Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism, Part 2

Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism · Part 2

p. 83REFLECTIONS Upon a PAMPHLET ENTITULED, A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H's. new Notion of Schiſm, and the Vindication of it.

THE Title of this Paper imports, that there has been ſome kind of Anſwer already made to the Enquiry and Vindication, but ſuch as the Zealous Club judge Lame and Impotent, and therefore have thought fit to order a Review; great things ſurely may be expected from this, which comes to ſupply the defects of the former.

Methinks the Author of the Reply, is more concerned in this thing called a Review, than either the Enquiror or Vindicator, Reply p. 2.for 'tis a ſcurvey intimation that his own Confederates do not believe him, when he boaſts that he has run down his Adverſary, and proved, and ſhewed, and demonſtrated every thing, for if they had entertain'd as good an opinion of the ſucceſs of his laſt expedition, as he himſelf has, it had been the moſt ſuperfluous thing in the World to have come with a Review, before the other had received an Anſwer, theſe things would almoſt perſuade a Man to think, P. 35.that T. W's Reputation is not ſo great amongſt the party as he pretends.

But whether this latter comes out on purpoſe to Affront the Citizen, or whether it be with his conſent upon conviction of the miſerable weakneſſes of his Reply, I neither know nor care; my buſineſs is to enquire whether the valiant Second has done any greater ſeats, than he that firſt engaged in the quarrel.

p. 84This Gentleman muſt not expect an Anſwer, to his famous and innumerable Oxford Jeſts; I conſider the humour of his party, and how dull and inſipid every thing is to them how rational ſoever, that has not a great mixture of Farce and Comedy in it, for my part I ſhall take no more notice of them, than I would do of thoſe little ludicrous wanton Creatures, that can make themſelves excellent ſport, with their own Tails and Shadows.

As to the Enquiry, there are two very material things he encounters in it, the Deſign and the Management. He will not allow the Deſign of it to be Honeſt and Peaceable, to allay heats, and create a better underſtanding amongſt us, as the Vindicator pretends, that deſign it ſeems is too high, and the Vindicator aſcribes too much to Mr. H. in ſaying, he endeavoured to create a better underſtanding betwixt parties that had been ſo long and learnedly contending, this is to place him in the Chair, and make him an Oracle, and I do not know what ſo uneaſie a thing it is to Proud Men to hear any body commended but themſelves; it ſeems the Reviewer had no deſign to accommodate differences, or to contribute any thing to a better underſtanding betwixt Church-men and Diſſenters, he, modeſt man, will not pretend to take ſo high an aim, for my part, I believe this was not his deſign, but then I am ſure it muſt be ſomething worſe, that is, to enflame the differences, and perplex the controverſie, and no doubt he has managed ſuch a deſign as well as he could.

He tells us Mr. H's deſign was no greater than to ſatisfie the ſcruples of ſome perſons, and to make two Female Proſelites, which is a great piece of news to Mr. H. for he declares he knows nothing of it, and deſires the Gentleman to name the Perſons that were to be drawn in, and to tell us at what Goſſipping he pickt up this Story, or elſe we muſt lay the Brat at his own Door; I leave it to the Reader to judge what expectations Mr. H. could have from this Book, when he found ſo notorious a Fiction in the very firſt Page.

And truly he goes on as he begun, telling us that Mr. H's Notion of Schiſm will turn all Church Diſcipline out of Doors, Review. p. 3.for if breach of Communion be no Schiſm as theſe Gentlemen alledge, a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting Houſe, &c. It is not without good reaſon that ſome Men have ſo great a ſpight at the Stool of Repentance, there are a ſort of Men that hate it, as a Thief hates the Gallows, the Citizen could not forbear it in his Book; But to let that paſs, I wonder where this Gentleman finds any ſuch a Sentence in either of the books he pretends to review, as that breach of Communion is no Schiſm, let him produce it, or confeſs himſelf worſe than a trifler; Both thoſe Books acknowledge Separation of Communion to be Schiſm, if it be uncharitable, and to be ſinful if it be without good reaſon, and how this can be prejudicial to Church Diſcipline I know not, unleſs by Church Diſcipline be meant that uncharitable, unchriſtian, and tyrannical thing, that has been ſometimes acted under that p. 85Title, and if that ſhould be turned out of Doors by this account of Schiſm, all wiſe men will love it better upon that ſcore.

He proceeds, We have reaſon to queſtion the peaceableneſs of his deſign, Review. p. 4.for the Notion it ſelf being contrived to encourage and juſtifie Separation, I am afraid the laſt reſult and conſequence of it will not be peace; this has as little honeſty in it as the former, there is not the leaſt tendency in Mr. H's Notion to encourage or juſtifie any ſinful Separation, nay it lays the ſtricteſt tye upon perſons to ſee to it not only that the cauſe of their Separation be juſt, but the manner of it peaceable and charitable too; if the Cauſe be not juſt it is ſinful, and if it be not managed peaceably and charitably it is Schiſmatical: Nay it obliges perſons in the ſame Communion to avoid uncharitable contentions about the leſſer matters of 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, p. 86whom (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 p. 87good 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.

p. 88Now 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 p. 89thinks 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, 'tis 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, 'tis no more but what is allowed to all, upon the removal of their Habitations, and may be lawful on many other accounts, but if it be done without ſome good reaſon it is ſinful, if it be done out of Uncharitableneſs towards the Church we leave, it is Schiſm; now if he would be as plain with us as we deſire to be with him, there might be hopes of bringing the matter to ſome iſſue.

But the laſt Inference is moſt remarkable both for Phraſe and Sence, and I would deſire the Author to review it. No one can charge another with Schiſm, except he be able to look into his Heart, it is impoſſible to know according to this Deſcription, that People are Schiſmaticks, if they profeſs themſelves to be in Charity, except we ſhould enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts, and on the contrary People may be the greateſt Schiſmaticks under the outward Profeſſion of Charity, and yet no Body can accuſe them with it.

But pray, why is this laſt Sentence ſaid to be on the contrary to the former, it's impoſſible to know that People are Schiſmaticks, if they profeſs themſelves to be in Charity, and on the contrary People may be the greateſt Schiſmaticks under the outward Profeſſion of Charity, and no Body can accuſe them. Here's a marvellous contrariety betwixt theſe two Sentences, montibus illis erant, & crant in montibus illis, I ſuppoſe by on the contrary he meant on the Tautology, at leaſt he muſt give us leave to take it ſo.

But is there no way then to know mens Uncharitableneſs, but by looking into the Secrets of their Hearts? Did he never hear of a rule, by their Fruits ye ſhall know them? How often does this Gentleman accuſe the Enquirer and Vindicator with Malice and Uncharitableneſs? If he had no evidence for this by overt acts, we know what to call him, but if he had ſufficient ground for it, then his Inference is ſpoiled and proves like the former.

Only thus far we will allow him to argue, if Schiſm conſiſt in ſuch Uncharitableneſs, and Alienation of Affection, men ought to be very cautious how they call one another Schiſmaticks, leſt they ſhould be guilty of that Sin themſelves, whilſt they are charging it upon others; and I ſuppoſe this is p. 90not the leaſt of our Authors Prejudices againſt Mr. H's Notion; that it will not ſuffer men to be continually bawling, Schiſmaticks, Schiſmaticks, againſt all that are not of their own Perſwaſion; but I am ſure all but Schiſmaticks will like it the better, upon this account, that it would lay a reſtraint upon men, that they ſhould not without very good grounds, fix ſuch a brand upon their Neighbours, nor as heretofore hunt them out of Churches, Corporations, and out of the World too as far as in them lay, by the noiſie clamours they have raiſed about this Word.

Our Surveyor proceeds to blame this Notion for want of clearneſs, and puts wonderful hard Queſtions. 1ſt. Whether this uncharitable diſtance muſt be really amongſt thoſe that are Chriſtians; But this is the ſame thing over again, and has received its Anſwer, they muſt really be ſuch as profeſs Chriſtianity, but who are real Chriſtians God knows, and if theſe men will forbear calling Diſſenters Schiſmaticks till that matter be fully cleared, the World would be much quieter.

2. Qu. What does he mean by Fundamentals of Religion? But what ſtrange perverſeneſs is this in thoſe who ſo often tell us, we have all the Fundamentals of Religion in the Apoſtles Creed? He asks, Whether Fundamentals of Salvation, or Fundamentals of Truth, and I anſwer they are Fundamental Truths neceſſary to Salvation; he urges further, are they ſo to every man in his Private Capacity, or are they the Fundamentals of Church Communion? Theſe are mighty pretty Diſtinctions, pray why ſhould thoſe things be Fundamentals of Church Communion, which are not neceſſary to the Salvation of particular Perſons?

3. Qu. What does he mean by little things? Whether all Manner of little things, or Eccleſiaſtical little things? Had this Gentleman look't into the caſe of the Corinthians, he might have anſwered himſelf, they are ſuch things as relate to the Affairs of the Church, which are comparatively ſmall, that is, ſmall in Compariſon of the great things wherein they agreed, and of the great heats theſe things cauſed.

From theſe little quibbles, which do no Body harm but himſelf, he returns to his former Practice of falſifying Mr. H's Words, for (ſays he) Mr. H. tells us, Review. p. 7.there is but one Scripture in the Old Teſtament relating to this Affair, viz. Num. 11.21. But what if Mr. H. ſay no ſuch thing? Why then, all his fine Obſervations upon it fall to the ground, and he muſt give us leave to obſerve that he is a very unfair and unjuſt Writer; all that Mr. H. ſays, is, The Old Teſtament will not help us ſo much in this Enquiry as the new, only mentioning that one Text, and that not as giving us a proper Notion of Schiſm, but only helping to rectifie ſome miſtakes concerning it.

Now I'll be ſo Civil to this Gentleman, as to help him to take this matter aright, He ought to conſider, what that Enquiry was which Mr. H. ſays the Old Teſtament will not be ſo helpful in as the New, it was not how many times the Church has been troubled with Schiſms? it was not his deſign to p. 91write a Hiſtory of all the Schiſms that ever were in the Church, either ſince Chriſt, or before; then indeed, if he had ſaid the Old Teſtament will not be ſo helpful to us, the Gentleman might have inferred that the Jewiſh Church was not infeſted with this Sin; but the Enquiry was, What is that thing which the Scripture calls Schiſm? And thoſe Texts were to be principally diſcuſſed, that have the Word Schiſm found in them; and by conſidering the circumſtances of thoſe Caſes and Actions, which are charged with Schiſm, he comes to determine the formal Nature of that Sin; and there may be a hundred Texts relating to the thing, which would not be in the leaſt helpful to Mr. H. in this Enquiry, till he had firſt cleared that to be really the thing called Schiſm, which muſt be proved by comparing it, with that which in expreſs terms is ſo called: This was Mr. H's Method, and I think a very proper and rational One; and therefore the Caſes which this Gentleman mentions of Aaron and Miriam, of Jannes and Jambres, of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, were very juſtly omitted by Mr. H. for how bad ſoever thoſe Practices were, they cannot be proved Schiſmatical till it be made to appear that they are of the ſame kind and quality with thoſe which Scripture calls Schiſms.

He is pleaſed to divert himſelf, with the inſtance of Eldad and Medad; Propheſying in the Camp, which he ſays is forreign to the buſineſs. 1. Becauſe they were to bear the weight of the Government with Moſes under God. But was it not in Subordination to Moſes? Was not he the chief Governour ſtill? And are not the Presbyters allowed ſome ſhare of Government with the Biſhops? and does that make them incapable of being Schiſmaticks? 2. Their Propheſying was for a ſign. Well, be it ſo, and would have leſs anſwered that end, if theſe two, had been with the reſt of them in the Tabernacle. 3. They were acted by a conſtraining impulſe, which ſurely is not the Caſe of our Nonconformiſts; No ſurely, nor of the Conformiſts neither, though they openly declare at their Ordination, that they are moved by the Holy Ghoſt to take upon them the Office of the Miniſtry; But what if Eldad and Medad propheſied by impulſe, did not Mr. H. obviate that Objection by putting us in Mind, that the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.22. And though this Gentleman ſays, that Scripture is impertinently alledged, yet wiſer men, as Grotius and others, give that ſence of it, which makes it as pertinent as any thing can be, viz. The Spirits of the Prophets are ſo ſubject to the Prophets themſelves, that they are not acted with that urging Violence as will not allow a Compliance with the Rules of Order; that is, they might if 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 p. 92forreign; 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.John 4:20as 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 quàm 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 p. 93place 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.Josh 22:22Josh 22:23to 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 p. 94a Prieſt; and all true Believers are United to God, whether they have a Biſhop, or Baptiſm amongſt them or no; and the Sacrament ſuppoſes mens Union to God, but does not effect it.

His Obſervations, from John 4.21. muſt be examined before we paſs them. 1. There is ſomething under the Goſpel, that does correſpond to that ſolemn Worſhip at Jeruſalem: How do you mean correſpond Sir? Their's was Worſhipping the true God according to his Word, and ours is, or ſhould be ſo; if that be correſponding we grant it, but what it is to the purpoſe I cannot Divine; he adds. The Worſhip at Jeruſalem and the Spiritual Worſhip were the Type and … one of another, I am loth to quarrel with him about Words, but I think it is a very improper Expreſſion; that their Prieſthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Chriſt, I find the Apoſtle to the Hebrews largely illuſtrating, but that they were Types of Goſpel-Worſhip, is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture, nor the Reformed Churches. He farther ſays, As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar, in like manner muſt all Chriſtians partake in the ſame Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices, he means that which Chriſt offered up to the Father, we aſſent to it as a great Truth, or if he means the ſame Sacraments and Prayers, we grant theſe muſt be ſpecifically the ſame amongſt all Chriſtians.

2. We are informed, That the deſign of the Jewiſh Anniverſaries was to keep them in the ſame Communion, and the ſpiritual Worſhip is for the ſame End. If by the ſame Communion, he means the ſame Truth and Divine Worſhip, it is granted, or if he means their Union to one High-Prieſt, it is true ſo far as the High Prieſt was a Type of Chriſt, the only remaining High Prieſt of the Church; the ſame may be ſaid of his three other Obſervations, which are all ſafe, whilſt by the High Prieſt and Altar we underſtand Jeſus Chriſt.

But if he means (as he muſt if he will ſerve himſelf of them) that this High Prieſt and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Biſhops, it is a very fooliſh and dangerous Notion; and if it proves any thing, it will prove, that there ought to be one Prime Biſhop, the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Prieſts and Churches muſt be in Communion, as he ſpeaks, otherwiſe the Type and Antitype do not correſpond in the principal Point, which is a Center of Unity; if he ſays, every Biſhop is ſuch a Center, then the Donatiſts formerly and the Papiſts now are excuſed from Schiſm, for they have their Biſhops as well as the Church of England, but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the moſt Learned Doctors of our own Nation, that Epiſcopacy is not Eſſential to the Unity of the Church, and I would ſend this Gentleman to them, who will teach him better Divinity, than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel.

'Tis a groſs miſtake, to ſay, That Salvation belonged only to thoſe that worſhipped at Jeruſalem, there were Proſelytes, who only ſubmitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah, and were not circumciſed, nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewiſh Church, Vid. Schind. in Verb. foreign.and yet to theſe the Jews granted a part in p. 95the World to come, ſuch were Naaman, Cornelius and many more; this he might have ſound in Selden, Lightfoot, Mede, &c. and our Saviours words, Salvation is of the Jews, were never intended to exclude all others, for the ſame Jeſus by his Apoſtle Peter tells us, God is no reſpecter of perſons, but in every Nation he that feareth God, and worketh Righteouſneſs, is accepted of him; But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation, and Chriſt the Saviour of the World was of them, according to the Fleſh.

The Myſtical reaſonings of this Gentleman from the One High Prieſt and Altar amongſt the Jews, are pure impertinencies as to the Queſtion in Hand; For the Jews were obliged to have onelyonly One High Prieſt, and One Altar, and no more, or if they had (according to his fiction) it muſt be in dependance upon the Supream One, but under the Goſpel it is quite otherwiſe, for it is in the power of Chriſtian Kingdoms, to multiply particular Churches, and diſtribute a greater Dioceſs or Pariſh into as many leſſer as they ſee good, each having their proper Biſhop, without any dependence one upon another, in point of Government, the Biſhop of Eugubium is as abſolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Conſtantinople; The Dioceſs of Cheſter might, if the King and Parliament pleaſed, be divided into twenty or a hundred Biſhopricks, without any Juriſdiction of one over the reſt, but ſuch a thing could not be done amongſt the Jews, without confounding and deſtroying their Conſtitution.

He blames. Mr. H. for laying ſo much ſtreſs upon the word Schiſm, P. 14.and tells him the Nature of Schiſm may be expreſſed by other words, as foreign, foreign, and foreign. Mr. H. never denies but it may, and ſo may the Nature of Treaſon be expreſſed by other terms, but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treaſon by Statute Law, muſt ſee whether he finds it ſo called in the Statute, 25 Edward III. or any other that aſcertain Treaſon; And ſo he that would prove foreign, &c. to be Schiſm, muſt enquire, how far the practices by theſe words ſignified, are of the ſame nature with thoſe which are expreſly called Schiſm in the Statutes of Chriſt.

He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words, foreign and foreign, and what is it? Why they ſignifie a Separation of the parts, a rending or cleaving of one thing into two; no great Criticiſm! All the World knows where there is a Separation there muſt be parts Separated, but ſays he, in the Eccleſiaſtical ſence, it muſt ſignifie a dividing of Chriſts Body, which is moſt viſibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion; No doubt Schiſm ſignifies diviſion, and a breach of the Unity of the Church; But that Unity does not conſiſt in the Unity of one Governing Head under Chriſt, nor in the Unity of one Perſonal Communion, which is impoſſible, but in the Unity of Faith and Love; If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches, this is very lawful in many caſes, an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty, and if it be done upon good reaſon, and with Chriſtian Love and Charity, there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schiſmatical in it; if there be any Schiſm in forming new particular p. 96Churches which are ſound in the Faith, it muſt be in doing it contentiouſly and out of oppoſition to one another, which reſolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableneſs.

Mr. H. obſerves that the word foreign is uſed figuratively, for a diviſion, and that twofold. 1. A Diviſion in Apprehenſion, for which he cites John 7.43. To this the Gentleman Replies, There was not 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 foreign, 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 p. 97have 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 'tis 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 p. 98become 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 diſagree, and eaſie to be miſtaken; whereas the Fundamentals being more directly and poſitively aſſerted in the Word of God, admit of clearer demonſtration.

'Tis true indeed thoſe that think it their duty in all the leſſer matters of Religion to follow their Leaders, and that make their Commands in theſe things the Standard of Sin and Duty, have found out an eaſie Rule of Controverſie, and this ſeems to be his opinion, for he ſays, if Mr. H. were better acquainted with Church Hiſtory he would find, that whole Churches and Nations had their peculiar Cuſtoms and Ceremonies, and yet their Members agreed well enough in their opinions about them; And I will venture to add if this Gentleman be as well acquainted with Church Hiſtory as he pretends, he knows in his Conſcience, that he impoſes upon his Reader, and would obtrude a great fallacy upon the World.

The firſt Attempt for the introducing ſuch Cuſtoms and Ceremonies into the Worſhip of God, occaſioned a great deal of Contention and Diſcord in the Apoſtles times; and the Impoſers were ſeverely check'd by them for their Arrogance, Gal. 5.1.Gal 5:1and all Chriſtians commanded to ſtand faſt in the Liberty wherewith Chriſt had made them free, and not ſuffer themſelves to be entangled with the yoak of Bondage, and ſo great a Diſturbance was raiſed by urgeing ſuch Ceremonies, v. 12.that the Apoſtle wiſhes they were cut off that troubled the Church with them.

And after the Apoſtles were dead, when Ceremonies began to encreaſe, (though they were not for ſome time enjoyned, but the People took them up partly of their own accord, partly upon the example of thoſe they had a great Veneration for) yet they occaſioned great Animoſities and Diſcord in the Churches, of which Socrates gives us many inſtances, Lib. 5. c. 21, 22. Sozom. l. 7.19.

And when Victor would needs impoſe his Obſervation of Eaſter, ſuch Feuds and Heats were raiſed thereby, as made them the ſcorn of the Pagans, and were greatly lamented by all ſober Biſhops and Chriſtians, and both Cyprian and Irenaeus greatly blame him [foreign] as ſtretching the Rigour of his Government, Euſeb. l. 5. c. 24.not only beyond his line, but alſo to Cauſes of indifferency, which would not admit of ſuch ſevere Cenſures. And p. 99as Ceremonies and Impoſitions encreaſed, Contentions grew up with them, till at laſt a great part of the Chriſtian World was laid in a dead ſleep, with that Poiſon poured into the Church, and for a long time became like Iſſachar, a ſtrong Aſs, ſubmitting to every Burthen; then indeed there was almoſt a Univerſal Agreement about Ceremonies, and a general Proſtitution of Conſcience to the dictates of the pretended Catholick Church, but that was the darkeſt and worſt ſtate, wherein Chriſtianity ever was in the World.

I come now to examine this Gentleman's Account of the Corinthian Schiſm, and indeed [hic pes figendus] this is the Core of the Controverſie and the hinge upon which it turns, if he be right in this he has broken Mr. H's Meaſures, and put him upon a new Enquiry.

Mr. H. ſuppoſes that theſe Corinthians who are reproved for their Schiſmatical Contentions, were agreed in the fundamental Articles of Faith, and great Truths of the Goſpel, but engaged in fooliſh and uncharitable Conteſts about the Apoſtles, ſome commending Paul, and preferring him before the reſt; others crying up Cephas, and a third ſort Apollos; thus having the Faith of Chriſt with reſpect of Perſons.

This Gentleman has learned from Dr. Hammend to ſay, [That the Perſons reproved for theſe Contentions, were the Gnoſtick Hereticks, Review p. 20, 21.that denied the Reſurrection of the Dead, and lived in Inceſt, and diſſwaded the People from Marriage, and ſacrificed to Idols that they might eſcape Perſecution, ſome of them pretend they had their heretical Doctrines from St. Paul, P. 22.others fathered theirs upon Apollos, others upon Cephas, and another ſort pretended they had ſeen Chriſt himſelf, and received thoſe Doctrines from his Mouth; And (he affirms) they were Heretical Gnoſticks only, and not the Orthodox, P. 24.who are reprehended by the Apoſtle for ſaying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos; and concludes, that the Schiſm of the Corinthians lay in oppoſing the ſound Orthodox Doctors, and maintaining their own wild Hereſies under the Umbrage of theſe great Names.

Were it not for theſe Gnoſtick Hereticks, I know not what ſome Men could do to miſunderſtand plain Scripture; if we meet with any ſmart Reproofs in the Apoſtolical Epiſtles, ſtill they muſt be levell'd at the Gnoſtick Hereticks; if any were guilty of Fornication, it was the Gnoſticks, if any of Temporizing, or of Schiſm, they were Gnoſticks; as if all beſides them had been Pure and Innocent. This is too great partiality, and ſavours much of the Phariſaical Humour of ſome Modern Men that are for caſting the Odium of every ill thing upon thoſe they are pleaſed to call Schiſmaticks; that under this Blind, all the Sons of the Church may come off clear, and be thought in every thing blameleſs and inoffenſive.

Now although I make no queſtion but there were ſuch Hereticks in thoſe days, and that they were as bad as he deſcribes them, that ſome of them lived amongſt the Corinthians, and that the Apoſtle ſometimes ſpeaks concerning them, (though I ſeldom find that he ſpeaks directly to them) yet p. 100that theſe were the perſons here reproved for Schiſm (much leſs the only perſons) I can never believe; For theſe reaſons.

1. 1 Cor. 1.1 Cor 1The Character which the Apoſtle gives of theſe contentious Corinthians, in the context will by no means fit the Gnoſtick Hereticks, for we find he calls them the Church of God, Saints, and in the 9th verſe, Perſons that were called into the Fellowſhip of Chriſt Jeſus our Lord, and in the very ſame verſes wherein he admoniſhes them of their Schiſmatical Contentions, he calls them Brethren, v. 10. Now I beſeech you, Brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, that ye all ſpeak the ſame thing, and that there be no diviſions amongſt you, — For it hath been declared unto me, of you my Brethren, that there are contentions among you; Now this I ſay, that every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, &c. Can any Man imagine theſe ſuch groſs and damned Hereticks, as the Gnoſticks have been always deſcribed? Can we believe the ſame Apoſtle that was ſo ſharp upon thoſe that urged the Jewiſh Ceremonies, as to call them Dogs, and Evil Workers, and bid the Chriſtians beware of them, would be ſo tender and kind, ſo affectionate and endearing to the vileſt corrupters of the Chriſtian Faith, as to call them Saints and Brethren, and all the good names imaginable; I am ſure the Church of England ſeldom ſpeaks to Proteſtant Diſſenters in ſuch obliging language, and yet I hope we are not altogether ſo bad as the Gnoſtick Hereticks.

2. If the fault here reproved had been Herefie, and ſuch as this Gentleman ſpeaks of, there's no queſtion but the Apoſtle would plainly and expreſly have mentioned it; We never find him guilty of ſparing ſuch Sins and Sinners as theſe; And if he had now to do with thoſe that taught damnable Hereſies under that horrid aggravation of fathering them upon himſelf, and upon Chriſt too, which would have added Blaſphemy to his Hereſie, it would have been a great deal too ſoft and tender, onelyonly to have ſaid, it has been declared unto me of you my Brethren, that there are contentions amongſt you, ſuch kind of reproof would have born no proportion to the crime, but would have been next door to a juſtifying of them, and ſo far from convincing them of the deſperate guilt they were under, that it would rather have betray'd them into a good opinion of themſelves and their Doctrines; It is generally obſerved that Eli greatly ſinned in reproving ſuch flagitious offences of his Sons in that mild language, Why do you ſuch things? For I hear of your evil dealings by all this People, 1 Sam. 2.3.1 Sam 2:3nay, my Sons, for it is no good report that I hear of you, for you make the Lords People to Tranſgreſs, &c. and yet this is much more plain and home than the Words of Paul, if he was reproving a crime of that Nature.

And as we have all the reaſon in the World to think he would have been ſeverer in the caſe, ſo he would doubtleſs have ſpoken directly to the matter, he would have expoſed and diſowned their Errors, and acquitted himſelf before all the World, he would have called them Hereticks, and ſet a black mark upon their Hereſies, and inſtead of ſaying, was Paul Crucified p. 101for you, or were ye Baptized in the Name of Paul, would have challenged them, did Paul ever tell you, that there was no Reſurrection, did Paul ever give you leave to live in Inceſt, or to Sacrifice to Idols? And he would have taken that occaſion, ſince a fairer could never offer it ſelf, immediately to diſapprove and damn thoſe Errors, which they had broach'd under his Name and Authority, but there being not one word to this purpoſe, but a deep ſilence in all the Context; He muſt be able to ſwallow a Camel, that can digeſt ſuch a Notion.

3. Had this been the caſe, the Apoſtle would certainly have made a manifeſt diſtinction betwixt the Orthodox and the Hereticks, and have plainly adviſed the Orthodox, how to proceed againſt thoſe Blaſphemous wretches; But here is no ſuch diſtinction made, but the fault of contention charged upon them all, Now this I ſay, that every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, which according to this Gentlemans Comment muſt be, Now this I ſay, that every one of you is turned Heretick, and Father your Hereſies upon me, and upon Chriſt too; I will not be ſo nice upon the word foreign, as to ſay there were none free, but doubtleſs it muſt argue a very common faultineſs, and they were ſo generally engaged in theſe fooliſh conteſts, that he could not have an Account thereof from the Church in Common, for Men do not love to inform of themſelves, but the Houſe of Cloe ſent him the bad news; now can we think the Apoſtle would in ſuch general terms have aſſaulted the Hereſies of ſome particular Perſons? Would he have laid ſuch a Temptation before all ſucceeding Ages, to condemn the whole Church of Corinth for Gnoſticks; Certainly his Love to that People, and indeed Juſtice it ſelf would have obliged him, in ſuch a caſe, to have diſtinguiſhed betwixt the Innocent and the Guilty.

And it is as reaſonable to conclude, that the Apoſtle would have commanded the Orthodox to admoniſh and reject ſuch abominable Wretches from their Communion, we ſee in the caſe of the inceſtuous perſon he did ſo, and certainly he would not have been more favourable to theſe, who according to this Gentlemans account, were no better, but rather worſe than he, and indeed as bad as can be imagined.

4. The Advice that the Apoſtle gives to theſe contending Corinthians, ſhews that he did not ſpeak to Gnoſtick Hereticks, he counſels them to be of one mind, and to ſpeak the ſame thing, and to be perſectly joined together in one mind, and in one Judgment, and that there be no diviſions among them; Our Gentleman thinks this will prove that they were Hereticks, and I think it is demonſtration on the other ſide; For let it be obſerved the ſame perſons that he reproves for ſaying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, &c. in the 12. v. and of whoſe contentions (he ſays) he had heard in the 11. v. he adviſes in the 10. v. to be of one mind, and to be perfectly joined together; Now if all theſe he here ſpeaks to were Hereticks, would the Apoſtle have commanded them to be all of one Mind, and to be perfectly joined together, was the Apoſtles deſign to reconcile one Heretick to another, the p. 102Heretick that was of Paul to the Heretick that was of Apollos; was he troubled that the Hereticks did no better underſtand one another? And is this the meaning of that kind and obliging Admonition? Dear Hereticks, agree amongſt your ſelves, and let there be no Diviſions amongſt you? Would not this have been an encouraging and ſtrengthning them in their Confederacy againſt Chriſt, his Goſpel and Church? It would be a very ſuſpicious thing, for one that pretends to be a Loyal Subject, to go to a herd of Rebols that are quarrelling one with another, and perſwade them to keep together, and to avoid Diviſion, and to be of the ſame Mind, it would be a better Office to ſow the Seeds of Contention amongſt them, to break their Confederacy, that they might be more eaſily ſubdued.

And it is not to be omitted, how cunningly this Gentleman alters the Phraſe, and being perfectly joyned together, he expounds, be well joynted and compacted in the Church; but here's no colour for ſuch a Paraphraſe, and to bid Hereticks be joyned one to another, is rather forbidding them being joyned to the Church; no doubt he would have commanded them to abandon their Deviliſh Errours, and return to the Truth, and would have charged the Orthodox to oppoſe them, For the Contention on their ſide would have been commendable.and to Contend earneſtly for the Faith delivered to them, and not to incorporate with them till they had renounced their Errors; but to bid theſe Hereticks be of one Mind, and of one Judgment, when there lay an indiſpenſible Neceſſity on them all to change their Minds, is ſuch odd, inſipid, and infatuated Counſel, as cannot without a degree of blaſphemy be aſcribed to an inſpired Apoſtle.

5. The Repetition of this matter in the third Chapter, affords us further Evidence, that this Gentlemans Notion is falſe, 'tis true the Apoſtle upbraids them there with the weakneſs of their Faith and Judgment, that they were but as Babes in Chriſt, and yet that would be a ſtrange Character of the Gnoſticks, far different from that which this Author gives us; but the Apoſtle proceeds to reprove them for Envying and Strife, and Diviſion, in ſaying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, &c. And adds, Who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but Miniſters by whom ye believed, I have planted, Apollos hath watered, and God gave the increaſe? What ſence can any man put upon this, but that the fault here cenſured, lay in their glorying too much in Inſtruments, ſome in one, ſome in another, and therefore he adds, Let no man glory in man, for all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, all are yours, and ye are Chriſts, and Chriſt is Gods. Would all this have been true of the Gnoſtick Hereticks, or would this have been a proper way of dealing with them for their recovery?

6. Clemens Romanus, in the paſſage this Gentleman cited would have undeceiv'd him, P. 110.if it had been conſidered, foreign, &c. Take into your hands the Epiſtle of the bleſſed Apoſtle Paul which he wrote unto you in the beginning of his Goſpel, for he being divinely inſpired, admoniſhed you, that there were ſidings and factions amongſt you, concerning Himſelf, and Cephas, and Apollos; But there was leſs Sin p. 103in that ſiding than in your preſent Contentions, for there you ſided with the Apoſtles, &c.

Now I would fain know, were theſe Corinthians Gnoſticks too, to whom Clemens here writes? If the other were, theſe muſt be ſo to, for he ſays the Apoſtle admoniſhed you, that there were ſidings among you.

Clemens here tells us, that the Contending Corinthians, whom St. Paul reproved, ſided with the Apoſtles, which he mentions as a thing which did extenuate their Crime; did the Gnoſtick Hereticks do ſo? Can we think that by ſiding with the Apoſtles, he means fathering their damnable Hereſies upon the Apoſtles, ſurely that would rather have aggravated than leſſened the fault; this Gentleman tells us, the Gnoſtick Hereticks here reproved oppoſed their Orthodox Governours, which agrees but very ſorrily, with what Clemens ſays of the Corinthian Schiſmaticks ſiding with the Apoſtles.

That Schiſm which Clemens reprehends, he ſays was worſe than that cenſured by the Apoſtle Paul, foreign, in the former Schiſm they ſinned leſs than in the latter; but what could be worſe than the Gnoſtick Hereſie, and fathering it upon God himſelf? If thoſe to whom Clemens writes were worſe than the Gnoſticks, 'tis ſtrange we ſhould not hear him taxing them, with monſtrous Errors, and horrid Crimes, foreign, &c. p. 108. foreign, &c. p. 106.but that on the contrary he ſhould tell them, they had one God, and one Chriſt, and one Spirit poured out upon them, and one calling in Chriſt, and he aggravates their Sin in caſting off their Faithful Elders, becauſe it was done by the Godly, and ſays, It was without Preſident, that the juſt ſhould be rejected by Godly Men; and nothing is more evident by the whole Series of that Epiſtle, than that the Schiſm there reproved, was not any Hereſie or Apoſtacy from the Faith, but that for the ſake of a few factious Perſons, they had ſlighted and caſt off their faithful Presbyters, by whom, not by any one ſingle Perſon, that Church was governed, and the great fault is laid upon the want of Charity, foreign, his great Encomiums upon Charity, P. 114.and his earneſt preſſing of them to it, ſhews that he look'd upon Uncharitableneſs to be the very Soul of their Schiſm, whereby it was informed and acted, which agrees ſo well with Mr. H's account, that this Gentleman ſhould have called it any thing rather than new; but if this was the latter Corinthian Schiſm, and if the former was not ſo criminal as this, ſurely it could not be, that damnable Blaſphemous Gnoſtick Hereſie which this Gentleman ſpeaks of.

7. If I thought, what has been ſaid were not ſufficient, I could add that the account, which Jerom and many after him give of this Corinthian Schiſm will by no means quadrate with the Gnoſtick Hereſie, the Paſſage is very Trite and Common. Antequam Diaboli inſtinctu ſtudia in Religione fierent, Comment. in Tlt. 1.& diceretur in Populis, Ego ſum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum conſilio Eccleſiae gubernabantur, poſtquam vero unuſquiſque eos quos baptizaverat ſuos putabat eſſe, non Chriſti, toto orbe decretum eſt ut unus de Presbyteris electus ſuperponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Eccleſiae cura pertineret, & Schiſmatum ſemina tollerentur. Now though I can p. 104by no means grant that upon this very Schiſm Epiſcopacy was inſtituted for the Reaſons already given, yet it is ſufficient for the preſent purpoſe, that it was upon a Schiſm of the ſame kind, and therefore the Nature of Schiſm may be underſtood hereby, it conſiſted in contending about their Miniſters that governed them in Common, and inſtead of paying a due and equal reſpect to them all, ſome cried up this, another that, probably every one would magnifie him, by whom he had been Converted and Baptized, and at length it ſeems it infected the Miniſters themſelves, and they begun to challenge a ſpecial Propriety, in thoſe they had Baptized, as if by Baptiſm men had been united to them, not to Chriſt, for the Prevention whereof one was choſen from amongſt the reſt, and the Government of the whole principally committed to him, and by this means, they endeavoured to prevent ſuch conteſts about the Preheminence for the future.

Let the Gentleman apply this to the Gnoſtick Hereſie, and he will find it to be the moſt unapt and diſcordant thing in the World, were thoſe Hereticks under the Common Government of the Presbyters of Corinth? No, he ſays they oppoſed their Orthodox Governours, and puts the groſſeſt abuſe upon the Apoſtles, making them Haereſiarcha's; and what would it have ſignified to ſuch men as thoſe to have one of their deſpiſed Presbyters made a Biſhop? How would this have put an end to the Hereſie? What tendency could it have to make them change their Minds, and renounce thoſe Opinions for which they pretended Apoſtolical Authority? Would they think that as ſoon as the Presbyter was advanced to the Quality of a Biſhop, he preſently commenc'd infallible, and therefore they muſt neceſſarily ſpeak and think as he dictated to them? The World has not found Epiſcopacy to be ſuch a Soveraign Cure of Hereſie, the Arians had their Biſhops, and ſo have the Papiſts, and prodigious great ones too, but they are generally the greateſt promoters of Hereſie of all others.

I would now willingly conſider any thing that has the leaſt colour of reaſon to prove, that the Corinthian Schiſm was the Gnoſtick Hereſie, and I have ſearched as diligently as I could thoſe three or four pages which the Gentleman has writ upon this Point, but I muſt needs ſay his whole diſcourſe upon it is the moſt confuſed Jargon, that ever I read from a man pretending ſo high as he does.

The thing which he inſiſts moſt upon, to overthrow Mr. H's Notion, that the Corinthian Schiſm lay in Uncharitable Contentions about their Miniſters, is that Expreſſion, And I of Chriſt, upon which he thus Harangues, Our Saviour was aſcended up into Heaven long before this, and it would have been a ſtrange wild Fancy, not to be contented with any other Miniſter excepting him — beſides it would be hard to aſſign any Reaſon, why any Body ſhould prefer Paul or Apollos before Chriſt. I always thought our Saviour might have had the Pre-eminence.

But theſe Queſtions have been often put, and variouſly anſwered; ſome think the Apoſtle ſpeaks this of himſelf, Chryſoſt. in loc.as if he ſhould ſay, Let others chuſe p. 105who they will for Heads of their Parties, I only chuſe Chriſt for mine; others ſay that ſome few of the Corinthians being wiſer than the reſt, contented themſelves with the Name of Chriſtians, Partus in loc.without any other dividing Denomination.

But that which ſeems moſt probable is, that theſe unhappy Contentions about Paul and Apollos had this effect upon ſome, that they too much ſlighted them all, and pretended to be of Chriſt, in contempt of his Miniſters, and it is obſervable, that our Old Bibles Printed with large Notes in Queen Elizabeths days, and by her Authority, give this laſt as the ſence of the place, which ſhews that it was agreeable to the Sentiments of the Biſhops in thoſe days, otherwiſe they would not have permitted thoſe Notes to have been gone along with it, and we have alſo there this account of Schiſm, that it is when men who otherwiſe agree in Doctrin, ſeparate themſelves from one another; Now let this Gentleman take any of theſe Solutions, and it will be abundantly leſs abſurd than this account of the matter which he has given us.

He tells us, That becauſe theſe Corinthians had not the writings of the New Teſtament, but muſt be inſtructed by their Prophets and Evangeliſts, it would be a difficult thing for them to judge betwixt the Orthodox and the Heretical; but I cannot apprehend any ſuch mighty difficulty in the Caſe; the Apoſtles when ever they planted Churches, preached unto them the fundamental Articles of the Goſpel, which are few and plain, and therefore eaſily received and remembred; thoſe that believed upon their Preaching could not ſo quickly forget them, nor could they be eaſily perſwaded to think that the Apoſtles would preach one Doctrine to them, and the contrary to others, and we may be aſſured, any that ſhould come with ſuch wicked pretenſions would meet with a ſharp repulſe; and it was ſo far from being a difficult thing to diſcover ſuch impoſtures, that nothing but folly or faſcination could hinder them from ſo doing, and therefore when the Galatians were corrupted with the Principles of Judaical Pretenders, the Apoſtle admires at their weakneſs, Oh fooliſh Galatians, who hath bewitched you, &c.

He further informs us, That when there were contrary Doctrines preached, the proof of each muſt depend upon the Credit and Authority of thoſe Perſons from whom they were derived; if from Chriſt it was the greateſt, if from the Apoſtles it was next, if from one of the firſt Converts, as Apollos, it was the laſt great Authority. I muſt confeſs, this is quite above my reach, I know not, why this Gentleman ſhould fancy ſuch degrees of Credit and Authority as theſe. The Apoſtles and Evangeliſts who were at that day infallibly inſpired, ſpoke with the higheſt Authority even that of Chriſt himſelf, who ſpoke by them and in them by his Spirit, and to diſtinguiſh betwixt the Credit and Authority of what Chriſt ſpoke and of what the Apoſtles Preached and writ, is not only a vain but a dangerous thing, and makes ſuch a difference in the ſeveral parts of Scripture as ought not to be made, as if there was leſs Credit and Authority in ſome than others.

p. 106I ſuppoſe, the proof of any Doctrine would depend upon this Point rather, whether it was really the Doctrine of Chriſt, and his inſpired Apoſtles and Evangeliſts or no, if it could be evinced that any of them had delivered it, there was proof ſufficient of its Truth and Authority in the higheſt degree; The Authority of the Apoſtles was not queſtioned, nor any ſuch degrees of Credibility imagined betwixt the Doctrine of Chriſt, and the Apoſtles and inſpired Evangeliſts, as to leave room for ſuch pretended Compariſons, all the doubt was, whether ſuch a Doctrine was theirs or no, and there could not want Witneſſes in every Church to confront any one that ſhould bring another Goſpel under any Name whatſoever.

The Gentleman has diſcovered a wonderful Argument for his Opinion in the form of Salutation the Apoſtle uſes in this Chapter, 1 Cor. 1.2.1 Cor 1:2To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, both theirs and ours, from whence (ſays he) it is plain, the Apoſtle makes two Parties amongſt them, the Orthodox and the Hereticks, theirs and ours.

This then muſt be the meaning of that Preface, The Church of God which is at Corinth, Sanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, and whoſe members are called to be Saints, conſiſts of two Parties. 1. Theirs, that is to ſay, notorious damn'd Gnoſtick Hereticks, that deny the Reſurrection, and hold it lawful to live in Inceſt, and to Sacrifice to Idols, and that blaſphemouſly aſcribe theſe Doctrines of Devils to Chriſt and his Apoſtles; theſe are the firſt ſort of the Holy, Sanctified Members of the Church of God at Corinth. 2. Ours, That is, the Orthodox that hold faſt the Truth, and the form of ſound words; Grace and Peace be to them both; certainly this would be the moſt ſcandalous Paraphraſe, that ever was invented, and yet the Gentleman ſees this plainly in the Text.

But alas it affords no pretence for ſuch a Comment, for theirs and ours, plainly refer to the Lord Jeſus, who (ſays the Apoſtle) is both their Lord and ours, Theirs, that believe on him as well as Ours, that preach him to the World, or theirs, that are Gentiles, as well as Ours, that are Jews, the Common Lord of all the faithful, all the World over, thus it is underſtood, by the whole band of Interpeters, Dr. Hammond himſelf not Diſſenting, but when a mans fancy is deeply ting'd with a Notion, every thing muſt be thought to ſupport it, or elſe, this would never have been mentioned to ſuch a purpoſe.

I now attend his Review of the ſecond inſtance of Schiſm, 1 Cor. 11.20. I hear that there be Diviſions among you, &c. Mr. H. obſerves this could not be meant of breach of Communion, becauſe they all come together into one place and into the Church too; The Gentleman replies, there was a notorious breach of Communion even at the Communion Table, and very great and ſcandalous Miſcarriages; and who ever doubted of that? But does he call theſe things a breach of Communion? Then I am afraid it is often broken among themſelves; when Mr. H. denies, that there was any breach of Communion, he takes it in their own Sence, there were no ſeparate Meetings, p. 107otherwiſe where-ever there is a Violation of Love and Charity amongſt Chriſtians there is a breach of Communion, and his whole Book tends to prove it.

Will this Gentleman ſay, that by theſe diviſions are meant, the rude and diſorderly behaviour of ſome amongſt them, or rather the conteſts that thoſe miſcarriages cauſed; If he ſpeaks ſence he muſt ſay the latter; Forit is not uſual, to call the miſcarriages of one ſort diviſions; Beſides theſe miſcarriages, tho' very great, were chiefly about the Love Feaſts which accompanied the Sacrament, as the Gentleman himſelf acknowledges, and therefore were not altogether ſo deſtructive of Communion, as if they had been about the Sacrament it ſelf; But if that will not do, he will try the old Salvo, and theſe diviſions muſt be into Sects and Parties that were Heretical; But how can it then be ſaid, that theſe Diviſions aroſe when they came together to theſe Feaſts, what! did ſome of them turn Hereticks preſently upon the Congreſs? And become Orthodox again when they parted, and ſo turn Hereticks anew when they came together the next time? And certainly if they were Hereticks the Apoſtle would have charged the reſt to have caſt them out, and not ſuffered them to Communicate with them at all, and that had been a proper and likely way to have put an End to ſuch Diſorders; But this he grounds upon the verſe following, For there muſt alſo be Hereſies among you, and blames Mr. H. for omitting it, and would fain know what we have to ſay to it; Why I'll tell him in a few words; This does not ſhew that the Diviſions he reproves were Hereſies, but gives us the reaſon why he believed the report which he heard of their Diviſions. I hear there are Diviſions or Schiſms amongſt you, and I partly believe it, for there muſt be alſo Hereſies amongſt you, I need not wonder if there be Schiſms amongſt you, for I know there will be Hereſies alſo, which are a great deal worſe; Thus it has been underſtood by very Learned Expoſitors, and it ſeems the Natural import of the words, and their connexion with the former, and the Particle [alſo] makes it plain enough.

But after all, if this Gentleman will in one place make Schiſm to be Hereſie, and in another a diſorderly behaviour at the Communion Table, or at the Feaſts attending it, he will advance an Idea of it, much more Novel than Mr. H's, and it will fairly acquit Diſſenters from being Schiſmaticks, for he can neither charge us with Hereſie, nor any ſuch diſorders at the Lords Supper.

The laſt place agitated is, 1 Cor. 12.15. That there be no Schiſm in the Body; Mr. H. acknowledges that Schiſm is that which breaks or ſlackens the Bond by which the Members are knit one to another; Here the Gentleman preſently claps hold, and ſays, that is done notoriouſly by Separation and breach of Communion, yes, no doubt Communion is broken by breach of Communion, we won't diſpute that, but all Separation does not break Communion, if we only ſeparate in thoſe things wherein Chriſtian Communion does not conſiſt, the Bond is firm ſtill, therefore Mr. H. well added, p. 108but this i… Bond not an Act of Uniformity in the ſame Ceremonies, but of true Love and Charity, the Gentleman replies, nor is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence; We grant it Sir, it is ſufficient for us that the Act of Indulgence takes away the Obligation of the Act of Uniformity, we do not deſire it ſhould take away Mens Obligations to preſerve the Unity of the Church, which we queſtion not is as Sacredly obſerved in our Aſſemblies as in yours.

He falſely charges Mr. H. with ſaying that true Love and Charity is the onelyonly Bond by which Chriſtians are knit together, he does not ſay it is the onelyonly Bond, but certainly it is the Bond, though not the onelyonly one, for they are United by Faith alſo, but it is onelyonly the breach of this Bond of Love, which is properly called Schiſm; He tells us the Apoſtle inſiſts upon ſeveral other tyes and obligations whereby Chriſtians are knit together, and let us hear what they are; They are incorporated into one Society or Body, but is that a tye by which they are knit together, or does it not rather ſhew us what they are when united together? Their being animated by one Spirit, and ſo having one Hope, and being within the One Covenant of Grace, are not ſo properly the Bond by which we are United, but the effects of our Union to Chriſt by Faith, and it's that is properly the Bond or Uniting Grace on our part, that joins us to the Head God in Chriſt, and from this the other Grace of Chriſtian Love reſults, by which the Members are Morally united one to another; How far the Unity of the Miniſtry is abſolutely neceſſary to the Unity of Chriſts Body, has been already diſcuſſed in the former part of this Treatiſe.

He concludes his Reflections upon the Enquiry, with the ſame ingenuity which has all along appeared in him; He acknowledges that Charity is a comprehenſive Virtue, and every Sin is a violation of it, as Theft, Murder, Treaſon, but as it would not be good Logick to make Uncharitableneſs ſerve for a definition of them all, ſo neither in the caſe of Schiſm; And we acknowledge it would not, and where does he find that Mr. H. makes uncharitableneſs the Definition of Schiſm, he makes it but part of the Definition, the Genus onelyonly, and this Gentleman, by his own pretty Colloquy makes it to be the Generical nature of all Sin, but the Enquirer adds the Differentia, taken from the ſubject, thoſe who agree in fundamentals, and its object the ſmaller things of Religion, and this with its Genus makes up the compleat Definition of that which Scripture calls Schiſm.

But the account which this Gentleman has given of it, is ſo uncertain and various, ſo far from a Definition, that it falls ſhort even of a bungling Deſcription.

In one place he affirms, where there is Schiſm there is a breach of Communion, p. 9. in another, there was a Schiſm amongſt the Corinthians, and yet they were in the ſame Communion, p. 22. In one place it is Hereſie, p. 21. In another place Fornication, p. 20. In another rude and diſorderly tricks at their Love Feaſts, p. 29. In one place it is oppoſing their Orthodox Governours, p. 109p. 26. In another place, it is ſiding with them, p. 25. and yet this is the Man that cannot endure any body ſhould be thought a Conjurer in Logick and Divinity beſides himſelf.

I hope the Enquiror is got ſafe out of this Gentlemans Hands. I now proceed to do the Vindicator the ſame Juſtice, in which I ſhall be brief, becauſe the merits of the Cauſe are diſcuſſed already, and his little ſcurrilous Reflections are not worth our notice.

The Citizen of Cheſter preſented his Adverſary, with a Liſt of the Names of thoſe that had done Wonders in proving the Diſſenters Schiſmaticks, and the Vindicator repay'd him with another of thoſe that have defended them from that Charge: And adds whether theſe have not done as much to prove the Impoſers Schiſmaticks, as the former to prove the Diſſenters ſuch, is referred not to the judgment of an intereſſed Party, but of all the unbyaſs'd part of Mankind; Our famous Surveyor asks, Where ſhall we have a Council of ſuch; For thoſe that have a Liturgy and Ceremonies and Biſhops are certainly for us, and thoſe that are for none of theſe, are all byaſſed againſt us. But Sir, the Queſtion to be referr'd is not whether a Liturgy and Ceremonies and Biſhops are lawful, but whether ſuch as ours be ſo, and whether it be lawful to take thoſe Oaths, and make thoſe Declarations that have been required of us, and as there is no Church upon Earth requires the ſame things, as this of our Nation, ſo we have judges enough of this matter that are diſintereſſed, without going to Pagans or Atheiſts for them, and what their thoughts are has been already in part diſcovered.

He would help T.W. to prove that a Man who is not diveſted of all Chriſtian Temper, Humility and Conſideration, Review. p. 34.may yet be in a deſperate condition, becauſe it ſeems He may not have Grains enough of theſe Virtues to ſave him; What! muſt we have a ſtatical Divinity too? If a Man has Chriſtian Faith, though it be but as a Grain of Muſtard-ſeed it will be effectual to Salvation, and I know not why the ſame may not be ſaid of all other Graces, he that has them not in the prevailing degree, has them not at all, that Man in whom Pride is Habitually prevalent, has not the leaſt Grain of Chriſtian Humility; The Gentleman therefore muſt find out ſome other Salvo againſt the next time.

The Vindicator took notice of a blunder in the Citizen in calling the ſame Perſon, Sceptical, a Slighter of our Religion, Obſtinate and Perverſe, &c. And thought Sceptical and Obſtinate, did not jump well together; This Gentleman endeavours to help him here too, and ſays T.W. intended theſe as ſo many ſeveral Characters, and did not intend to unite them all in one Perſon; But it is certain he did, he ſpeaks in the ſingular number, if thou be Sceptical — I ſhall altogether glory in thy Scoffs, &c. Theſe are all joined together no disjunctive particle betwixt them, all lodged in one ſingle Perſon, in a diſtinct Paragraph, as a third Man diſtinct both from the Church-man and Diſſenter, and this is ſo plain, that Alderman himſelf, (as this Author calls him) was too honeſt to deny it.

p. 110The Queſtion concerning the ninth Article of the Creed; and in what ſence T. W. ſets it up as a Standard of Controverſie, is fully manifeſted in the Preface to this Paper; And 'tis a very groundleſs ſuggeſtion, that we have any deſign to lay it aſide, that we may impoſe whatever Notions we pleaſe upon the World, we very well approve of the Creeds, and have ſubſcribed to them, and to the Doctrine of the Church, as laid down in the Articles, and it were to be wiſhed your own Miniſters kept as cloſe to thoſe Articles in their Preaching as ours do. The Vindicator has been already defended in the exceptions he took at T. W's date of the Origination of the Catholick Church; This Gentlaman ſays he ſpoke of it under the denomination of Chriſtian, which is very falſe, as thoſe that read the paſſage will ſee, however the Alderman is beholden to his brisk Champion, for he'll ſay any thing in the World to help him at a dead lift.

He puts the queſtion, Whether when our Saviour ſaid, upon this Rock I will build my Church, he did not ſpeak of it as yet unbuilt? I anſwer, if by unbuilt, he means unfiniſhed, it is true, for the Church Univerſal is a building in fieri, and will not be compleated till the End of the World; But if by unbuilt, he means unbegun, I ſay there is no reaſon ſo to underſtand the words of our Saviour, for he has been building his Church upon the ſame Rock there ſpoken of, from the Fall of Man, but I am loth to ſpend time upon ſuch quibbles, if the Gentleman had mentioned the Chriſtian Church, or if he had not ſaid a few Lines before, that the Angels were the moſt glorious Members of the Church, I dare ſay the Vindicator would not have taken notice of it, Review. p. 35.nor have blamed him no more than Tertullian, and Jerome, for ſpeaking of the Chriſtian Church in its infancy; And though the Vindicator acknowledges the Apoſtles and Diſciples were the Church, he did not ſay the whole Church, much leſs that the Church then had its firſt exiſtence, I hope when theſe Gentlemen call the Church of England, the Church, they do not mean the Church Univerſal.

I deſire this Gentleman to give us ſome better proof than his bare Word, that ever the Apoſtles impoſed upon the Diſciples things indifferent, P. 36.eſpecially becauſe they tell us, it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and to them not to do ſo; And he muſt alſo prove that the Biſhops are their Succeſſors in the ſame plenitude of power, till then he beats the Air, but gains no Victory.

The Vindicator bewails the ſlow Progreſs the Goſpel has made in the World, and imputes it in part to the needleſs Ceremonies, with which Men have encumbred it, and want of Perſonal worth in the managers; To this he replies, The Divines of the Church of England are no way concerned in it; No? What! not when there is ſo much notorious Debauchery amongſt us, that inſolently out-faces all the Letters and Orders whereby our Pious King and Queen have ſtirred up Magiſtrates and Miniſters to do what they can for the ſuppreſſion of it? And yet theſe Gentlemen ſee no want of ſucceſs of the Goſpel in England, but are for recommending to the Diſſenters a Journey to China or Tartary; Alaſs Man! The deſign of the Goſpel is not onelyonly to p. 111give Nations another Title, but to make the Inhabitants other Men, and if you be not ſenſible that has made but a ſlow Progreſs in England in that which is its main deſign, you'll make but an ill Watch-man upon the Walls of your Church.

And if our Miniſters ſhould take ſuch a journey as you are pleaſed to aſſign them, it is not the firſt time that they have been forced to leave the dear and pleaſant land of their Nativity, and expoſe themſelves to the fatigues of a tedious Voyage, and all the dangers and hardſhips of a Pagan Wilderneſs, that there at leaſt they might enjoy that liberty of ſerving God according to his Word, Vid. The Life of Mr. Elliot.amongſt the Barbarous Indians to whom they brought the Glorious Goſpel, and what toils they under-went, and what ſucceſs God was pleaſed to give them, the whole World has ſeen and admired.

The Citizen acknowledged that in the Primitive times there was 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, p. 112they 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. foreign.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 p. 113talk, 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 ſame over all Churches; and this Surveyor ſays, The Biſhops ſucceed them in the ſame Authority, only the exerciſe thereof is limited by humane Agreements, and asks the Vindicator, whether a Biſhop be not as truly a Biſhop, and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter, in any other Man's Dioceſe or Pariſh as in his own?

But here he puts things together, that ſhould be kept diſtinct; a Biſhop in the received and ordinary ſence of the word is a Relative term, and always connotes a Biſhoprick, either in Poſſeſſion or Title, as his Charge and Cure; and therefore though he be Biſhop in another Man's Dioceſe, he is not Biſhop of that Dioceſe; indeed, as a Miniſter of the Goſpel, he may Preach, and Adminiſter the Sacraments any where that Providence caſts him, and gives him an opportunity of ſo doing: and if this be all the Epiſcopal Power they pretend to, we will allow it to be as Univerſal as they pleaſe; but the Power of Juriſdiction over Miniſters and People, which they call the Apoſtolical Power, they have not any where but in their own Dioceſes, and yet even that Power the Apoſtles had all the World over, and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatſoever.

By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced, the Biſhop of Cheſter has no more Authority in Cheſhire, than the Biſhop of Rome, Review p. 40.but what is founded on Humane Agreements, and what thanks his Dioceſan will give him for ſuch a Doctrine, I cannot tell; for he afterwards acknowledges, that the Biſhop of Rome has no Authority at all in England, which makes the whole Power of our Biſhops to depend upon Humane Agreements, without which, he that has none at all, would have as much as they.

Or perhaps it is liable to a worſe Conſequence than that; for if every Biſhop has Univerſal Power in all Dioceſes, by the Grant of Chriſt, and is only p. 114reſtrained in the Exerciſe thereof by Humane Agreements: then may the Biſhop of Rome with Apoſtolical Authority make Canons for all England, and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not, for Chriſt gave him Univerſal Power, only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to, and if he had, that could not render his Act unauthoritative, but only irregular; Only, the beſt on't is, any Biſhop in England may make Canons for Rome too, and Damn them all, (Pope and Cardinals, and all) if they will not obey.

I would gladly underſtand this Doctrine a little better, and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman, to tell me, what Agreements theſe are of which he ſpeaks; where and when made, and by whom? Are they only made by the Biſhops amongſt themſelves? or had the People a hand therein? or does he mean the Laws of the Land? If Biſhops can by mutual Agreement ſo reſtrain the Exerciſe of their Power, why may they not by the like Agreements, conſtitute one to be Head over them all.

I wiſh this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church, though he was not in Communion with him in theſe Notions; yet I hope no Schiſmatick for all that; Treat. of Supremacy, p. 120, 121.'tis the worthy Dr. Iſaac Barrow, whoſe words are, The Offices of an Apoſtle and Biſhop are not in their own Nature well conſiſtent; for the Apoſtleſhip is an extraordinary Office, charged with the Inſtruction and Government of the whole World, and calling for an anſwerable Care (the Apoſtles being Rulers, as St. Chryſoſtom ſaith, ordained by God, Rulers not taking ſeveral Nations and Cities, but all of them in common intruſted with the whole World) but Epiſcopacy is an ordinary ſtanding charge affixed to One place, and requiring a ſpecial Attendance there, who (as St. Chryſoſtom ſaith) do ſit and are employed in one place: Now he that hath ſuch a General Care can hardly diſcharge ſuch a particular Office; and he that is fixed to ſo particular an Attendance, can hardly look well after ſo General a Charge.

I need not repeat what has been ſaid about the Powers of Timothy and Titus; what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and anſwered; He muſt prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did; that they may not ordain, that they may not reprove one another for their Faults, as they have occaſion: He ſays, Theſe are the Powers that Biſhops have exerciſed all along; and ſo have Presbyters too: and if exerciſe proves the Title, they muſt therefore be Biſhops alſo.

He adds, The Congregational Invention allows of no ſuch Officers, the moſt ordinary Paſtors being all Independent, without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them, and therefore by Scripture ſtands condemned; and if it be ſo, I am ſure Epiſcopacy is involved in the ſame Condemnation; for the Biſhops are by their own Party accounted the only Paſtors, and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates, and yet theſe Paſtors have none to ſuperviſe them, but are as Independent as can be, there's no Paul to govern theſe Timothies and Titus's, and therefore their Churches are (to uſe his own words) plainly contrary to the Apoſtolical Pattern.

p. 115And Dr. Morrice has told us, That it is not eſſential to a Biſhop to have many Congregations under him, Biſhops may be Paſtors of ſingle Congregations, yea, they may not have one Presbyter under them, Review, p. 60.and yet be Biſhops ſtill; for Milles the Martyr was a Biſhop, and yet had no Chriſtian in his Dioceſe; and yet I think there are few Paſtors of our Congregational Churches, but what have Presbyters under them, ſo that Epiſcopacy and Independency may very well comport together; for Epiſcopacy is Independent, and may be Congregational, and if the one be condemned by Scripture, the other muſt fall with it.

He ſays, It is an idle fancy to ſuppoſe that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant; for then, ſays he, they were out of their Office when they were at home, the one in Epheſus, and the other in Crete. If by calling thoſe places their Homes, he would inſinuate that they were their proper Dioceſan Sees, where they were to reſide, 'tis a begging of the Queſtion, and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Perſons; it is as certain as our Bibles can make it, that Timothy was only to abide at Epheſus for a Seaſon, till Paul's return out of Macedonia, 1 Tim. 3.14. after which he accompanied Paul into Aſia, Chap. 4.13. from thence to Italy, Heb. 13.23. thence Paul declares, he would ſend him to Philippi, Chap. 2.19. and we find him at Rome again, Col. 1.1.

And Titus was ſo far from being reſident at Crete, Gal. 2.1, & 3. 2 Cor. 2.12. & 7. & 13. & 12.8. 2 Tim. 4.10.Gal 2:1Gal 2:32 Cor 2:122 Cor 2:72 Cor 2:132 Cor 12:82 Tim 4:10that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter, Chap. 3.12. he was ſent to Corinth and Dalmatia, and went up to Jeruſalem with Paul, and came to him during his Impriſonment at Rome; Theſe Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Epiſcopal Viſitations; but that would make the Dioceſes of Epheſus and Creet to take in one another, and the whole Chriſtian World too.

The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succeſſion, that two Biſhops ſhould ſucceed one Apoſtle in his Apoſtolical Power. This Gent. undertakes to prove it may, but by ſuch kind of inſtances as ſignifie nothing but his own inadvertency, viz. When two Perſons are Heirs to one in the ſame Eſtate, the Law calls them Succeſſores partiarii: But this will not do, an Eſtate may be divided into a Thouſand Parts, and each of them have the Nature of an Eſtate ſtill; but the Apoſtolical Power is Univerſal, the ſame in all places, and diviſion here will make it another thing, according to the Account that Mr. Bradford, Dr. Barrow, and the beſt Proteſtant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apoſtle and Biſhop: Paul as an Apoſtle had the ſame Power at Epheſus as at Crete, and if Timothy had ſucceeded in the Apoſtolical Power, he muſt have had ſo too.

His Argument from the Diviſion of the Empire, is as defective as the former. Empires, how great ſoever, are limited within certain Bounds, and may be divided; it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World, as it was of the Apoſtolical; 'tis a vain thing to talk of any Provinces p. 116to which the Apoſtolical Power was limited, they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World; and ſo muſt thoſe have too that ſucceed them in the Apoſtleſhip.

The Vindicator alſo deſired to know how Timothy and Titus could ſucceed Paul in his Apoſtleſhip, whilſt he was alive and in Plenitude of Power? This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle; but ſo it was, chuſe what the Conſequences may be; for (ſays he) it is evident, the Apoſtle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their reſpective Charges, chuſe how much or how little he reſerved to himſelf; But pray, Sir, think better of it, a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province, is not the Plenitude of Apoſtolical Power; and if he reſerved any Power to himſelf within thoſe reſpective Charges, they had not the Plenitude of Power there, but were under his Apoſtolical Juriſdiction ſtill, and therefore did not ſucceed him in it; and if the Apoſtle reſerved to himſelf no Power over the Churches of Epheſus and Crete, he diveſted himſelf of his Apoſtleſhip; for he that had not Apoſtolical Power every where, had it no where.

But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremiſe the matter betwixt them, T. W. muſt call the Biſhops Coadjutors only, whilſt the Apoſtles were living, and the Vindicator muſt give them the Title of Succeſſors after their Death. And if by Succeſſors, he means thoſe that after them were employed in the great Work of the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, we grant all true Biſhops are their Succeſſors, but then we muſt put him in Mind that the Biſhops we read of in Scripture, were as much Biſhops before the Apoſtles Death as after, and therefore their Epiſcopal Power did not come to them by Succeſſion, nor did there at the Apoſtles Death any new Acceſſion of Power devolve upon them.

It was therefore the moſt needleſs thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter; Review, p. 42.what if they call Biſhops and Presbyters the Apoſtles Succeſſors, ſo do we too, but do they ſay that they ſucceeded them in the Apoſtolical Power, or that the Apoſtleſhip was devolved upon them by the Right of Succeſſion, and yet it is that, T. W. after his weak manner ſtruggles to prove, and indeed no leſs will ſerve his turn.

This Gentleman is not ſo thoughtful as he ſhould be when he ſays, We make it ſuch a mighty Myſtery for a Biſhop to Conſtitute his Succeſſour; if by Conſtituting, he means Naming or Appointing who ſhall be his Succeſſor, it is not impoſſible, ſuppoſing that God preſerve his Life, and the Church Conſent to that Appointment, tho' it be very inconvenient, and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils, but it is impoſſible for one Biſhop to devolve his whole Epiſcopal Power upon another, and yet to keep it himſelf in as great amplitude as ever. Decret. par. 2. cauſ. 7. Quaeſt. 1. c. 5. Vivente Epiſcopo, Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ, &c.The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Succeſſor comes not in place till the Predeceſſour be gone, that as long as the Biſhop liveth no man can ſucceed him, that there cannot be two Biſhops in one Place, this is moſt certainly true in the ſence, wherein we now ſpeak of Biſhops, and ſufficient to our preſent purpoſe.

p. 117That which follows, about the certainty of Linus his ſucceeding Peter, of an uninterrupted Succeſſion, of the Conceſſion of Papiſts, Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem. Aetatem ſeniorem quadrageſſimi aut quinquageſſimi anni habens Dom. noſter, &c.has already been largely diſcuſſed in theſe Papers. It is poſſible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Biſhops, and yet be Miſtaken in their Order of Succeſſion; and 'tis certain all is not to be taken for Goſpel that Irenaeus reports, even in matters of Fact, for he tells us, our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years, and ſaid, he had this from all the Elders of Aſia, who received it from St. John himſelf: How well is it that we have a more ſure Word of Propheſie and Hiſtory too, than the Teſtimony of Irenaeus: As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death, accounts are ſo various, and the probabilities on each hand ſo fair, that no modeſt man will be Poſitive in it, but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it, and his Diſciples make no Queſtion, but he has done it infallibly.

The Vindicator had ſome Reaſon to put that Queſtion concerning the Apoſtolical Succeſſion in the Patriarchal Churches (which this Gentleman quarrels with) becauſe he obſerved T. W. made Linus ſucceed Peter in the See of Rome, Simeon James, in the Chair of Jeruſalem, Ananias (I ſuppoſe it ſhould be Ananias the Cobler, of whom before) St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria; and the account runs upon this Suppoſition that the Apoſtles, divided the World into ſeveral Provinces, and each of them was Biſhop of his proper diſtrict, and thoſe are called the Apoſtles Succeſſors, that came into their ſeveral Sees after their Death, and theſe being but ſuch a number, it would follow that the Succeſſion, muſt be only propagated in theſe Patriarchats; this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the conſequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succeſſion, which he only erected in thoſe Churches, where he had an Apoſtle at the Head of the Roll; he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other, that none but the Patriarchs were the Apoſtles Succeſſors, but intimated, that ſuch a Succeſſion as T. W. deſcribed, would only be found in thoſe Churches.

We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succeſſion, and let us ſee whether this Gentleman can demonſtrate it, better than his Alderman; it muſt be remembred that according to theſe men, the Truth of their Church, the Authority of their Miniſtry, the Validity of their Sacraments, and the Salvation of their Souls, depend upon this Line, and therefore it requires a proof ſuitable to the vaſt weight that is laid upon it; and whether he has given us ſuch evidence let the Reader judge.

He tells us, As far as we have an account we find the Succeſſion regular, and we have no Reaſon to doubt of the like care in former Ages, we rely upon the Providence of God, and the Care and Integrity of our Anceſtors, and no man ſhall bereave us of our Confidence. Confidence indeed! in the higheſt degree, but what if God has never promiſed ſuch an unbroken line, how can we think his Providence ſhould be engaged to preſerves it, or where has he ſaid it ſhould be preſerved in England? and what if our Anceſtours who were Idolatrous Papiſts had no integrity, nor took no care of any thing but to p. 118flatter the Pope, and enrich themſelves, and enſlave the World; a miſerable Faith and Hope, that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apoſtate, Antichriſtian Biſhops and Churches.

What he ſays about the Vindicators deſcending from Adam, as if it were as impoſſible for a Prieſt to come into a Biſhoprick without Epiſcopal Conſecration, as for a Man to come into the World, without ordinary Generation, is ſo perfectly ludicrous, that as I ſuppoſe it was only deſigned to make the Club merry, ſo I ſhall leave it wholly to them.

But that which goes before muſt not be ſo ſoon diſmiſt, he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succeſſion of Miniſters Epiſcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures, Vid. Review, p. 44.and (ſays he) although we have not the Original Manuſcripts to compare the One, nor entire Faſti in the other Caſe, yet unleſs any will produce matter of Fact to ſhew that we are deceived, no man ſhall bereave us of our Confidence.

But this will ſatisfie no Body, but thoſe that are reſolved to be Confident right or wrong; for,

That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonſtration, than that none of our Biſhops have ever wanted Epiſcopal Ordination; it is much more eaſie to impoſe an unordained Perſon upon a particular Church, Nor could men lye under the ſame temptations to the one, as to the other.than a falſe Bible upon the whole World, in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to diſcover and reject the impoſture, in the other a particular Dioceſs is only intereſted; in the one, they had a great number of Copies ſpread abroad, by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them, in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials, or Certificates of Perſons dead or living remote, which might eaſily be forged, and they not able to find it out.

And for the Authority of the Scriptures, we do not depend upon the ſingle Credit and care of the Antichriſtian Churches, but of many others, that have not been made ſo drunk with the Wine of her Fornication. We have the Greek, Armenian, and African Churches, to aſſure us of this great point, but as to the continued Epiſcopal Ordination of our Biſhops, we ſolely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation, that have outdone all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thouſand cheats upon the World.

In the matter and ſtile of the Scriptures themſelves, we have moſt excellent foreign, and Indications of their divine Original, but no ſuch inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Epiſcopacy.

It was always accounted the moſt horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures, but I have already proved in this Treatiſe that in Popiſh Ages, the Power of Ordination was ſometimes given to thoſe that were no Biſhops; and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Epiſcopacy, as Dr. Sherlock tells us, yet if they aſſumed ſuch a power, it is greatly to be ſuſpected they did not fail to execute it.

p. 119Beſides, none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does abſolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture, but according to theſe men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succeſſion.

In theſe and many other Circumſtances, theſe two Caſes vaſtly differ; and he that has no more to ſay for the Authority of Scripture than this man has ſaid for his Line, would greatly betray the Honour of his Profeſſion, and he that would perſwade the World, that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles, than of ſuch a Line, does the worſt Office imaginable to the Intereſts of Chriſtianity, and (to uſe his own Words) it is one of the ſlyeſt Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with.

Here again the buſineſs of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way, but having ſiſted it already, I ſhall not make Repetitions; This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Buſineſs by Suppoſitions. Suppoſe the Succeſſion of Biſhops from that Abbot were extinct, and true Biſhops called in to Conſecrate, then the Line would be pieced again: And yet all the Churches and Chriſtians, that lived under the Succeſſors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine; but what if they were not all extinct? which is unreaſonable to ſuppoſe, and impoſſible to prove, ſuppoſe that Line ſhould reach to our times, then all within it are Lay Impoſtors; I think the Biſhops ought, to oblige theſe men that talk at this rate, to demonſtrate that the Line is Right, or elſe Chaſtiſe them ſeverely, for making their Authority depend upon a Suppoſition impoſſible to be proved.

The Gentleman denies, that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Conſecrate a Biſhop, and makes challenges, and oppreſſes his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen; and indeed to give him his due, he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptineſs of the Page, which looks like a ſhallow muddy ſtream, hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each ſide; but who knows not that there is a manifeſt difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practiſes, and what the Schoolmen determine.

Bellarmine himſelf, upon the Note of Succeſſion, confeſſes that the Pope may by particular Delegation, impower Mytred Abbots, though meer Preſbyters, to ſupply the place of two of the Biſhops, in the buſineſs of Conſecration; The Presbyters of Alexandria Conſecrated their Patriarch for ſeveral Generations, Caſſianus tells us of a young man called Daniel, Sum. Angelic. Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc. Jeſu. de Caſibus Conſ. par. 1. Tract. 9. c. 5. Alens. ſum. Theol. par. 4. q. 9. m. 5.who lived amongſt the Monks of Egypt, about the Year, 420. firſt made Deacon and afterward Prieſt, by his Abbot Paphnutius, who was but a Presbyter, and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans ſide, for ſome of them ſay, that Presbyters by the Popes Diſpenſation may without the concurrence of a Biſhop ordain Deacons.

He Points at ſome Canons, that forbid Presbyters to Ordain, and ſay, every Biſhop muſt be Ordained by three Biſhops at leaſt; but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophiſter, as appears by the Conceſſion of Bellarmine juſt now mentioned; and he may as well ſay, no p. 120Biſhop ever obtained the Promotion, Con. Carth. 4. c. 23.by Simony, or never Ordiained without his Presbyters, for there are Canons againſt theſe things as well as the former, and he may proceed and ſay, that no Biſhops were ever Ignorant, Drunken, Tit. 1.7, 8.Titus 1:7Titus 1:8Unclean, or Quarrelſome, becauſe by very Authentick Canons, ſuch are declared uncapable of the Office.

His forty ſeventh, and three following Pages, are all built upon a miſtake, which this Gentleman, as well as T. W. fell into I know not how, as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schiſmaticks, whereas he only argues, from his Adverſaries Aſſertion, that by Schiſm Men, and Societies, are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church, and have no place, nor Intereſt therein, and then I am ſure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apoſtolical Power, which can never be found out of the Viſible Church; I hope it has been ſufficiently proved in this Treatiſe, that this is the juſt Concluſion from ſuch premiſes, and to talk of a remaining Character, that includes the Power of Ordination in thoſe that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberiſh, and if this Gentleman thinks fit to anſwer what has been already ſaid to it, we ſhall willingly diſcourſe him further about it.

In the fiftieth Page he ſpeaks like himſelf, We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Biſhop, and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null, and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders.

We are not much concerned, what this Gentleman believes of us, nor what he takes us for, but he ſhould have been juſt to St. Jerom, though he may think 'tis no matter, whether he be ſo to us or no; it would be very ſtrange, if St. Jerom ſhould ſay any ſuch thing as he pretends, and we ſhould have been glad, to have ſeen the Paſſage cited, if he refers to that, Quid enim facit Epiſcopus, excepta Ordinatione, quod non facit Presbyter? that has been ſufficiently explained in theſe Papers already, to intend, not any diſtinct Power that Biſhops had by the Law of God, but what the Cuſtom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reſerved unto them.

He tells us, Review. p. 50, 51.of ſome nice Enquiries, that have been made into our Miſſion, and that they ſuſpect many of our firſt Apoſtles, from whom we derive our Orders, were never Ordained, and ſuppoſes the Vindicator had not met with this Obſervation. And it may be he has not, and therefore 'tis ten to One, but it is falſe, for if it were true, the Diſſenters were much more like to know it, than ſuch as he, with all his nice Enquiries and Suſpicions.

He wonders the Vindicator ſhould loſe ſo many pages againſt this Line of Succeſſion, which if it would do no good, would certainly do no harm. Ay, but it would do the greateſt harm in the World to the Intereſt of the Church and Chriſtianity; to make the Salvation of men depend upon ſuch a Line, and that's the Notion the Vindicator ſpends ſome pages upon, and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Proteſtant Religion than to expoſe it, and if that be not done effectually already, by my Conſent, either he or ſome Body elſe, ſhall ſpend as many pages more upon it.

p. 121We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination, viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Miniſterial Abilities by competent Judges; This (ſays the Gentleman) is ſuch a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before, will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities inveſt him in his Office, will a Teſtimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commiſſion from the King?

Now here he confounds Commiſſion and Inveſtiture together, as if they were the ſame thing which 'tis certain they are not; The Commiſſion always goes before the Inveſtiture, and 'tis that which gives the Power, and the Inveſtiture, is only neceſſary to the regular Exerciſe of that Power, which is given by the Commiſſion. If this Gentleman would have the World believe, that it is the Biſhops that give a Miniſter his Commiſſion and Miniſterial Power, as the King gives the Judge his Authority, he ſets up Epiſcopacy in the Throne of Chriſt, and is condemned by the Reformed Churches; it is Chriſt alone who grants the Commiſſion, in the great Charter of the Goſpel, wherein he has declared that he will have a ſtanding Miniſtry, and tells us, what the Miniſterial Qualifications are, and has promiſed to work them by his Spirit in Men, in Order thereunto; all the Ordainers do, is deſignare perſonam, to Point out the Perſon that has thoſe Qualifications, and this publick Deſignation, with the mans own Dedication of himſelf to the Work is the Inveſtiture, and ſets the man apart to the regular Exerciſe of that Power, which Chriſt by his Charter without, and thoſe Qualifications within has given unto him.

The Caſe is ſomething like to that of making a Perſon Mayor of a Corporation, the People or Burgeſſes have the Power of chooſing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him, and yet none of theſe confer the Authority, but only deſign the Perſon, who receives his Power from the Prince alone, by the Charter of the place, as his Inſtrument.

It is the great command of God to his Church, that the Goſpel be Preached, Religion Propagated, Churches Gathered, and Governed, and Sacraments Adminiſtred; He has not named the Perſons that are to do this, but he has deſcribed them by their Qualifications, and Perſons ſo qualified if they find alſo a promptitude to undertake the Work (which I ſuppoſe is that which the Church of England means, when ſhe enquires of the Candidates, whether they be moved by the Holy Ghoſt to undertake that Office are to ſeek for a regular Inveſtiture, and the Ordainers are commanded to inveſt them by a ſolemn Approbation, that is, declaring that they find in them thoſe Qualifications, by which the Goſpel deſcribes a true Miniſter of Chriſt.

We grant that this Inveſtiture is moſt regularly performed by the Miniſters, and ſhould not ordinarily be without them; which ſeems to be grounded on this Reaſon, (for all Gods commands are highly rational) the Miniſters are ordinarily to be thought, the moſt competent Judges; but as the Inveſtiture it ſelf is not of the Eſſence of the Power, but only requiſite to the due exerciſe of it; So it is not of the Eſſence of the Inveſtiture that it be p. 122performed by Miniſters, but other competent Judges may do it where they cannot be had, or will not do it upon lawful Terms.

This Caſe of Ordination has been very weil argued by the excellent Mr. Baxter (of whom England was not worthy) in his Diſputations of Church Government, and becauſe I do not know that any one has directly aſſaulted him in it, I would refer this Gentleman to it, where he will find it illuſtrated thus.

If the Soveraign Power make a Law, that there ſhall be Phyſicians Licenſed by a Colledge of Phyſicians to Practiſe in this Common Wealth, and deſcribe the Perſons that ſhall be ſo Licenſed; This plainly firſt concludeth that ſuch Perſons ſhall be Phyſicians, but ſecondly, de ordine, that they ſhall be thus Licenſed. So that if the Colledge ſhould Licenſe a Company of utterly inſufficient men, and murtherers that ſeek mens death, or ſhould refuſe to Licenſe the Perſons qualified according to Law, they may themſelves be puniſhed, and the qualified Perſons may act as authoriſed by that which bindeth quoad materiam, and is by the Colledge, not by them fruſtrate quoad Ordinem; So it is in this Caſe in hand.

This is a rational account of the matter, and ſuch as may give all Chriſtians full ſatisfaction in the Truth of their Churches Miniſtry and Ordinances, without flying up into the Clouds, and inventing the Myſteries of an uninterrupted Succeſſion, indelible Characters, and ſuch like ſtuff.

What has this Gentleman to Object againſt it, why? He tells us, no man can preach unleſs he be ſent, and no man can ſend him, but he that is Authorized for that purpoſe; If he means by this, that no man ought to Preach, but thoſe that are Ordained (and this he muſt mean, if he ſpeaks to the purpoſe) the Conſtant Practice of his own Church Confutes him, which allows men to preach ſeveral times before Ordination, that their Qualifications may appear, and they may acquire a Title; but if no man can lawfully Preach till he be Ordained, they ought not to allow this upon any account whatſoever, not ſo much as to make experiment of their Abilities.

I would ask this Gentleman, when your Candidates Preach before Ordination, is there no Poſſibility, that their Preaching may do good to the hearers, and ſhould they not in Preaching principally intend their Edification? If not 'tis taking the Name of God in vain; but if they may do good, and ſhould make that their chief aim in thoſe Sermons, then the Gentleman muſt find out ſome other ſence for that Text he mentions, which has been already explained in the firſt Chapter of this Treatiſe.

He thinks, Ordainers are obliged to follow the Example of Chriſt, who when he ſent out his Apoſtles, Mat. 28.18.Matt 28:18recites his own Commiſſion, All Vower is given to me in Heaven and in Earth: Go therefore — as my Father ſent me, ſo I ſend you. But it is the higheſt piece of Arrogance in the World, to pretend to the ſame Power that Chriſt had in this matter; He had Power to inſtitute the Office, and give the Authority of the Miniſtry; Men have only the Power of Inveſtiture, as the Biſhops in Crowning our Kings; and as p. 123Chriſt never made theſe Words of his the ſet form of Ordination, ſo 'tis-too bold for any Biſhop how great ſoever, to apply them to himſelf in that Office.

That which follows, Review, p. 52about appointing Embaſſadors for Almighty God without his Order, is already in ſubſtance anſwered, if by appointing Embaſſadors, he means giving the Commiſſion and Power, neither Lay-men nor Clergy-men muſt preſume to do it; if he means inveſting them that God has choſen, with the Ceremonies of Ordination, 'tis fit that the Miniſters ſhould do it, if they may be had, or will do it on lawful Terms, but if not, better it were omitted, than that the Embaſſy of Reconciliation ſhould not be delivered to the World; I ſuppoſe their unordained Candidates bring ſuch an Embaſſy to their hearers (I am ſure they ſhould do ſo) and if they do, then we have Embaſſadours, without an appointment in his Sence of the Word.

The Caſes of Neceſſity which the Vindicator mentioned, are ſuch as may happen, and to neglect the publick Worſhip of God, in expectation of a Gift of Miracles, which I ſuppoſe he means, by the reviving of the Chariſmata would be a profane Omiſſion. He thinks to ridicule us out of it, by putting the Caſe concerning a company of Women caſt upon an Iſland, &c. Well, what if a man ſhould ſay, that the beſt qualified Siſter among them might be choſen by the reſt, as the Abbeſſs, to be moſt conſtantly employed in Prayer and Exhortation, till better help could be had; were not the Iberians Converted by a Captive Maid; Ruſſin. l. 1. c. 10.and was it not the conſtant Cuſtom of the Church of England till the Hampton Court Conference, to permit Women to Baptize Children in Caſe of Neceſſity, and how zealouſly did the Biſhops endeavour to defend the lawfulneſs of it at that time. The Biſhop of London affirmed, the words of the Common-Prayer-Book intended, a Permiſſion of Private Perſons to baptize in ſuch Caſes, and ſaid it was agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church, alledging the great numbers that were Baptized, Acts 2. Which it was improbable the Apoſtles alone could do, and added that ſome Fathers were of the ſame Opinion, Fuller Cent. 17. l. 10. p. 9.and when the King oppoſed it, the Biſhop of Wincheſter replied, that to deny Private Perſons to Baptize in Caſe of neceſsity, were to Croſs all Antiquity and the Common Practice of the Church, it being a Rule agreed on by Divines, that the Miniſter is not of the Eſſence of the Sacrament.

Their great Eccleſiaſtical Polititian Mr. Hooker ſets himſelf to prove that Baptiſm by any man in Caſe of Neceſsity is valid, Eccleſ. Pol. p. 320.and ſays it was the Voice of the whole World heretofore, and (elſewhere) That God hath committed the Miniſtry of Baptiſm unto ſpecial men, it is for Orders ſake in the Church, not that their Authority might add any force to the Sacrament.

Now is it not the moſt unaccountable perverſeneſs in the World to make Epiſcopal Ordination ſo indiſpenſibly neceſſary? when the moſt ſolemn acts of the Miniſtry (the Application of the Seals) are allowed by themſelves to thoſe that have no Ordination at all, yea to a Siſter, whether welll qualified p. 124or no, in which they have quite out-done us, no ſuch thing being ever practiſed in the Presbyterian Churches.

He endeavours to prove the neceſsity of ſuch Ordination, from the Caſe of the Abyſſines, who were contented to be without thoſe Ordinances which are to be diſpenſed by Prieſts, till the return of Frumentius from Alexandria; but pray, what Ordinances are thoſe that are to be diſpenſed by Prieſts only, I thought 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 ('tis ſaid) Frumentius returned.

The Gentlemans 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.

p. 125He 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 'twould 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 'tis 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.

p. 126To 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 where we live in its Holy Devotions, and ſo do Diſſenters join with the Churches where they live, which are as true Churches, and their Devotions as Holy, as if they were more large and ſplendid, for any thing that yet appears to the contrary.

In the 60th Page, he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not eſſential to a Biſhop, nor to have Presbyters under him, for Milles the Martyr had no Chriſtian in his Dioceſs; But it is Ordination that makes a Biſhop; If therefore our Miniſters have all the Ordination that is neceſſary to a Biſhop by the Word of God, they are Biſhops, though they be but Paſtors of ſingle Congregations, and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Biſhop muſt have a diſtinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter, Ambroſe in 1 Tim, 3. Epiſcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio eſt, uter que enim eſt ſacerdos.to advance him into a Superior Office, he has loſt the Cauſe, and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him. And if the Paſtors of ſingle Congregations have all that is eſſential to Biſhops, then our Dioceſans are a new Species of Biſhops, which St. Cyprian diſowned in his Prefatory ſpeech to the Council of Carthage; And indeed it is liable to very juſt prejudices, for when Biſhops have taken away from the Paſtors of Particular Churches, theſe Rights and Powers, which God hath given them, and engroſſed all to themſelves, and their Dioceſs is become too large for their Perſonal Inſpection and Adminiſtration, they are forced to ſet up Officers of humane inſtitution to exerciſe thoſe powers under them, which they have raviſhed from Goſpel Miniſters, that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues, they may gain that pre-eminence, which ſome Men began betimes to contend for; See Mr. Baxters treatiſe of Epiſcopacy never yet anſwered.

There is nothing more plainly ſhews theſe Mens contempt of Antiquity when it ſpeaks not on their ſide, than denying the Peoples power of Election, Rational Defence, p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197.which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Teſtimony of the Fathers, as Dr. Rule has proved; And though we will not ſay ſuch conſent is eſſential to the Miniſterial Power, yet it is certainly neceſſary to the Paſtoral Relation, for the Biſhops and Miniſters could p. 127have no certain cure (in ſuch places where the Civil Magiſtrate does not interpoſe) but by the Peoples conſent; This Gentleman tells us the conſent of the Miniſters and People of the Dioceſs is not neceſſary, — but it is left wholly to the diſcretion of the Church, and I wonder what that Church is, to whoſe diſcretion this is referr'd when the Miniſters and People are left out; will he ſay it is in the Power of the Biſhops of other Dioceſſes, to impoſe a Biſhop upon any, without the conſent of Miniſter and People; And muſt we by the Church underſtand the Biſhops alone without Miniſters and People as if they had nothing to do in thoſe matters that are left to the Churches Diſcretion; This lets us ſee what theſe Men drive at, and how gladly they would enſlave the whole World to the humours of a few, and thoſe not always the wiſeſt or beſt of Men.

That the Nomination of our Engliſh Biſhops is veſted in the King, is very pleaſing to Diſſenters, eſpecially under the Government of one ſo Wiſe and Good as ours is; But then we muſt ſay the Power they receive from the King and Laws, is not properly Spiritual Power; And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us, circa Sacra, by the appointment of our Governours, as far as by Law we are under their Juriſdiction; And certainly many of them are too wiſe to pretend to any more, ſince our Laws expreſly condemn ſuch pretenſions, as has been already proved, by the very Letter of the Law in that caſe.

The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator ſhewed his Abilities, in mentioning Ignatius, who adviſes the Biſhop to hold frequent aſſemblies, and to enquire after all by their names, not deſpiſing the Men Servants or Maid Servants, and he would fain ſhew his Abilities, in enervating ſo plain evidence, and would impoſe upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures, which we muſt help him to prove, We muſt prove, That thoſe Aſſemblies, met only in one place, that they were no more than ordinary Congregations, that the Biſhop had no body to aſſiſt him in the remoter parts of his charge, that no man elſe acquainted him with the frailties and miſdemeanours of particular; Theſe and a great many more ſuch Negatives we muſt prove, which we are no way obliged to do, we inſiſt upon the plain words of Ignatius, and he muſt prove his peradventures himſelf, or we ſhall take no notice of them; The Author of the Enquiry into the Conſtitution, &c. of the Primitive Churches, offers to prove that theſe Dioceſſes were no larger in the number of Church Members, than our preſent Pariſhes; But whether that be ſo or no, I will not be poſitive; For it is manifeſt enough, the firſt ſtep towards Prelacy, was committing the Government of the Church to one, which before was managed by ſeveral in common, the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be; By keeping new formed Congregations under their Juriſdiction; and we have early inſtances of ſuch Incroachments.

Theſe Men take the Liberty of making words ſignifie any thing that ſerves their preſent purpoſe. If Ireneus ſay, the Presbyters are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, there Presbyter muſt ſignifie Biſhop, for fear of ſpoiling p. 128the Plea of Succeſſion, Review, p. 65, 66.If Tertullian ſay, they never receive the Euchariſt from any but the Preſidents, there Preſident muſt not ſignifie the Biſhop, but the Presbyter, for it ſeems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Preſidents, though there be a Biſhop in Cathedra amongſt them; Such Men will never be at a loſs for ſomething to ſay.

Though the Vindicator truſting perhaps to his memory, mentioned the Sacrament of the Euchariſt inſtead of Baptiſm, yet it amounts to the ſame thing, for if the Biſhop was to take the Confeſſions of all that were to be Baptiſed, his Dioceſs could not be of the ſame Model with ours, which ſuch a thing would be altogether impracticable; This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator ſhould be ſo nice in the Notion of Succeſſion, p. 19. And afterwards ſo looſe as to make it no more but conformity to the Apoſtles Model in Government and Worſhip, but the wonder will ceaſe, when he conſiders that in the former place, he took Succeſſion in the Sence T. W. uſed it, as that which gives the Biſhops their Title to Apoſtolical Power, and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers uſe it, whoſe words will never prove, that the Apoſtles left them their Apoſtolical Power, but onelyonly that ordinary Paſtoral Power which was emminently included in the former.

The Vindicator grants that for perſons wilfully to withdraw themſelves from ſuch Particular Churches, as are framed according to Goſpel Rules, and impoſe no new or needleſs terms of Communion, is to act Schiſmatically, becauſe it cannot be without breach of Charity; The Gentleman replies Yes it may through the Prejudices of Education, or want of Underſtanding, that is to ſay, they may wilfully withdraw for want of Underſtanding; If their ignorance be not wilful, it does not come up to the Caſe as the Vindicator ſtated it, but if it be wilful ignorance, ſure there is ſomething of Uncharitableneſs in it.

His two laſt Pages are a very fit Epilogue for ſuch an Opera, he rakes together all the inſtances of wickedneſs that can be, and the Reader muſt take it for granted, that the Diſſenters are the Criminals pointed at, though he does not think fit to ſay ſo; Such dealing and no other we have had from him all along; We deſire him the next time to ſpeak above board, let him name the particular Caſes and Perſons, and not by ſly inſinuations, prejudice the Minds of his Credulous Party, againſt thoſe who abhor ſuch things as much as himſelf.

Who are thoſe that look upon all beſides themſelves, as Enemies of God, and Oppoſers of his pure Worſhip, Arch Rebel, p. 25. Reply, p. 47.as Reprobates and Damned Wretches? Such cenſures indeed T.W. paſſes upon all Diſſenters (and the Reviewer has ſeconded him in it) they are Men out of the Catholick Church, and Communion of Saints, have no right to the Promiſes, are in a deſperate Condition, their hopes of Salvation are unwarrantable and groundleſs Fancies, &c. They neither Pray with, nor receive the Sacraments, nor live under the Government of any Church, Review, p. 58. New Whigg Atheiſts, p. 34.and therefore cannot be within the Communion of Saints; Theſe are their own words; And as this Gentleman obſerves, 'tis no wonder p. 129if Men of ſuch thoughts, Conſiſtory of Clowns, p. 61.make no ſcruple of the moſt Violent and Uncharitable practices.

Who are thoſe that are guilty of Plundering and Robbing their Neighbours and taking away Mens Lives? Sure he does not mean thoſe that for above twenty years together made a Trade of breaking into the Houſes of Proteſtant Diſſenters, taking away their Effects, and caſting them into Priſons, and ſuffering them to lye and periſh there; See the 4th part of the Conformiſts Plea.what lamentable havock they made, is in part laid before the World by an Eminent Conformable Miniſter, and will be ere long further diſcovered.

Who are thoſe that refuſe to have any dealing in Trade with Men of another Perſuaſion? it would be madneſs in the Diſſenters, for being the leſſer number, they muſt needs be great loſers by ſuch a Project, but this indeed was the advice of L'Eſtrange when he was the Darling of the Party, Lay not out a penny with the Whigs; I confeſs I am not able to name the place, but I find it in a Paper concerning the Election of the Preſent Lord Mayor, and 'tis very probable theſe Gentlemen can turn to it when they pleaſe.

Who are thoſe pack't Juries that he ſpeaks of, and where the unjuſt Courts of Judicature? I hope he does not mean thoſe that condemned the Renowned Lord Ruſſel, Colonel Sidney, Alderman Corniſh, whom our Parliament has declared to be Murthered; Or thoſe that gave ſuch damages againſt Sir Samuel Bernardiſton, Mr. Dutton Colt, Mr. Culliford: or the Judge and Jury that dealt ſo genteelly with Mr. Papillon, &c.

By thoſe cruel proceedings againſt a zealous Clergy Man that appears in Defence of the Church; I would fain know whether he refers to the Barbarous Uſage of Dr. Oats, for diſcovering the Popiſh Plot, or of the Ingenious and brave Mr. Johnſon, for his Seaſonable Advice to the Standing Army in behalf of the Proteſtant Religion and Liberties of England: And whether by deſtroying of Princes he means, the importunate invitation of ſome Spiritual Perſons of Eminent Note, to the then Prince of Orange, to come and free them from the Tyranny of the Late King James; And that Infamous aftergame, that a certain Elder Brother, with other of his Family, See the L. Preſt. Trial p. 53.were a playing, to bring in the Abdicated Prince again, and deſtroy their Generous and Noble Deliverer. If I have not been ſo happy as to hit upon the Gentlemans true Meaning, he muſt e'ne blame himſelf for ſculking ſo in Generals.

If he can convict any of the Diſſenters of ſuch ſcandalous practices, let him do it, and if the Churches to which they belong, neglect to do their duty in cenſuring and rejecting of them, they will be condemn'd by their own Principles; But I hope he would not have them to proceed upon ſuch unproved Accuſations and Libels as theſe, which it ſeems he advanced in ſuch looſe and general terms, See his Review. p. 69.becauſe he knew not by what Rules to fix theſe crimes upon particular Perſons; And certainly he had better to have ſuſpended the Charge, till he knew how to make it out, than to arraign us ſo confidently upon it, and be forced after all, to Petition, that we would help him to prove it.