all true Christians have such desires and the great difference amongst them is which Ministry is most Regular and it is their apprehension of the greater Regularity of theirs than of others that makes each side of them prefer their own before others In short if we admit the absolute Necessity of such a Ministry under whose Conduct every Church must be what shall we say of those Scandalous Tumults and Contests that have happened about the Election of Bishops Vott de Dâ—sp Caus Pap. l. 2. § 2. Ch. 3. p. 143. one Party choosing this another that sometimes falling to downright blows and the stronger Side winning the day such things often happened in the earlier Ages of the Church and sometimes the Controversie was a long time undecided and yet far be it from us to think the Essence of those Churches was lost during those Contentions it is true some have invented a Metropolitan or Patriarch to whom those Churches remained United in the vacancy of the Episcopal Seer to save the Body from perishing and over these the Pope as the principal visible Head of Unity but I hope I need not prove that there may be Catholick Unity without these I expect to be assaulted with that Text Rom. 10.14 15. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and how shall they Preach unless they be sent by this sending I know many understand Regular Ordination to the Work of the Ministry and they would infer from hence that none can believe but by thâ— Preaching of a rightly Ordained Ministry which must therefore be necessary to the very being of the Church But it is certain the Word and Works of God never contradict one another and therefore this cannot be the sence of the place for we read of great Conversions made by the Preaching of those that were never so Ordained Ruffinus l. 1. c. 10. as those of the Abyssines by Frumentius and Edesius and the Roman Merchants and the Iberians by a Captive Maid as for this Text
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
they will admit of no other Plea But what if terms of Conformity be not sinful it is sufficient for us that we are under no Obligation to comply with them our Governours have left us at our Liberty and though the Bishops may still command them yet our own Pastors are as truly Bishops as they The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them but may be much better preserved without them and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble declares that it is the Sense of the King Lords and Commons that not Conformity but ease to scrupulous Consciences may be an effectual means to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection and the Worship of God may be as decently performed without them how are we then obliged to comply with such things Will he say it is our Duty to use all those Ceremonies and Customs in the Worship of God that are not sinful What if a Papist should ask him Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church Why do you not use Salt and Cream and Spittle in Baptism Why do you not Cross your Breasts and Shave your Heads Can you prove these things to be sinful I suppose this Gentleman would reply we care not whether they be sinful or no we are not obliged to use them and if the Papist should alledge the Command of the Catholick Church he would reply No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn such things upon us and our own Governours have not done it if the other should urge that we must comply for Unity sake he would answer The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of such Rites and Ceremonies if the Papists should press it further These are decent Ceremonies and serve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Christ and have rare mystical Signification surely He would rejoyn The Worship of God is managed by us very decently without such things Thus we say in answer to his demand if we be not obliged to Conformity though it should not be unlawful our Nonconformity is very justifiable therefore this Plea of the Sinfulness of the thing is not now so necessary as he imagines but lest we should seem to acknowledge that we had nothing to justifie our practice heretofore when Conformity was required by the Law And that we are still for an unaccountable Singularity and are resolved to differ from others meerly for distinction sake and have no regard to Parochial Order which we have formerly seemed to approve of I shall venture to say something upon this point though I am sensible before-hand some will blame me for saying so much and others for saying no more The World is not to seek for the Reasons of our Nonconformity a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatises some of which have received no answer at all as Dr. Rule 's Rational Defence and Mr. Baxter's English Nonconformity Stated and Argued wherein the Case is so copiously and yet so closely debated in the several particulars both of Ministerial and Lay-Conformity that it seems wholly superfluous to add any thing till we see what answer will be made unto it I have seen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controversie but only tells us with Confidence enough that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unnecessary unseasonable and unaccountable Undertaking and has been already answered which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Dissenters and the common reply of every baffled Party to all that is writ against them and is only taken up as a little shist to serve an easie and credulous sort of Men amongst themselves but can never be designed to give Satisfaction to others and if such Trifles must pass for an Answer to a Book so Large Distinct and Argumentative as Mr. Baxter's is truly it is to no purpose either to write or read Controversie There are three Steps a man must take before he can arrive at the heighth of English Conformity 1. He must submit to the Use and Practice of the Impositions 2. He must declare his Approbation and good liking of them 3. He must Swear never to endeavour any Alteration some of us stumble at the First many stick at the Second but the Last is most inaccessible 1. Many of us can by no means be satisfied with the constant Use and Practice of these controverted Matters and that for these Reasons amongst others 1. We observe That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages risen from this Source introducing unnecessary Ceremonies in the worship of God teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men this had reduced the Jewish Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time And the grand Apostacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Ecclesiasticks beyond its measure and exerting it in the Invention and Imposition of such Mystical Rites and Ceremonies and by adding still thereunto it grew up to such a Mystery of Iniquity and Monster of Usurpation and Tyranny as it appears at this day in the World and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and those of Rome and we could never prevail with our Antagonists to give us a Rule to distinguish them by It is usually said ours are but few but theirs are many and therefore burthensom but this does not satisfie for many or few alters not the kind and if it be lawful to use Three why not Six Twenty or a Hundred besides if ours be therefore better because they are fewer I hope they will give us leave to infer the fewer Ceremonies and the better and therefore best of all where there are none if the Matter must be resolved into their Positive decency we have already shewed by their own Confession there is no such decency in them but the worship of God may be managed as well without them But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority then let the Church command never so many we must comply and so are as much enslaved to the humours of the Ecclesiasticks as the Papists themselves and the case standing thus we think none can justly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superstition and Arbitrary Church Power by entertaining and embracing those things that have given it rise and strength in other Parts and Ages of the World Our Objection against them is not that weak and silly thing some represent it as if we reject them meerly because the Papists use them but we do it because the Imposition and use of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy 2. Especially since they are altogether useless and have no tendency to promote that which is good this much strengthens the prejudice they have done a great deal of harm and they can do no good by the Confession of the Imposers and we cannot imagine why they should
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
the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity one to another for he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Unity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be amongst us we be carnal and walk according to the Fleshly Man And St. James saith if ye have bitter emulation or envying or contention in your hearts glory not of it for where contention is there is unstedfastness and all evil deeds c. Nothing is more evident than that the thing declaimed against in this Homily is Schism what else signifie the words cut and mangled divided rent and torn And as plain it is that this rending and tearing and cutting and mangling the Body of Christ is done by contention by the violation of concord and charity without which we cannot be joined to the Head nor one to another it is true it mentions Factions and Sects He speaks of contentious Sects but there may be Factions amongst those of the same external Communion and there are many Sects too in the Church of Rome where the external Communion is the same and so there were formerly amongst the Jews and at this day in the Church of England some are Arminians others Calvinists in points of Doctrine But both the Title of the Homily and the express words and general scope of it make the Rents and Schism in the Coat of Christ to consist principally in the want of Concord and Charity in Emulation envying and heart contentions Which I hope will justifie Mr H. from the censure of having advanced a wild and novel doctrine Now let us examine the Consequences which this Gentleman has drawn out of this Definition First of all From hence it will follow that he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian But before we can tell whether there be any absurdity in this we must desire him to explain himself and tell us what he means by a true admission into the Christian Church If by admission he means Baptism and by true admission Baptism after the form and mode prescribed by his Church I doubt not there are many may be justly called Christians that were never so admitted and if he will take upon him to assert that none can be guilty of Schism but who have been admitted according to their Canons he will fairly acquit a great number of Dissenters from that crime who though they have been Baptized yet not altogether according to their Rubrick As for Mr. H's Words they are plain enough Schism in the Scriptural Sence is only the fault of professed Christians and all professed Christians are visible Members of the Catholick Church 2. That Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. sapposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the Fundamentals of Religion Yes he does suppose so and very justly for those that deny fundamental Truths are without the Christian Faith without the Unity of the Church and where there is no such Union there can be no Schism which always supposes a previous Union As Treason always supposes that a Man be a Subject of the King and Member of the Common wealth If a Man never received the Fundamentals of Christianity he never was a Member of Christ's Body and therefore never a capable subject of that Christian Love and Brotherly kindness the violation whereof is the thing in Scripture called Schism if he has formerly professed the Faith and afterwards renounced it he has by so doing dissolved that principal Fundamental Union with the Christian Church upon which Brotherly Love is built and therefore after such Apostacy cannot be formally guilty of the breach of Christian Charity because he is indeed no Christian and so no capable Subject of such Charity and can no more properly be called a Schismatick than a Stone or Tree can be called blind or any other thing in which there is no capacity of Sight And if the Gentleman do not like this Notion he may if he pleases write a Book to convince the Grand Signior and the Great Mogul and Cham of Tartary See the Review p. 8. that they are all Schismaticks as were their Fathers Jannes and Jambres the Egyptian Sorcerers before them But he adds This is as much as to say the greater the fault the lesser the crime By no means for what if Hereticks be not Shismaticks are they therefore innocent Creatures What if Traytors Murderers Adulterers be not Schismaticks are they therefore Saints Heresie in Fundamentals is a greater crime than bare Schism and the less is merged in the greater And it seems very strange that the same Gentleman who but a line or two before thinks it absurd to call those Schismaticks who were never truely admitted into the Church should think it also absurd not to call those Schismaticks that either never embraced the Christian Faith or have since renounced it 3. The third inference is According to this Definition Alienation of Affection is Schism but Division or Alienation of Communion is not Here he ought to have told us what he means by Division or Alienation of Communion Communion with the same God and the same Mediator and in the same Essentials of Faith and Worship is necessary to the Being of Christianity and an Alienation here is something worse than Schism if he mean personal Communion in the Worship of God in the same place and after the same Mode 't is impossible this should be undivided if by Alienation of Communion be means withdrawing from that particular Church of which we have been members and joyning with another 't is no more but what is allowed to all upon the removal of their Habitations and may be lawful on many other accounts but if it be done without some good reason it is sinful if it be done out of Uncharitableness towards the Church we leave it is Schism now if he would be as plain with us as we desire to be with him there might be hopes of bringing the matter to some issue But the last Inference is most remarkable both for Phrase and Sence and I would desire the Author to review it No one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his Heart it is impossible to know according to this Description that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity except we should enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts and on the contrary People may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and yet no Body can accuse them with it But pray why is this last Sentence said to be on the contrary to the former it 's impossible to know that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity and on the contrary People may
they had pleased notwithstanding the Spirits resting upon them have come into the Tabernacle as the rest did Lastly he adds all this was secular and distinct from that which did more peculiarly belong to the Ecclesiastical Body But prophesying was a sacred thing and the Tabernacle a sacred place and that People a sacred People and if the business of Jannes and Jambres was not too much secular to come within the Verge of Schism I wonder this should be thought so forreign but indeed after all he wholly mistakes Mr. H's design in this instance which was not to shew what was Schism but what was not so viz. That all Separation or Irregularity in sacred Actions is not Schism this is that mistake which by this Text he endeavoured to rectifie and whether it be not apposite enough for that purpose is left to the Judgment of the Considerate Reader This Gentleman is so very desirous to cast upon Mr. H. the reproach of ignorance that rather than fail he will betray his own and something else which is worse Mr. H. said the Jews were obliged to worship at one place and immediately explains it concerning Sacrificing which being the most famous and noted part of their worship may well be called so by way of eminency Joh. 4.20 as it is several times used in the discourse betwixt our Saviour and the Samaritane Woman and he adds This Obligation is vacated by that Gospel that wills us to pray every where from hence our Surveyor would infer That Mr. H. thought the Jews were to pray no where but at Jerusalem when his own eyes would have told him that in the same Paragraph Mr. H. acknowledges the Jews had their Synagogues which are rather the patterns of our Christian Assemblies than the Temple The only doubt is whether that Rule 1 Tim. 2.8 since it only mentions Prayer was pertinently alledged as vacating that Obligation which confined the Jews to one Altar It is certain it has been so understood by as Learned men as ever writ upon Scripture I hope Grotius will be instar omnium with this Gentleman his words upon the place are Preces Deo hodie non minus grata sunt in quavis Ecclesia quà m in Templo Hierosol and he bids us compare this with John 4.21 And Danaeus and Vorstius and Beza are with him in it all these and many more were so ignorant as to think that only one part of worship is here mentioned yet it is a rule which relates to the whole and takes away all pretences of the Holiness of Places This Gentleman seems to deny that the Jews were obliged only to offer at one Altar and tells us of an Altar at Mount Ebal of Samuels Sacrificing at Mizpah Zuph c. And Elisha at Mount Carmel and says the Jews had their Synagogues and inferiour Altars which were still in Communion with the Supream One and yet afterwards he tells us out of Sigonius that there were no Synagogues till the time of the Captivity Review p. 13. that they who wanted the Temple to pray and teach in might have some place like the Temple in which they might assemble to perform that sort of Duty and confesses that the Jews were confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem P. 11. till that Obligation was taken away by our Saviour now what can a man do but wait with patience till this Cameleon has assumed some certain colour and when he has told us which of those inconsistent opinions he will abide by he may expect a reply It is certain there was an express Law confining the Jewish Sacrifices to the Sanctuary which God should chuse Deut. 12.13 14. Take heed to thy self that thou offer not thy burnt Offering in every place thou seest but in the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse in one of thy Tribes there shall thou offer thy Burnt-offerings Yea all that was Sacred to God as their Tithes and Free-Will-Offerings must not ordinarily be eaten in any other place but that which God should chuse and though God gave them leave in Case of great distance from the Sanctuary to eat those things in their own Gates yet all Devoted things that were to be Sacrificed though the distance was never so great must be brought to the appointed place What then shall we say to the Cases mentioned where Sacrifices were offered at other Altars The Answer is plain 1. All those Anomalous Offerings excepting the last were made before the chosen place was fixed and Temple built and it should seem by the beginning of the 12. chap. of Deut. That this Law was not designed to oblige so strictly till the place was fixed and prepared for that purpose But 2. These were all extraordinary Cases and are not to be urged in Bar of a standing Rule we are not certain that those Sacrifices were offered by the Priests the Sons of Aaron and yet the Law appropriated that work to them God may dispense with his own Law but it is a Law still and binds men though not God and is to be strictly observed in all Cases saving those wherein God himself by his Prerogative sets it aside That there were any constant Inferiour Altars upon which the Jews were allowed to Sacrifice is a Notion more Novel and Wild than any thing in the Enquiry the meer Suspicion of such a design in the two Tribes and a half on the other side Jordan filled the People with amazement and they appeal to God that they had not built that Altar Josh 22.22 23. to offer thereon Burnt-Offering or Meat-Offering or Peace-Offerings and till they had made this Protestation the rest of the Tribes could not be satisfied and that these Inferiour Altars were in Communion with the Supream has as much of Sence in it as the other has of Truth I despair of ever knowing what the meaning of this Word Communion is if it may be predicated of things inanimate we shall never comprehend its boundless significancy The Gentleman we see is something confounded in his account of the matter of Fact let us enquire whether he be any thing more clear in his Mystical Reasonings from it He is taught by Mr. Dodwel to say That the only way of Uniting the segullah to God was by the Sacraments But this is notoriously false for the Sacraments were only the Symbols of that Union Review p. 1◠which fundamentally consists in their hearty Dedication of themselves to God and whoever had so done were the peculiar People of God whether ever they enjoyed Sacraments or no. That none could be in Union with God unless United to the High-Priest is false too for the Seed of Abraham were Gods People before they had any High-Priest or Common-Altar amongst them the Sacraments were not only transacted by the High-Priests Parents Circumcised their Children themselves for a long time at least and the Passover might be celebrated without a Priest and all true Believers are United to God
only a diversity of Opinion but dividing into Parties be it so still this was occasioned by their different apprehensions to which the Word plainly refers some said This is the Christ others said Shall Christ come out of Galilee so there was a division among the People about him the connexion leaves no room to doubt but that this division relates principally to their apprehensions He says they were divided into Parties so all men are in their differences of apprehension some think so others thus but I hope he will not call that a separation of Communion for then it will be hard to know where to find one Communion We know the Clergy of the Church of England are of several parties amongst themselves in this sence of the word about another great Person in the World but he adds They censured and reviled one another they did so and this was the effect of that division in their thoughts of Christ like to many at this day that shew very little either of Charity or Common Civility towards those whose apprehensions are different from their own As to the other Text John 9.16 the very reading of the words will satisfie any Man what is meant by that division Some of the Pharisees said This man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath day others said How can a Man that is a Sinner do such Miracles And there was a Division among them That great quarrels did ensue Mr. H. never denied the same may be said concerning the other texts Mr. H. says This diversity of opinion judgment or apprehension cannot be lookt upon as in it self Criminal The Surveyor most disingenuously perverts these words as if Mr. H. meant It was no matter what opinion Men bad of Christ or his Apostles no matter whether they took him for the Messiah or a Mad-man Whereas in the very next words he says where the matter is weighty and reacheth the fundamentals there an Error is Criminal This was plain enough to convince our Author or any Man in the World that Mr. H. was far from intending to Libel Christ or to make an Apology for the Jews and Sadduces in their reviling of him If this Gentleman had not told us I could never have guessed how it could enter into his head to fix such an odious sence upon Mr. H's words but it seems that which led him to it was Mr. H. said This diversity of apprehension and why did he prefix the relative this if not referring to the Antecedent Texts I 'll tell him and it is a shame he should need to be told Mr. H. but a few lines before distinguished of division in apprehension and division in affection and shewed that sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for division in apprehension and then adds this diversity of opinion judgment c. that is this first species or kind of division according to the distinction newly laid down There you have the antecedent to which the relative this refers This division in apprehension is not always criminal but the other division viz. in affection is always so That this is the true Thred and Sence of his Discourse I appeal to any Man of Common Sence and Honesty It is not therefore Mr. H. that knows not what he says but 't is the Surveyor that cares not what he says so he may but render Mr. H. contemptible to the unthinking Debauchees the noble Patrons of his present adventures The Enquiror justly declaims against that mischievous practice of making our own opinions like Procrustes's Bed the Standard by which to measure all others To which the Gentleman replies But if Authority think fit to call Mr. H. to the Standard he is undoubtedly a Subject and I know not why he should not go as well as I. This is really a very fair confession that though he will not yield to a private person in differences about Religion yet he can be of any length of any opinion which Authority shall set up for a Standard and call him to A Man of a malleable ductile complaisant Conscience that can stretch or contract himself to the Standard that Authority sets up in matters of Religion for he is a Subject and must go to it herein the Dissenters differ from him and cannot lay aside their present apprehensions in matters of Religion either upon the call of private persons or of Authority it self until the louder voice of Reason oblige them to it And yet through the Mercy of God Authority has taken down the Standard now not delighting either to cramp or rack the Consciences of Men in matters of Religion It seems the Enquiror and Vindicator have frighten'd this Gentleman into his Devotions and set him a Praying I suppose without the Book for vexatio dat intellectum that he may never stand in need of their Charity and I believe they have as much Reason to pray that they may never stand in need of this Mans Justice for when the Vindicator was making his Apology to any that might think he had treated T.W. somewhat more roughly than such a Man could well bear this Gentleman tells us several times the Vindicator boasted of his rude and malicious usage of the Citizen let this Man learn to be Just before he pretend to be Charitable As for the Vindicators usage of T.W. let it be referred to all the Sober Church-men in Chester where the Man is known as well as the manner of his Writing I am sure some of his own Communion openly said he was treated in that answer with but too much respect But why should this Author be so terrified with the Thoughts of ever standing in need of the Dissenters Charity Is he afraid of the Lex talionis There can be no danger of that unless Authority should ever be on their side and set up its Standard for them and if i◠should do so this Gentleman has declared he is a Subject and must go to it for how ill so ever he may like the Principles of Nonconformity while they are but the Sentiments of private Persons yet if Authority should set them up for a Standard they are become quite another thing he can go to it as well as we and be on the right side still If this be not fairly collected out of his own words I know no tolerable meaning they are capable of In the 19th Page he delivers himself of a Notion which I believe is really his own i. e. That it is as possible for all men to agree about the lesser matters of Religion as about its great and fundamental Articles An assertion contrary to all reason and the experience of Mankind All Protestants acknowledge that the Essentials of our Religion are clearly revealed in Scripture and in these they generally agree but no one ever pretended the same of all circumstantials which are usually proved or disproved by inferences from Scripture and sometimes remote ones too wherein it is common for Disputants to
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church