THAT man must be a great stran­ger in England, that knows not what unhappy flames have been kindled amongst us about mat­ters of Church-Government and Worship; and he must be as great an Enemy that would not contribute his utmost to the extin­guishing of them: A great deal has been writ on both sides, to convince the World where the fault of our Division lies. The word Schism has been tost like a Tennis-ball, from one side to another, till by such mo­tion those violent heats have been caused, that have much endangered both our Church and State. Great endeavours have been used to fasten the guilt upon such as impose unneces­sary, suspected Terms of Communion, and it has been fiercely retorted upon those that [Page 2]refuse to comply with such Terms, and af­ter all, the Difference remains, and for ought we see, is like to do so still. Some have fan­cied the severe Execution of Penal Laws, by Fines, Imprisonment, Exile, &c. would have put an End to that Separation, which they thought proceeded from a Factious humour, not to be tamed any other way; but Expe­rience has convinc'd them of a quite con­trary Effect: Others have perswaded them­selves, when-ever such Enforcements were laid aside, the Controverted Ceremonies would of course fall into contempt, for be­ing (by acknowledgment) things purely in­different (that is to say) meer trifles, with­out any native worth or strength, they can­not be rationally supposed to stand any lon­ger than they had those external props to bear them up; and herein they have not been altogether disappointed, for they hear of five or six of the Clergy, and those not of the meanest sort, that have chosen to quit their Preferments, for the ease of their Con­sciences, now they may Preach the Gospel without bearing that burthen; and were our present Liberty improved to a Compre­hension, more such Instances might be ex­pected, and the World would then see whe­ther all this troublesom Zeal for the things [Page 3]in Controversie, has proceeded from the real value of the things themselves, or the valua­tion of those external Advantages affixed to them.

But since neither Disputings, nor Penal Laws have hitherto brought English Pro­testants to an exact Uniformity, it is worth every honest mans Enquiry how under these different Modes of Worship, all men may be induced to live quiet and peaceable lives, as becomes those whose Interests are so insepa­rably united, both by a Sacred and Civil Tie.

Mr. M. H. has made a very modest and ingenious attempt that way; from which we expect the greater success, because he has certainly hit upon the true cause of our Animosities, which, as all other Wars and Fightings, proceed from our Lusts, which war in our minds; were these as entirely subject to Reason and Virtue as the Gospel would have them to be, it would not be in the power of greater Controversies than ours, to make us run so fiercely one upon another, breaking all the Bonds which our Religion, natural Relation, and Civil Con­cernments have laid upon us: And because a great deal of harm is many times done by a mistaken Scripture word, and it is necessary [Page 4]to take the Weapon out of the Gladiators hand: He has given us so clear an Account of the true import of the word Schism, as it is used in Sacred Writings, as does acquit all the sober, moderate, peaceable men, and only falls upon the fiery, proud, censorious Bigots of both Perswasions.

In so healing an Enterprize as this, he could fear no opposition except from two sorts of persons; The furious Zealot, who will find himself too deeply concerned to be quiet and easie; And the Debauchee, who makes use of the Controversie only as a blind to cover his own leudness, and a pre­tence to act his malice against the more se­rious Professors of Practical Religion. Whe­ther that T.W. who has encountred this peace­able Design, belongs to the former or latter sort of men, I shall leave to his own Con­science, and those that are better acquaint­ed with him to determine, but by the com­plexion of his Book he seems to have a mix­ture of both.

Before I proceed to the Examination of his Pamphlet, I think my self obliged to do Mr. H. that Justice, as to assure the Reader he has acted no part at all in this Reply, nor ever saw one word of it before it came out of the Press, and therefore is not charge­able [Page 5]with any Errours whereof it may be guilty.

The Gentleman begins his Preface im­periously enough, and is very liberal in be­stowing his Titles of Honour and Disgrace. The Episcopal Clergy he vouchsafes to sa­lute Learned and Pious, the Dissenters Fools and Schismaticks, as if 'twere his Province to make an oracular decision of the Contro­versie, and to give Laurels or Halters at his pleasure: But as it is to be hoped, the Clergy he speaks of will not value themselves, their Piety or Learning over-much, upon the bare sentence of a person, that is so little a Judge of either; so it cannot be expected, the Dis­senters should immediately confess them­selves Fools and Schismaticks, because the Citizen has pronounced them such. It is no new thing to them to be called Names, to be represented as Rebels and Traitors, unfit for Humane Society; and it has been for­merly an unsufferable crime to endeavour their own vindication, and these men have been so long accustomed to a hectoring abu­sive kind of Language, that they have for­gotten how to speak with common civility to persons that are almost as good men as them­selves. [Little shifts, restless spirits buoying up a Faction] have been decantate terms to [Page 6]do the work of a common Foe, in ruining those that were more early aware of the ad­vances of Popish Designs than some of their Neighbours: But 'tis some what strange such words should be heard at this time a-day, when our Governours, and almost the whole Nation are convinc'd how much this kind of Language, and the Severities that were kindled thereby have contributed to those great evils from which the Nation is but lately escaped.

He musters against us the great names of Hooker, Bramhall, Hammond, Sanderson, and divers more; but why should he leave out his Modern men? Why should Parker, Dry­den, L'Estrange, with their [learned elabo­rate and Orthodox Writings] come in for their share of Honour? I know none so weak as [to set Mr. H's Book in compari­son with these] 'tis evident his subject and design is variant from theirs; but if we thought fit to imitate his Pedantry, we could tell him of Reynolds, Cartwright, Blondell, Ames, Daille, Owen, Baxter, &c. whether these men have not done as much to prove the Imposers Schismaticks as the former to prove Dissenters such, is referr'd not to the Judgment of T. W. or of an Interessed Party, but of all the unbyass'd part of Mankind upon a fair [Page 7]hearing, which yet we could never obtain. Mr. H's design was to create a good agree­ment betwixt Parties that had been so long and learnedly contending; and in this I know of no professed Adversary he has but T. W. and whether his design be not more honest than this mans, and his management more rational, will be speedily tried.

Our sincere Lover, before he finishes his Preface, makes his honours to three sorts of Readers, the Church-man, the Dissenter, and the Sceptick, and he does it with as good a grace as can be expected from a man in his circumstances.

As for the true Member of his Church, he's assur'd of him [that he has been taught the Candour to cover the faults] of a weak Brother — be the performance never so vici­ous, Zeal for the Church will consecrate and make it pass with applause amongst such as himself; [and if they be but pleased, he's satisfied] for to humour them, was all he design'd.

Now to the Dissenter, [if he be one that has not sacrificed his name to the factious, so as to divest himself of all Christian temper, humility and consideration:] But what a strange supposition is this? Is there ever a Dissenter in the World that is not devoted [Page 8]to Faction, and stript of Humility? They have formerly condemned us in the lump; 'tis well our Friends have learned to di­stinguish: Well, if there should chance to be such a creature [he is desired to consider his desperate condition] how? humble, con­siderate, of a Christian temper, and yet in a desperate condition? this is as great a Riddle as the former. In good earnest, if a man may be in a desperate condition with all these Virtues, I would desire T. W. to consi­der what the condition of that man is that appears to have none of all these. The Dis­senter however bids me thank him for [his weak endeavours to snatch him as a fire­brand out of the fire] but I am also to tell him his weak service comes too late, for it has pleased God to move the King and Par­liament to do it, who have already by their gracious Indulgence pluckt a great many Brands out of the fire of these mens rage and fury, in which they and their Interest were almost consumed, a blessing, which we doubt not [all the Angels congratulate to us] excepting those whose business it is to accuse the Brethren, and to raise storms and tempests in the World.

His last Address is to the Sceptick, and [if the Sceptick be obstinate and perverse] an [Page 9]obstinate Sceptick is almost as great a Riddle as a humble Dissenter. It has been the way of some men to represent all men as Sceptical and Atheists, that have had larger Souls themselves, and would not joyn with them in unchurching the greatest part of the World for the sake of a Mitre, and a few Ceremonies; and yet many of these Scepticks have as true a veneration for the Clergy and Church, as T. W. himself; for it can hardly be imagin'd, that man can have any real value For an Office, whose life does openly confront the great Ends thereof.

And now he takes leave of his Reader, and turns him to Mr. H. himself, and upon the first salutation blames him [for not chusing the true Standard whereby to discover Schism] Mr. H. chose no other but the Sa­cred Scriptures, which being the great Law for the Government of Men, must certainly be the truest Touch-stone of Sin and Duty; and if the Schism this man would charge us with be not so, according to the Standard of Scripture, we shall not much dread the guilt or danger of it. This is a hopeful begin­ning of Controversie, to decline the suffi­ciency and propriety of Scripture as the Standard of good or evil.—But will this man assign a better? yes [the ninth Article of [Page 10]the Apostle's Creed, I believe the Holy Ca­tholick Church, the Communion of Saints] But by what Standard must we discover [the true notion] of these words? Who must tell us what the Unity of the Church is, and what the Communion of Saints? Must not Scripture be our Rule? And must you not then come to Mr. H's. Standard at last? a happy Omen! when the first Paragraph contains a plain affront both to Scripture and common sense. But let us see how he goes on.

He offers to our consideration the Origina­tion and first Existence of the Catholick Church [which was before the day of Pen­tecost,] but how long before that day he does not tell us. If a man pretends to acquaint me with the Origination of the World, and tells me it was before the Babylonish Capti­vity, I shall count him a ridiculous trifler; but I suppose he means it was immediately before, or a little while before the day of Pentecost; and here indeed is a discovery worthy of its Author. But had God no Church then amongst the Jews? must they be excommunicated too? for what cause pray? Not for want of Ceremonies, or a Pontiff, I hope. The man told us in his Pre­face, the Angels in Heaven were the most [Page 11]glorious Members of the Church.—How must we lay these things together? Were the Angels originated at the day of Pentecost? had they their first Existence then?—or did the Members of the Body exist before the Body? let the Citizen, or any of his Cabbala solve these Riddles, and I'le promise him he shall be my great Apollo.

That [the Apostles and Disciples were the Church] we do not question, nor the power Christ gave his Apostles to Preach the Gos­pel to all the World; and he well observes, that Christ's commission and charge, That in every Nation they that believe might be baptized, and so made Members of the Church: How well they have observed their Commission, who refuse to admit of Church-Members upon their profession of Faith, unless they will also comply with some significant Rites of their own that are alien to the Scripture Rules, some men may do well to consider, and whether to deny Gospel-priviledges to those that in the Judgment of Charity are Believers, be not to assume a greater power than that which this man calls [the Universal Power given to the Apostles] whereby they become guil­ty of the worst sort of Tyranny, because the Liberties hereby invaded are of all [Page 12]others the most sacred and invaluable.

It is plain from this mans confession, that to be a Disciple or Believer would make a man a Member of the Church in Apostolical times; and we cannot but assent to that ex­cellent saying of the now Bishop of Worcester, It is pity that which would make a man a Disciple of Christ then, should not be suffi­cient to make him a Member of the Church now; but we have no reason to doubt the contrary; and if such a person should be (clave errante) shut out of the Communion of a particular Church, God would still look upon him as his own; for the pride and per­verseness of men shall not make the Faith of Christ of none effect.

That prevalency of the Gospel (which he speaks of) in Primitive times, we believe, and adore that divine Energy that appeared therein, making its way through so formi­dable an opposition as it every where met with; and next to the Power of God, which is to be accounted the principal cause, we cannot but ascribe this wonderful success to the sanctity of the Preachers, and the spiri­tuality and simplicity of their Doctrine and Worship; for we find it has made but a slow progress in the World, since men, upon pre­tence of adoring it, have encumbred it with [Page 13]needless Ceremonies, and committed the ma­nagement thereof to men, who (many of them) had little to recommend them to the service besides a vehement Zeal for these Re­ligious Impertinencies.

But, though the Apostles did propagate the Gospel far and wide, yet that they did actually [Preach it to all Nations] is a thing we never heard of before T. W. told us so; and we must have better evidence before we believe it. Whether [the seven Churches in Asia had seven Bishops presiding over them] neither more nor less, is a thing that no way affects the present Controversie, nor can any thing be concluded from thence in favour of our English Prelacy, till the Power of those Bishops, the extent of their Dio­cesses, the quality of their Under-Officers, the Modes of their Worship, and Terms of Communion be proved the same with ours, or liable to the same exceptions. We have no prejudice against Episcopacy, name or thing, provided it be reduced to the Primi­tive Standard. He must not think to run us down with a bare word. We find mention made of Presbyters in Scripture; he would think it irrational from hence to assert Scotch Presbytery to be Jure Divino; the name will signifie little in the debate, till the true [Page 14]bounds and limits of the Office so named be stated and adjusted.

I will not take upon me to contradict those Learned men that think the Angels there mentioned were Bishops, but to say [it is plain by the word Angel they were so] is a wonderful Argument indeed; as if Bishop and Angel were convertible terms. And so the two young men that came to rescue Lot out from the Sodomites, were Bishops, and the glorious Messengers that brought to Mary and Elizabeth the joyful tydings of our Saviour's approaching Birth, were Bishops; it's plain they were so by the name Angel the Scriptures give them, and if this hold good, there will be a great many more Bishops in Heaven than Chry­sostom expected to find there.

He tells us, though there was a multipli­cation or plurality of Churches in those times, by the encrease of Believers, yet no varia­tion. I am glad to hear that the encrease of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches; and why does it so — but be­cause the encrease of Church-members may be so great as makes them uncapable of or­dinarily meeting together to worship God, therefore a Church in the primitive sense must consist of no more than could ordinarily [Page 15]so meet; and that every Church had its Bi­shop is evident, for without the governing part it cannot be a distinct Political Society, but if the model of our Episcopal Churches be right, which are made up of some hun­dreds of Congregations, and Millions of Persons that cannot be known to the Bishop, or one to another; if this I say be allowable, I see not how the encrease of Believers can be a sufficient cause for the multiplying of Churches.

But what does he mean in saying, in these multiplied Churches there was no va­riation; was there no variety at all in any circumstance of worship? That's gratis dic­tum, and the contrary may be proved even in the Apostles times. Whence was that scuffle betwixt the believing Jews and Gen­tiles about Jewish Ceremonies?Acts 15. What need was there of that A­postolical Synod, and of all those precepts against imposing upon, or condem­ning one another upon the account of dif­ferent Sentiments? If he means there was no variation from the Scripture Rules (tho we are afraid that will scarce hold, yet) we wish it had been so still.

We have a Notion of Church Unity laid down p. 2. in which we freely concur with [Page 16]him, i. e. [That all Churches are one, as united into one Body, whereof Christ is Head, having the same Baptism, the same Faith, and the same Eucharist] that is the same for substance for it that they all agreed in the Primitive times in the same Circum­stances, such a Unity we hold, and doubt not but in our Congregations this Unity may be found. They are made up of visi­ble Christians, such as in the Judgment of Charity are united to Christ by Faith; we have the same Baptism with the Apostolical Churches for Substance, and come as near in circumstances as we can to the Rule, leav­ing out the innovations of latter and more corrupt times, we hold the same Doctrines of Faith, and the same Eucharist, and after the Apostolical Mode, as far as by their Writings appears, and thus far we are the same with them in the External Worship and Service of God, and the same with all other true Churches, as far as they are the same with the Apostolical, and differ from them no farther than upon a serious Enquiry, we find they differ from these.

We expect T. W. should stand to this De­scription of Church Unity he has here given us, and if he does, we can easily make it appear he has ruin'd his whole Book and [Page 17]Cause; for if this be the true proper Unity of Churches, then there may be true Church Unity without the uniting of many particu­lar Churches, Ministers and People into one Diocesan Church under the Jurisdiction of a Prelate and his Officers; then there may be true Church Unity without a necessary ob­servation of the same Parochial Precincts: I do not speak against the conveniency of such a thing, but only observe that it is not de Essentiâ Unitatis, according to this Mans definition; and there may be true Church Unity without an absolute Uniformity in the same Modes and Circumstances of Worship; and consequently a Man may plead to the Jurisdiction of a Diocesan Prelate, may step over Parish Bounds, and may worship God without the Ceremonies used in England, and yet be free from the guilt of Schism, for if none of these things be Essential to the Churches Unity, they may be omitted, and that preserved entire notwithstanding.

Touching the continuance of the Church of God upon Earth we have no Controver­sie with him, we believe it will be till Christs second coming, but whereas he affirms, that the power wherewith our Saviour vested the Apostles, was not to cease or expire with them, we think a Man of Sence would have [Page 18]distinguish'd betwixt the extraordinary pow­er which was properly Apostolical, and that ordinary Pastoral power which was eminent­ly comprehended in the other; as to the for­mer we do not find that it was designed to out-live their Persons, and therefore in this we know of no Successors that they have, their call to this Apostolical power was ex­traordinary, their Authority was Universal, their Commission extended to the whole World, and was the same in all Churches. Now to say that the Bishops which are sta­ted Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in this Apostolical power, is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government, and would give the Bishop of Rome as great power in England as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (when there is one.) Indeed as the Apostolical power did contain [eminenter] the Pastoral power, so far the Bishops or Pastors of Churches do succeed them; but this cannot be properly called an Apostolical Succession.

I shall not dispute with him the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus, it signi­fies nothing till the Nature and Extent of that Office be first determined out of Scrip­ture: Dr. Hammond tells us, all the Elders we read of in Scripture were Bishops, and [Page 19]that every particular Church had at least one of these, and no doubt but Ephesus and Creet had such Bishops as well as other Churches, but whether Timothy and Titus were such is not certain or material; though their fre­quent removes from place to place at the command of the Apostles, makes it very pro­bable that their Office was itinerant and un­fixed. But 'tis pretty to hear him say these two were ordained the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet by the Apostles, Was there any Apostle then besides Paul concerned in it? But here lyes the Trick, they must needs be two Bishops, and the Apostolical Succession must begin in them, and therefore it was ne­cessary to mention their Ordination by A­postles in the plural, because it does not a­gree with the nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical power, for then Timothy would have been as much Bishop of Creet as of Ephesus, and Titus as much Bishop of E­phesus as Timothy, for the Apostolical power vested by Succession in them extended as much to the one as the other, and as much to all the World as to either.

And how (pray) could Timothy and Titus succeed the Apostles in the Sees of E­phesus and Creet, whilst the Apostles were [Page 20]yet living? Were they translated to a higher Seat, or suspended or degraded, for not own­ing the Authority of the Civil Magistrate? To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power, the Apostles yet alive, and in pleni­tude of power, is a very great Mystery, and something akin to the honest Vicar of New­port's quondam Prayer that King Charles the Second might out-live all his Succes­sors.

Whereas he says no Presbyters had pow­er to ordain, I desire him to try how he will reconcile this with Dr. Hammond, that says these Presbyters were all Bishops, or indeed with Scripture it self, that says even Timothy received the gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.1 Tim. 4.14.

But as to this delicate Notion of Apostoli­cal Succession, he is pleased further to inform us, that for the propagation thereof, Linus by Apostolical Consecration Succeeded the A­postles in the See of Rome, here's a double blunder again — Linus Succeeded whilst the Apostles were alive, for how else could he have Apostolical Consecration, and Li­nus a single person Succeeds the Apostles in the plural: As before the Apostolical power of one Apostle was divided betwixt two Bi­shops, [Page 21] Timothy and Titus, so here the pow­er of two or more Apostles is exhausted by one Bishop who is their Lineal Successor— and they still living in full enjoyment of their power; ask him not how can these things be? they must be so, for Dissenters must be Schismaticks, and this is the way to prove them so, and therefore must be ratio­nal and solid, whatever absurdities our Scep­tical Heads discover in it. I need not here take notice how positively he asserts the im­mediate Succession of Linus, when all the Learned Men in the World acknowledge great Difficulties, and uncertainty — whe­ther Linus or Cletus were first Bi­shop, or whether both at once, one as Bishop of the Circumcisi­on, the other of the Gentiles;As Grotius thinks. but Ignorance is the rarest thing in the World to make a man bold, and venture at any thing. Nothing but this Faculty of Ignorance would have emboldened him to say, as p. 3. That this Line of Apostolick Succession of Bishops, hath continued in all Ages to this present time; an Assertion without the least shadow of proof; yea, contrary to the Acknowledgments of all Church-Historians. The very Papists them­selves, whose Interest it is to make men [Page 22]believe it was so, confess there are in­superable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See; and if the Succession be so perplexed there, it must be much more so in other Churches, whose obscurity in former Ages makes it less feasible to trace this Line of Succession. — And though Irenaeus might be able to [name all the Successors of the Apostolick Churches in his day] yet that will hard­ly prove that there has been no interrup­tion since. Irenaeus is said to have been the Scholar of Polycarp, who was the Dis­ciple of Sr. John, and he is said to have died in the year of Christ 182. It is there­fore very probable he might remember the names of all that had been Bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Alexandria, since he had not much above the space of an hundred years to burthen his memory with; a less man than he can tell who have been Bishops of Chester for a hun­dred years—but does it follow that an uninterrupted Succession for above 1600 years is equally certain?

I might here enquire how it came to pass that this Apostolical Succession was pro­pagated in so few Churches as the Patriar­chal were; methinks there should have [Page 23]been as many as the Apostles were. For this man to be so very positive in these difficult and perplexed points, shews a ve­ry great Effrontery; and what may we not expect from the man that will talk at this rate? And to say, whoever exercises any Ministerial Office out of this Line of Apostolick Succession, can be no other than a Lay-Impostor, is to expose Chri­stianity it self, and to leave the Consci­ences of all men in the World at an ut­ter uncertainty whether they have a true Ministry and Ordinances or no. Wretch­ed men! that to support the beloved Cause of Persecution, will advance a notion de­structive to our common Christianity, and the Peace and Comfort of the Christian World; and rather than the Dissenters in England should not be Schismaticks, will shake the foundation not only of all the Reformed, but of all the Christian Churches in the World. Certainly T. W. ought to have been well advised, before he had given it under his hand, ‘That if there be not an uninterrupted Succession be­twixt all the Bishops in England, and Apostles, they are Lay-Impostors and Schis­maticks;’ and that he and the rest of his Friends have no better evidence that the [Page 24]Church of England is a true Church, than they have of such a continued Suc­cession; that they can as soon demonstrate such an unbroken Line, as that their Mi­nistry and Sacraments are true; and that they have no better proof that Dissenters are Schismaticks than they have of this, nor any better defence of all the Severities they have used against them than this, and if it should happen that in almost 1700 years there has been the least breach made upon this Line, all that they have said and done against Dissenters becomes due to themselves. Would any man in the World (that was not hired to betray the Churches Cause) have put it to such an Issue? I am sure no wise man would ven­ture his Estate upon it: And yet this man has chosen to fix his Church, and Faith and Salvation upon no better a Foot than this.

For in how many cases may this Line be broken, and all that Apostolick Power conveyed there be spilt and lost, if there should happen a vacancy in any of those things he calls Apostolical Churches and Sees for some years, and the succeeding [Page 25] As the Northum­brian Bishops by the Abbot of Hy.Incumbent be a person or­dained by an Abbot who was no Bishop, as is al­lowed in the Roman Church, through which this Authority must be conveyed to us; does not this make an Intercision in the Line of Episcopal Ordi­nation be so indispensable? it must do so. I desire to know of this man, or (any other that encourage him to write little Books) whether this Line of Succession may be continued in a Schismatical Church, and the Apostolical Power conveyed thereby; if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church, as this Man frequently affirms in his Book, then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches, nor parts of the Universal Church, and so cannot be the Subjects of this Apostolical power, and if this power cannot be de­rived through a Schismatical Church, then he must grant either that the Church of England has not this power, or that the Papal Churches through which this Line and Power runs are not Schismatical, and if they be not, his own Church must be so, for separating from them; for he allows Separation utterly unlawful, unless from a Schismatical Church.

But after all, though by this continued Line of Apostolical Episcopal Succession, he would Exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea that have not those Gover­nours he will allow to be Scripture Bishops— Supposing this same Line (he makes such a splutter about) were certain or necessary, which it is not, yet till this Man has proved the English Prelacy to be nearer a-kin to the Scripture Episcopacy than the Pastoral Office, which is the Epis­copacy we contend for; we stand as fair for any advantage this Notion may afford as his Party does; for we reverence and maintain Ministerial Ordination, and so are in the Line still, if such a Line there be, which yet we are no way concerned to prove, because we look upon Ordination to be no more but a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges, and we doubt not but the Ministers that have such Qualifications themselves are the most competent Judges thereof in others; but if there should happen a case wherein such Persons could not be had; As if a company of Christians should be cast upon a remote Island, or if all the Pastors in a Countrey should be put to Death, or all turn Hereticks, we doubt not but it would [Page 27]be lawful for a Man of the best Qualifi­cations, being chosen by the rest, and ap­proved, and set apart by the most compe­tent Judges amongst them, to Administer in Holy Ordinances to them, and that he would be a true Minister of Jesus Christ, sufficiently Authorized to the Work, and a Lay-person no longer; but if we assent to the Whimsey of a constant Succession (as if power were conveyed like Water in a Conduit after a Physical manner, by contact passing through the Finger ends of the Prelate into the Noddle of the Per­son Ordained) then can no necessity make the practice aforesaid warrantable, and so the Substance must fail and perish for want of the Ceremony — which is contrary to Reason, and the Notions Men have of the Goodness of God.

This conceit of an entire Apostolical Line, was forg'd upon the same Anvil with that of an uninterrupted Succession of En­glish Monarchs, from the Eldest Son of Noah, whereby a Patriarchal Right de­scends inseparable from the Person, Sacred and Irresistible, which has tortured the Ears of all Men of Sence and Sobriety in these late Times.

The Leud and Extravagant Caresses that have happen'd between Ambitious Princes and Aspiring Church-men have produc'd such Twins as these, that lately threat­ned the Kingdom with a dismal Fate. No less pretences than those of Patriarchal and Apostolical Powers were sufficient for the Usurping an Absolute Empire over the Civil and Religious Rights of Men; but as we have seen the One deserted, exposed to just contempt, and renounced by the very Authors thereof, not in words only, but in actions famous and publick through­out the World, so we doubt not they will to deal with the other, it being of the same extract, and calculated to serve the very same interest and design.

His fourth page is taken up with prov­ing that to love as Christians in Scripture Sence is to love as Members of Christ, and obliges us to preserve the Body from Rents and Schisms, which we never deny; but wonder at some Men, who notwith­standing all their talk for Peace and Unity, have so little real Love for it, as to Ex­communicate and Damn all those that can­not comply with those Ceremonies which themselves acknowledge have no Moral [Page 29]goodness in them, and therefore can be but idle incumbrances upon the Worship of God, which (as one says of Friendship and Heraldry) is noblest when plainest, bravest when alone: Certainly such un­reasonable Stiffness cannot have much in it of that love, [which is the Characte­ristick of Christs Disciples;] but these Gentlemen think to excuse their aversation to us, by saying we are not Christians, we are out of the Catholick Church, this is to make one gross act of Uncharitable­ness to excuse for another; but we thank God they are not to be our final Judges.

For our further Conviction we are told [The Communion of Saints is one Ex­ternal visible Communion of the Christian Church] which is so far from explain­ing the thing, that it makes it much darker. We hold Communion in Essentials with every Church of Christ upon Earth, and in Integrals with all sound Churches, and we know few Churches, that hold Com­munion in all accidentals, nor was such a Communion ever pretended to be necessa­ry. This word Communion, not rightly understood, nor the sence of it carefully distinguisht, has strangely misled some [Page 30]Men, and is at the bottom of all those cla­mours that have fill'd the Ears of our Ru­lers, and the whole Nation against us; and this Man seems as little to understand it as any one that ever pretended to write upon the Subject. In the fifth page we have an aggregate description of the Com­munion of Saints, which we shall particu­larly examine, and apply to the present case; the Communion of Saints consists of these things.

1. [A firm Belief of all the Articles of Faith, contained in the Apostolical, Ni­cene and Athanasian Creed;] and why not in Scripture? these Creeds are but of Humane Composition, and some things in them want Explanation, however so far we are within Communion, though hereby the Greek and other Eastern Chur­ches are shut out, which the Citizen of Chester has no Commission to do.

2. [To partake all of the same Table] he cannot mean the same individual Ta­ble, but the same Eucharist in specie; so far we are with him still: But whether this will not exclude the Papists, who by denying the Cup to the Laity, have taken [Page 31]away in part the matter of the Eucharist, I shall leave to his second thoughts, who I believe will not be over-forward in Unchurching them, for fear of breaking the Line by which his own Church hangs.

3. [To join all in the same holy Prayers and Supplications, and in giving Thanks] he cannot mean that in these Duties we must necessarily use the very same words, without the least adding, sub­stracting or changing, for then he Excom­municates all the World, but those of his own perswasion, and a great many of them too.

4. [To be subject and obedient to our Spiritual Rulers and Governours (who have derived their Authority from the Apostles by a due Succession) in all things per­taining to a Godly Life, Decency and Order.] We are very desirous to give due Honour and Obedience to our Spi­ritual Governours, who derive their Au­thority from Christ, which is more pro­per than to speak of deriving it from the Apostles, for Christ is the only Fountain of Authority, and the Streams are derived [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32]rather from the Fountain, than the Ci­stern; It is observable the Mans Expression is sunk from an uninterrupted Succession to a due Succession — to observe the A­postolical precepts in Government and Worship may make it up a due Successi­on, but there's more required to an un­interrupted one than so. Now before he can say we want this Qualification for Communion, he must prove that Dioce­san Prelates are made our Rulers by a Di­vine Command. A single Person taking upon him to govern some thousands of Congregations, by such Rules and Offi­cers as our English Prelacy uses, and this by the Nomination of the Civil Magi­strate without the Consent of the People, or of the Ministers within the Diocess, is a Creature we neither find in Scripture, nor in Primitive Times, and therefore can be no Spiritual Governour of ours by Di­vine Right, let him prove this, and he does something; but till this be done, his whole Book is as insignificant as waste Pa­per.

When this Man or any one for him, has made it to appear that the Authority of a Diocesan Prelate, Dean, Lay-Chan­cellor, [Page 33] &c. over all in the Diocess, is as certain and Sacred as that of Moses and Aaron; we will not dare to dispute it for fear of Corah's doom, but till this be evinced, I hope he will not take it a­miss if we be not frighten'd out of our Wits by such misapplyed Passages, which we have often heard urged to back the Doctrines of Non-resistance, and all those Principles of Slavery some Men have been endeavouring to instil into our Minds, but as we see they have no great regard for such alligations themselves, when ad­hering to them would be chargeable and dangerous, so we believe they cannot heartily blame us if we despise them too.

In the last Paragraph of the fifth page we have the Communion of Saints descri­bed over again, being willing, I suppose, to make up in the Number what is want­ing in Weight, and here we are told all those particular Churches who agree with the Primitive Catholick Church in all the Articles of Faith, and in the External Visible Worship and Service of God are true Members of the Universal Church, and in the Communion of Saints: In what [Page 34]Bounds he will fix the Primitive Church we know not, certain it is, a Century or two made a very considerable change in the features of their Government and Worship; but if we must take our mea­sures by those Courches that are truely Primitive, we fear not to put our selves to the Tryal, That our Congregations have this agreement in Faith none will deny; and he has not proved that we differ from them in the Essential or Inte­gral parts of Gods Worship, or in any considerable circumstance; and that this Divine Worship and Service is Visible and External this Gentleman is but too sen­sible, and 'tis a very great Eye-sore to such as he that it is so much more Visible than formerly it has been.

If we will take his confident and re­peated assertions for demonstration, we may believe that the Church of England has from the first planting of the Gospel here, retained the Apostolical power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by an uninter­rupted Succession of Arch-Bishops and Bi­shops in a right Line from the Apostles days to this present time; but how un­certain this is, and how inconsistent with [Page 35]other parts of his Book I suppose has been sufficiently manifested, I shall therefore take no farther notice of it, especially be­cause that, till the true Bounds of Epis­copal Power be fixt by Scripture Rules, it is as impertinent as uncertain.

After he has thus delivered himself of his crude and confused apprehensions, he tells Mr. H. he has done it as cleanly as he could, and that may be true enough for ought I know, but 'tis no fault of Mr. H's, he could do it no better; his Capacity and Employment indeed may be some excuse for his blunders, but will by no means lessen the fault of his offi­cious and confident impertinency in med­ling with things he so little under­stands.

We are no way concerned in the Ci­tation of the Fathers brought in against us, till he has proved that Episcopacy then was the same thing it is now, and that the terms of Communion we scruple were ever imposed by them.

Ignatius charges the Bishop in his time to take a personal cognizance of every [Page 36]Member of his Church, not excepting the very Servants: It was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lords day, and they never received it [nisi ex Antistitis ma­nu] but from the Hand of the Bishop, What could such Bishops be more than Pastors of single Congregations; but I shall forbear dipping into this Argument which has been so copiously managed by Blondel, Baxter, Owen, Clarkson, and o­thers.

It is observable in the passage cited out of Irenaeus, the Presbyters are said to have their Succession from the Apostles; it seems they were the Apostles Successors as well as Bishops, surely then they must have the same power; if the Bishops claim the power they have as the Apostles Suc­cessors, then must all the Successors of the Apostles have the same power; the Rule is known à quatenus ad omne. It is plain by this that Apostolical Succession in the sence of those times, was not any such fine Aerial Thread as this Man speaks of, but, Conformity to the Apo­stles model in Government and Worship, and those that best observe that, are in [Page 37]the truest sence the Apostles Successors, whether the Line has been broke by in­tervening Hereticks and Schismaticks or no.

We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such parti­cular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules, and impose no new or needless terms, is to act Schismatically, because such wilful Separation when no cause is given cannot be without breach of Charity with our Fellow Christians, which is the Scripture Notion of Schism, and this Mr. Henry himself grants, and calls it Separation for Separation's sake, which T.W. might have taken notice of had he designed fair dealing.

But this is not at all proved to be our case. We earnestly desire Episcopacy may be reduced to its proper Sphere, that every particular Church may have its Bi­shop and Presbyters, and so power within it self to admonish, suspend and reject scandalous Persons; we desire the Rules of the Gospel may be carefully lookt into, and a Model of Government and Wor­ship taken from thence, such as may be [Page 38]likely to answer the great Ends of Church Societies, that nothing may be imposed but what is either expresly commanded, or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is so; then would the Worship of God appear like it self, rational, grave, and majestical, becoming reasonable Creatures to offer, and a Be­ing of perfect Simplicity and Spirituality to receive; nor would we (as we are accused) under pretence of Spirituality, reject the natural decorum of an Action in Divine Worship, but only lay aside those Formalities that are over and above natural decency, which in civil converse are counted foppish, and daily grow out of repute betwixt Man and Man, and are no where so improper as in the Service of God.

It is certainly a very odd Custom these Men have taken up against us, if they find in any of the Fathers the word Bi­shop, they presently transfer it a Dioce­san Prelate; if they read of Breaking off from the Communion of the Bishop, it must be immediately applyed to the pra­ctice of Dissenters in England. When alas till the Extent of Power, way of [Page 39]coming into Office and Charge, terms of Admission, &c. be proved to be tanta­mount to what they now are; bare words will conclude nothing at all.

And yet without so much as offering to prove any thing of this, T.W. will needs perswade Mr. H. to confess himself a Schis­matick, and so out of the Catholick Church, and possibility of Salvation.

Though we need not concern our selves to soften or extenuate the fault of Schism, no such thing being proved against us — yet it may not be amiss to take notice how this eager Man over-shoots himself in these matters; he first makes all those Churches Schismatical that do not agree with the Primitive Catholick Church in Faith, Worship, and Government, with­out adjusting the measures of such Agree­ment, as if every little difference made a Schism, which would bear hard upon all the Churches at this day in the World — And when he has done this, he cuts off all these Schismatical Societies from being parts of the Catholick Church, or under a possibility of Salvation— It must needs follow from hence, that Popish Churches [Page 40](to say nothing of others) must be Schis­matical, for they vary notoriously from the Primitive in Faith, Government, and Worship, as I suppose this Man will grant — all those Churches therefore since this Variation, were no parts of the Ca­tholick Church; that is, no Churches at all, and by consequence (according to him) their Bishops must be but Lay-Impostors, their Ordinations null and void, the Line of Communication broken, the Apostolical Power lost, and all England in a state of Damnation; and all this is the Effect of over-great earnestness to prove the Dissenters Schismaticks.

We have with a great deal of Patience examined T.W's Notions of the Church, of Communion and Unity; and whether there be any thing observable in them besides Ignorance, Confusion and Contra­diction, is left to the Judgment of the Reader. That which remains is to view the Remarks he has made upon Mr. H's Book.

The Instance of Eldad and Medad, was never designed to run of all four; but thus far 'tis to the purpose, as it proves [Page 41]that God has not limited his People in Religious Actions so nicely to the publick places, as some would pretend; and that even good Men are apt too severely to censure such actions when managed out of the usual Method, before they fully understand the reason of the thing; and that meek and humble Men like Moses, who are more concerned for the Substance, than Circumstances of Religion, would not deny the Church the advantage of those Gifts which God has bestowed up­on Men, even though the exercise of them might seem to derogate from their own Grandeur; those general Inferences natu­rally follow from the place, and the ap­plication of them is not improper as this Man fancies; whatever the Office of this Man was to be, yet doubtless this Act of prophecying was of a Sacred rather than [a Civil nature] and though under that Oeconomy, the Priests were principally engaged in the Ceremonial part of Wor­ship; yet in the Moral part the Prophets often bore a share; which was discover­ing the mind of God to the People, and pressing them to Obedience, and it is to this rather than the Priestly Office that a Gospel Minister succeeds.

If these Men demand [we should give as signal proof of our Authority to the Bishops — as Eldad and Medad could to Moses] I hope we may expect that the Bishops should give as signal proof of their Authority as Moses could do; but if ex­traordinary Commission need not be pre­tended in the one case, we suppose there's as little need of it in the other; and we are ready to give satisfaction to all the World, of the ordinary Warrant, which consists in suitable Qualifications enquired into, and approved by such as the Scrip­ture calls Bishops.

Upon Mr. H's bare mentioning of the Worshippers of the Diana of their own opinion. T. W. charges him with saucy Language, but Mr. H. needs not come to this Man to learn how to speak; the reflection Mr. H. made was general, that there are such cannot be denied — and let it fall where 'tis due — but why must this of Necessity be spoke of the Bishops; such an invidious innuendo in the last Reign might have cost a Man dear, of which Mr. Baxter is a memorable Instance. But T.W. will answer for the Bishops (and they are certainly very happy in such [Page 43]an Advocate) that if the Punctilio's of Opinion do not cause a separate Com­munion, they will not censure that for Schism; But what if they make these Punctilio's of Opinion the terms of Com­munion, do they not then become the true causes of that Schism which they censure — for in this case what must we do — must we immediately lay aside our Opinions, and jump all of a sudden into the same Sentiments with them? That cannot be done till the evidence and force of Reason does it; must we then sub­scribe and profess our assent to what we do not believe? That T. W. him­self has already condemned as downright Hypocrisie and Kna­verypage 10. parag. 4. — Must we then quite de­sert the publick Worship of God and turn Pagans? I hope they will not say so; Then there is no other course left but to meet together our selves, and Wor­ship God in places distinct from the Im­posers, and whatever there is culpable in this breach falls upon those that made such little Opinions terms of Communion, which might have been preserved entire without them.

That which next falls in our way is a pleasant Instance, as this Man calls it, of an innocent difference in Opinion — but it had been much more for his Re­putation to have denied himself the plea­sure of it; he tells us it was Mr. H's Fathers Opinion that it was best to put him to be a Lawyer's or Attorney's Clerk; this is one of the many Falshoods, a De­bauched Club have contrived against a Person who upon all accounts deserved better treatment; Mr. H. needs not be ashamed to own that he spent some con­siderable time in the Inns of Court, but with no design of making that his busi­ness; and the honourable Acquaintance and Respect he has gained thereby have set his Name far above all the little malicious calumnies of this Man or his Myrmidons: He has so little to do as to tell the World that he was put to a Mercer; this is a discovery of very pub­lick Concernment without doubt, for which the World is greatly oblig'd to him; as for his Neighbours they need­ed not much the Information, some of them have but too much reason to re­member it; but the envious Man must needs expose himself, to introduce an idle [Page 45]flam which he thought might lessen Mr. H's Reputation.

He says he has proved Diversity or Se­paration of Communion to be the forma­lis ratio of Schism: The greatest Charity that any Man can have for him, is to believe that he does not here understand what he says — for 'tis a downright giving the Lie to the Apostle Paul, who charges the Corinthians with the guilt of Schism when there was no such Sepa­ration — and can there be Schism with­out the ratio formalis, the proper nature of Schism; does he not know that For­ma dat esse rei — could none of his Club teach him that scrap of Reason, or at least advise him to adjourn writing of Books till he has learn'd common sense?

Upon the Apostle Paul's Exhortation to the Corinthians to be of one mind, Mr. H. made this Remark, that it must be understood of Fundamentals, for to be so in every little thing is morally impossi­ble — and that where they are advised to speak the same things, it is as if he should say in your Preaching and Converse speak of those things only wherein you are [Page 46]agreed, which fair and rational Comment T. W. most maliciously perverts, as if Mr. H. allowed Men to speak one thing and think another; and so he runs a long and dull ramble, how well it would do; would he go to Rome and Constantino­ple, and set up with this Notion, of speaking only of things wherein all are a­greed — But is there no difference be­twixt concealing our thoughts, and speak­ing contrary to them? Could Mr. H. have dispens'd with such doings he might have subscribed to the Articles and Ho­milies — as Articles of Peace, not of Truth, as some others have distinguish'd, though most Men thought they did it as to Articles of Preferment. Is there no difference betwixt forbearing to Preach upon those lesser Controversies that might be amongst the Corinthians, and waving those Fundamental Doctrines by which we are distinguished from Papists and Maho­metans: Is it not a shame so notoriously to wrest plain words, and make them speak things never intended: Does not this Man know that in the Reign of King Charles the First (his Prince of incom­parable Piety) there was a strict prohi­bition against Preaching upon the Quin­quarticular [Page 47]Points; and do not many of our Clergy tell us, the Articles of the Church of England are expressed in words of that Latitude, as may be subscribed by either Arminians or Calvinists; and do they not applaud the thing wonderfully, as if done out of a prudent and peace­able design; and yet the very same Sen­timents in Mr. H. must be represented as down-right Hypocrisie and Knavery, and thought to deserve no better a re­ply, than a piece of the meanest sort of Rallery, which he calls his Harrangue forfooth; a man may hear twenty such Harrangues [as full of Wit and Sence] at Billings-gate almost every day in the year.

To say it is morally impossible to be of the same mind in every thing, is no bar either to Argumentation or Preach­ing, as he pretends, few Persons that are fit either to argue or preach, will make every little difference the matter of their Discourse; but the practice which T. M. has undertaken to vindicate, that is, forcing to declare their assent where they have had no convincing evidence, would indeed render Argumentation ridiculous. To rea­son [Page 48]Men into an Opinion does not very well consist with hectoring, fining and forcing them into it; I am sure such Practice precludes all reasoning, or any other Methods proper to work upon a rational Crearure.

He gives us Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase upon the Text, viz. ‘That ye all teach the same Doctrines, and nourish Cha­rity and Unity, that there be no Di­visions in Churches, but that ye be Compacted and United as Members of the same Body in the same Belief and Affection:’ and then he triumphantly demands, Is not this quite different from your Exposition? If this Mans Judg­ment were but half the size of his Spleen and Confidence, he might easily see a very good Agreement betwixt these two Expositions. Dr. Hammond understands the place, as obliging to preach the same Doctrine; so does Mr. H. and to nourish Charity and prevent Division, and to be of one Faith and Affection; so does Mr. H. too: But does the Doctor any where affirm that this obliges men to be of the same Opinion in every Punctilio? (which is all Mr. H. denyes) No, he [Page 49]has not one word to that purpose — Where then lies this mighty difference? truly in nothing but this. Mr. H. makes the thing more plain, and urges it more home than the Doctor — for since Unity and Charity ought to be nourish­ed, and yet different Opinions will be held; This Apostolical Rule obliges men not to make their differing Sentiments in these smaller things the matter of their Preaching, much less Terms of Commu­nion; for then it will be impossible to preserve the Unity and Charity pleaded for; and now let all Mankind judge whether Mr. H's Comment does any way abate the force of the Apostles Exhorta­tion to Unity, or rather, whether it does not greatly promote the same by censu­ring and exposing those Practices that are destructive thereof.

Nay, this very man in the next Pa­ragraph, page 12. confesses that [the Apostle aimed not at all different Opi­nions in meer Notions and Speculations] which is the very same assertion he has treated so scurrilously in Mr. H. he says the Apostle meant only those different Opinions that break Communion; but [Page 50]how come different Opinions to have that effect, but by being made Conditions of Com­munion? and must not the fault then lye upon those that make them so? For had that been forborn, the Communion might have been preserved entire still, as has been before shewed.

He derides Mr. H. for not knowing that a perfect Conjunction in the Ca­tholick Church and Communion of Saints, is required of all those that are to come to a World of Everlasting Perfection. And all the sober part of Mankind will deride him for so confus'd and gross an Assertion; for if that be true, then must none be saved, who are imperfect [in Faith] or in their [partaking of the Lords Supper] or imperfect in Prayers, and in obedience to Ecclesiastical Rulers in all things pertaining to a god­ly Life]page 5. parag. 3. for these things make up the Communion of Saints, as he himself tells us, and then 'tis time for T. W. to look about him, for I fear the last would exclude him, though he could pretend Perfection in all the rest.

He acknowledges the Corinthians were accused [of that which Mr. H. calls Schism] for admiring one Minister above another. But why of that which Mr. H. calls Schism? does not the Apostle him­self call it so, as positively as Mr. H. but it was not convenient to own that, be­cause he had told us, that diversity of Communion was the formalis Ratio of Schism; and if so, the Corinthians could not be charged with it; either there­fore the Apostle falsly accused the Corin­thians, or this mans Notion of Schism is false; and here we hold the point, and have brought it to a fair Issue; if this man has a mind to quarrel with St. Paul, he may take his course, but he may do well to consider he engages himself against the Spirit of God; and who ever contend­ed with his Maker and prospered?

He accuses Mr. H. of scandalizing St. Paul in saying he preferred Soul Sal­vation before his own Credit; but I am assured St. Paul would not take this for a Scandal — for he was ever willing to sacrifice his Name and Reputation to the blessed Interest of Christ and the Gospel; [Page 52]I wish this man were chargeable with no grosser Scandals than these.

It is very unfairly insinuated, That Mr. H. thinks it as great a Crime to si­lence him, as it would have been to have silenc'd the Apostles; He is far from making any such Comparison, but it will be found criminal enough to si­lence the least of Christs faithful Mini­sters, for what is done to them he takes as done to himself; and for him to say Mr. H. is no Minister, is purely precari­ous, and shall be granted the first hour that he has proved it, and he cannot reasonably expect we should acknowledge it before.

Mr. H. in his little Book has this Ex­pression; It appears, That narrow-spirit­edness which confines Religion and the Church to one way and party, whatever it is, to the condemning of others that differ from us in little things, is the bane of the Christian-Church; a Sentence to which all those will subscribe, who either understand, or wish well to the common Interest of Christianity; what fault then will T. W, find with it? He tells us [Page 53]Religion is the Bond of Unity; that is to say, where there is no true practical Religion, there can be no real Church Unity; Is not this the meaning? If it be, it will turn abundance of our fierce Contenders for the Ceremonies out of doors; He asks, Did you ever know a Religion without Bounds and Rules, for all of that Religion to be confined to, even to a Punctilio? Sir, we know no Religion but what's contained in the Word of God, nor any necessary Bounds and Rules but what are there laid down; and we find none there obliging to exact Uniformity in your Ceremonies; nay, on the contrary, we find Rules laid down for mutual forbearance in such things; and for denying our selves in what we might lawfully do, when the doing of it would offend tender Con­sciences; and if we must suspend our own Act and Freedom for fear of such Offence, it can never be lawful for us to force our Practice upon others; and whoever do so, observe not the Rules, nor confine themselves within the Bounds Religion has fixed, but are convicted by the Word of God of schismaticating Pra­ctices, how eager soever they may be to [Page 54]fasten the brand upon others: If this mans way of living had not made him more conversant with L'Estrange's Ob­servators, than with the Sacred Scriptures, he would never talk at such an odd rate concerning the Rules and Bounds of Religion, as he does.

He enquires, whether They of our Conventicling Communion have not Rules of their own making, by which they are distinguished and confined—To give him a plain Answer, We utterly disclaim ma­king any Terms of Communion but what Christ has made; we desire no more but a credible Profession of Faith and Holiness, in order to admission to the most solemn Ordinances; we require no Oaths, Subscriptions, Declarations of assent and consent to Canons and Ho­milies and Liturgies of humane Compo­sure; and if there be any thing that distinguishes from other Parties, it is the Gospel Simplicity of our Worship, and the absence of those little Toys, others value themselves so much upon; and as protesting for Scripture Sufficiency in Mat­ters of Doctrine distinguishes Protestants from Papists, so in Matters of Govern­ment [Page 55]and Worship it distinguishes us from you; and thus by leaving the Bounds of Church Communion, as wide and large as Christ has left them, we escape the reproach and guilt of that Narrow-spirit­edness which would retrench the same, and yet after all, are far from thinking all true Religion and Christianity, and Sal­vation confined to those of our Perswa­sion.

Now comes our Citizen to cast in our Teeth all the Irregularities and Distracti­ons of the Civil Wars; the old thread­bare Cant, which has been a rare pre­tence for all those Brutal Excesses that have been acted upon us for these ma­ny years; wherein has been the most horrid Misrepresentation of matters of Fact that were ever advanced in the same Age wherein the things were done.

The true causes of that War are so well known to all the World, and have of late met with so publick and Authen­tick a vindication, that they need not my Apology. All our Historians, even those that are most devoted to the Court In­terest, acknowledge there were the great­est [Page 56]Encroachments imaginable made upon the Liberties of the Subject from the very first appearance of that unhappy Prince in the Government, the Foundation where­of was laid in his Fathers Reign. For when King James the first Ascended Eng­lands Throne, the Prelatick Party dread­ing lest the Puritans would have too great a share of his Favours, upon the account of his Education, and the Influence the Scottish Nobility and Ministry might have upon him, bent all their Studies to create in him a prejudice against them, and find­ing no Bait was so like to take with him, as the extending of his Authority, and enlarging the Prerogative, which had perhaps been too much limited by his Antient Subjects, they flattered the Am­bition and Vices of that Prince, and thereby made him entirely their own; and this was indeed the true Origine of all the misfortunes of Succeeding times — for when once the Fence is broke, and the Land-mark removed, 'tis hard to fix it again, but the loosned Hind will wan­der endlesly. Buoy'd up with expectati­ons of an Absolute Power his Son begins a Fatal Reign, during which there was not one Parliament from his very first [Page 57]year to his Exit, that did not seriously remonstrate the Grievances of the Nation, and humbly Petition they might be re­dress'd: The Levying of Tunnage and Poundage without Act of Parliament, the Illegal Imprisonment of Peers, Extrava­gant Dispositions of Crown Lands were the Early Complaints of his Reign — Granting Commissions to require Money under the Title of a Loan, Imprisoning Persons of Quality that refused to pay that which they had no pretence of Law to demand, and denying them the Privi­ledge of Habeas Corpus when they moved for it, Menacing of Parliament, telling them if they would not grant him sufficient Sums of Money for his Occasion, he would take some other course — openly in Parliament threatning those Gentlemen that opposed these Violences — calling them Vipers — and sending at one clap seven worthy Gentlemen to the Tower — whereof Denzen Holles and the Great Sel­den were two — and this for no other Crime, but in a Parliamentary way op­posing the Kings Arbitrary proceedings. The suspicious actions of the Marquess of Hamilton in raising Forces, discovered to my Lord Rhees Maccay to be designed for [Page 58] England in the Seventh year of this Reign, the whole Story (which had a very ill Aspect) all those can tell who have any Acquaintance with the History of those Times. The breaking to pieces that brave and pious design of buying up Im­propriations for the maintenance of a preach­ing Ministry, and consiscating to the Kings use vast Sums of Money given by well-disposed Persons for that purpose; the greatest piece of Sacriledge that was ever heard of. The Declaration for Sports on the Lords day, and Suspending and Depriving of Ministers for not reading it; the Hectoring such Judges and Justi­ces of the Peace, as made Orders of Court against Rioting and Revelling on that Sacred Day. The Exacting of a new invented Tax call'd Ship Money in the Twelfth year of his Reign, and proceeded to give Judgment against the Defaulters.

The Extravagant and Tyrannical pro­ceeding of the Star-Chamber, the Sus­pending of Bishop Williams ab Officio & Beneficio — by the mischievous malice of Archbishop Laud of Blessed Memory. And to fill up the measure, the imposing [Page 59]the English Liturgy upon Scotland add­ed to the many Violations of the Con­stitution of that Kingdom — these are the known occasions of that unhappy Breach betwixt that King and his Par­liament, which I have taken a more particu­lar notice of, not to vindicate our selves — for the challenge has been often made to Name four Persons in that whole Par­liament that were not in full and com­pleat Communion with the Church of England as by Law Established when the War begun — but to vindicate the Nation, for it was a general and com­mon case; and those Men have been very disingenuous and unjust to their Countrey who have put such false and dismal Colours upon a War to which the Nation was forced in defence of those Priviledges which they had derived from their Ancestors by a Title as Sacred and Inviolable, as the greatest Monarch has unto his Crown; 'tis true indeed the Bi­shops were many of them great Sufferers, their Honour and Interest obliged them to stand by the King and his Courtiers, and to vindicate those Extravagancies where of they were the principal Causes and Instruments, and that was the rea­son [Page 60]of the Parliaments readiness to lay that Order wholly aside that had for the support of their own Grandeur abetted and consecrated the violation of the Laws and Liberties of England: I am no way obliged to defend all the Irregularities and Distractions that happened upon that War — when once the Sword is drawn, and Men are flush'd with Blood and Vi­ctory it's impossible they should be kept within due Bounds, and not be too se­vere upon those who had acted the first part upon that Tragical Scene; every Body knows the Complexion of that War was at length greatly changed, and it was pursued far beyond the first design, but the blame of all belongs to those that were the first Aggressors, and made it necessary by force to withstand that Torrent of Arbitrariness that bore down all Legal Fences before it. And yet 'tis notoriously false that all the Episcopal Clergy were then Silenced and Sequestred, there were many of them conniv'd at, and preach'd all along those Times; in­deed there were many of them (as they are now) notoriously Debauch'd, and la­mentably ignorant, and it will be hard to perswade us that the removing of [Page 61]such is any great Curse to the Nation; there was an allowance given for the maintaining of those that lost their Pla­ces, for refusing to submit to the Powers that then were; during that time, it cannot be proved, that the Presbyteri­ans ever varied from the true Interest of the Nation — but always endeavoured to maintain the Balance betwixt an un­limited Monarchy on the one hand, and Popular fury and confusion on the other, and thousands of them lost their lives upon that Score; and at length by their Address and Interest, (under God) the Nation was prepared to receive the Ba­nished Prince; the solemn Promises, fair Words, and great Assurances that were made them by the Church and Court Party, upon the Treaty of Restoration, are very well known; and the speedy and bare-fac'd violation of all, is not to be parallel'd in Story, in little more than two years time, two thousand of these Ministers were turn'd out of their Office and Livings, when Scandal or Insuffici­ency were never so much as pretended, only because they would not declare their Assent and Consent to three Books of Humane Composure, and all and every [Page 62]thing therein contained — and made un­capable of teaching Schools, and a while after Banished five Miles from the places of their former Ministry, and from Cor­porations, that there might be no possi­bility of escaping to Starve — and ever since treated with the greatest Scorn and Hatred imaginable, and made the Song of the Drunkard — some thousands of Families (as can be made to appear) crush'd and almost ruin'd, Houses rifled, Prisons fill'd, and many forced to leave their Native Countrey; and all this act­ed against them by the very Men they had let into the Nation, contrary to the minds of a more wary and politick Par­ty, who have not failed frequently to upbraid them with it; over these things we are willing to draw a Curtain, did not this Man, and such as he, force us to speak the naked truth in our own de­fence? It is necessary indeed that these Men should render us odious, as can be imagined, for all the World must own either we are the worst of Men, or they that have treated us so barbarously, must be so themselves. But blessed be God we have a King upon the Throne that understands and loves the true Interest [Page 63]of England too well, to regard such ca­lumnies as these, which indeed our for­mer Princes knew to be false, though to serve a wretched Interest they would some­times seem to believe them.

I now return with T.W. to Mr. H's Book — he would fain have Mr. H. to make this Conclusion — if having one Minister in admiration above another be Schism, how much more am I a Schisma­tick who am no Minister but keep up a Communion separate from the Church of God — That is to say, if Mr. H. in compliment to this Man will own his Ordination to be invalid, and his Con­gregation no part of the Church of God, then T. W. will prove him a Schisma­tick — but what if Mr. H. will not grant this, why then the Man must prove it, and that's more than he can do; I am sure he has not yet done any thing like it.

Mr. H. and the Citizen are both a­greed in this, That is Schism which breaks or slackens the Bond by which the Mem­bers are knit together — but they are not agreed what this Bond is, Mr. Henry [Page 64]says 'tis true Love and Charity — the Unity of the Spirit, and Bond of Peace; not an Act of Uniformity obliging to Com­munion in the same Modes and Ceremo­nies.

T. W. does not think fit to say, that an Act of Uniformity is the Bond — but says the breach of Communion breaks the Bond by which the Members are knit together — which according to his own sence is but to say the breach of Com­munion breaks Communion, for he makes Communion, and the Bond the same; this is to be attributed to his Ignorance in the meaning of this term Communi­on, which I have before taken notice of; if he mean for us to meet and Worship God in places different from theirs, and without the Ceremonies they use, does necessarily destroy Love and Charity — we must tell him, it is only with such Men as himself that are captivated to a Party — for all Men of Sence and So­briety, can retain Christian Love and Charity for all that agree with them in Essentials and Integrals of Religion, not­withstanding lesser differences — Mr. H. says if the Bond of Unity betwixt the [Page 65]Members of Christ be Love and Charity, then it is not an Act of Uniformity in point of Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies; this T.W. says is a ma­nifest contradiction — but I am per­swaded no Man alive besides himself can find it out; I hope Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies is not the only or the Essential Communion of Saints; by this every Church would Damn all the rest for their different Modes of Worship — the Bond by which the Members are united, must be something common to all Christians, which the Ce­remonies cannot be — therefore our not joining with them in these cannot ne­cessarily break that Bond so long as we retain that which is Common and Essen­tial to Christianity — that is, Faith and Charity; the breach of the former is Heresie, and of the latter Schism.

Mr. H's Definition of Schism is this [Schism is an uncharitable Distance, Di­vision or Alienation of Affiction, amongst those who are called Christians, and a­gree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things.] T.W. says he has [Page 66]condemned him out of his own Mouth — In good time— How does that appear? why, breach of Christian Communion is certainly the breach of Christian Chari­ty; the old blunder— Sir, we hold Com­munion with you in all that's necessary either to the being or welfare of a Church; and by your unnecessary Trifles you break with us, and not we with you, if any breach there be.

From the Definition of Schism, Mr. H. infers, There may be Separation of Com­munion where there is no Schism; for thus we all agree, there may be difference of apprehension and yet no Schism, pro­vided it do not eat out Christian Love, but be managed amicably as betwixt the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Church of England; and adds, if this difference in Opinion be about Modes of Worship, there must be distinct Communion. Here T. W. exclaims against him, for illogical reasoning, in bringing an instance to justi­fie Separate Communion from Schism, where there was no Separate Communion at all.

But a little consideration would have spoil'd this Triumph; Mr. H's arguing is this — If there may be different ap­prehensions about Doctrinal matters with­out breach of Charity, why may there not be different apprehensions about mat­ters of Worship and terms of Conformi­ty — without breach of Charity, and consequently without Schism? If I may love and honour a Man, that is not of my mind, nor expresses himself after my manner about the Divine Decrees, the Operations of Grace, and the Consisten­cy thereof with the freedom of Mans Will, &c. why may I not likewise love and honour that Man that differs from me, about a stinted Form, the Cross in Baptism — Bowing at the Altar and Name of Jesus? are these things of grea­ter importance than the former — Oh but says he, you break Communion a­bout these things — for you will not join with us in them — What, must I join with things I judge unlawful? Is there that fatal necessity laid upon me that I must either be a Hypocrite or a Schismatick? And has God made it ne­cessary to Salvation, to know that all these things are lawful — if you will not [Page 68]suffer me to Communicate with you, ex­cept I join with you in those things we must Worship God in another place with those that will not so impose upon us, and yet we will love as Christians still — here's no breach of Charity on our side, and if so no Schism; for if the formal nature of Schism be breach of Charity, as Mr. H. has proved, (and this Man cannot deny without giving the Lie to Scripture, as he has done) then Sepa­rate Communion may be without Schism, and the reason of the Consequence is, be­cause Separate Communion may be with­out breach of Charity — T. W. says it cannot, for it is naturally and infallibly the cause of the hottest and fiercest Con­tentions, and highest breach of Chari­ty. That is to say T. W. finds he must necessarily hate and revile us, and after the fiercest manner contend with us, be­cause we pray without a stinted Form, and he prays with one — because we take no more notice of the Altar than of the Pulpit, whilst he bows towards it — because our Ministers preach in Cloaks, and his in a Surplice — And if it be so natural and necessary for him, to run out into the highest breaches [Page 69]of Charity against us upon this account we cannot help it, but heartily pity him; but if he'll search to the bottom, he may find that his unruly passions, and rampant pride are the natural and infallible causes of such Contentions — and these distinct Modes of Worship are but the occasions, or perhaps but the pretences thereof. We know very well there are a great many of the Confor­mists, that we love and honour, and can live very peaceably and quietly with them, and have very intimate converse together, and they have the like respect for us, notwithstanding those different practices which he calls Separate Commu­nion, they earnestly desire the Ceremo­nies in Debate might be laid aside, be­cause the Papists have not only spit up­on them, as the Bishop of Salisbury speaks, but have made them Tools of Discord and Mischief — and if all the Members of the late Convocation had been like some few — we should have hop'd the Bone of Contention would have been removed, and I know not what such Men as T. W. would then have done for a Cloak to cover their Malice — but though that Assembly fail'd the expecta­tion [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70]of the King and Countrey — yet we are not without hopes it will come to that at last; however in the mean time we are very desirous to be peace­able, and glad we can be so— and if these men are resolved they'l have no Charity, for any but their own Party, let them wipe off the guilt of Schism as well as they can.

We now come to his citations out of Calvin, that we ought not to sepa­rate from a Church upon the account of many blemishes, and we say so too; but if those blemishes and corruptions be made Terms of Communion, and we must testifie our approbation of them, it will greatly alter the case; we know there are blemishes in the purest Socie­ties — but when we must be obliged to admire and praise these Deformities we shall desire to be excused, and that's our Case.

The Three Letters of Le Moyne, L' Angle and Claude have been already re­flected upon by some of the Answerers of Dr. Stillingfleet — it appears by ma­ny passages therein, that they have been [Page 71]very much misinformed concerning our Practice, and the Grounds thereof; as if we thought none in Communion with the Church of England could be saved; that we are the only Men in the Nation that are predestinated to Salvation — and such like things for which we are greatly ob­liged to those that have thus represented us — but those that would be further satisfied in the disingenuity of some Men towards us, and what Arts they have used to procure the Suffrage of Forreign Di­vines against us, may read the three last pages of Mr. Rules Rational Account, to which I could add something my self were it not an invidious piece of work.

When Mr. H. used these words, Whe­ther they be Episcopal, Presbyterian, In­dependant, or by what Name or Title soever they be self-dignified or distinguish­ed: T. W. charges him with Malice a­gainst the Clergy, as if he meant them only — whence so gross a mistake should happen, I know not, unless it be from the same cause that makes every thing look yellow to some that have been afflicted with predominancy of Choller, it's plain Mr. H's design was to censure the vani­ty [Page 72]of assuming to our selves the Title of a Party, or valuing our selves upon it, which certainly has done much mischief: But this must needs reflect upon the Archbishops and Bishops, which he says are Orders Instituted by the Apostles in the Church of God, and from them con­tinued to this present Age without Inter­ruption — and for this he refers us to 1 Cor. 12.28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apo­stles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers helpsOut of some little cunning design no doubt. — Governments [...], though he puts it helps in Go­vernment — but where's the Archbishop and Diocesan Bishop — he says God has set them up, but we cannot tell where; all that he says concerning Mr. H's de­spising and speaking evil of Dignities pro­ceeds from nothing but the Spleen — We reverence the Bishops as they are vested by our Laws with a Civil Power circa Sacra, and as many of them are Men of great Learning and Worth, but cannot allow them to be our Governours by a Divine appointment till we see it better prov'd.

Sir, That Act of Parliament by which we enjoy our present Liberty, and which is your intolerable grievance — does not carry the Title of Indulgence, as you affirm — it has in it the very words permitted and allowed, which you ought not to have been ignorant of, and had you taken as much delight in conversing with this Act, as those by which we have been so unkindly oppressed, you would not have needed to have been told this: It's true this Act does not Authorize our Churches, nor Annex the Benefices to them — but as we need not the former, for we derive our Authority higher — so we are not at all discontented for want of the latter — you tell us it is given us for the hardness of our Hearts, we might here very well retort and say it was rather given for the hardness of your Hearts — who turn'd the Edge of Laws made chiefly against Papists, to de­stroy your Fellow Protestants, which was declared by one of the best of English Parliaments to be greatly serviceable to the Popish Interest, and the ready way to bring ruin upon Protestants, and a Bill brought in for the Uniting of us — how that Parliament was represented by [Page 74]such Men as these, and what thanks they had for running those great hazards for their Countreys preservation is sufficiently known.

The Story he brings of Barrow, Pen­ry, and Burchet, signifies nothing, but the Malice of the Relator; the two former who were Brownists flew so high, as with this Man, to unchurch and condemn all besides their own Party, which is indeed a very ill Principle, and none ever more guilty of it than T. W. Burchet was Hang'd for Killing his Keeper; would it not be thought a very ill thing for us, to charge upon the whole Episcopal Par­ty, the Odium and Guilt of all the Rogues and Felons that have died at Tyburn in their Communion? We chal­lenge this Man, or any of his Abettors, to shew any one Principle of ours, that has the least Aspect towards Treason, or any practices of that kind we have been guilty of, though under the greatest provocations— We vindicate not the Extravagancies of the Brownists, nor will the sober Men of his own Party vindi­cate the severe handling of Udal — Barrow, &c. as Dr. Fuller himself testifies; [Page 75]That Great Princess had something of the [...]re in her, and there wanted not Prela­ [...]ck Breath to blow the Spark into a flame.

Mr. Baxter's Censure of a Universal Toleration, which he would twit us with; agrees with the sence of every wise and good Man in England; but surely there's a great deal of difference betwixt tolerating all, how Erroneous soever their Tenets may be, and giving ease, to such, as only differ from you in Ceremonies, which your selves confess might well be spared; if this Man knows no Medium betwixt tolerating the grossest Heresies, and Blasphemous Opinions, and tying all Men up to the very same Puncti­lio with our selves, he shall never be a Privy Councillor.

He falls very foul on Mr. H. for say­ing the Unthinking Mobile are so well taught as to know no other Churches but the publick places of Worship, are easily induc'd to believe we leave the Church: This he says is highly reproach­ful, as if the Pastors of the Church se­duc'd the people to believe that which [Page 76]is false— Mr. H. does not charge them with having seduced them to be­lieve what is false, but they are indeed very many of them justly chargeable with not having sufficiently taught them what is true — for our most common Experience assures us, that there is amongst you a Debauched Ignorant Rabble, that Rant and Swear against our Hearers up­on this very account, and never offer at any other reason, but that they leave the Church — for you to deny that there are such a Crew, is to trample upon our Sences, and perswade us we can neither hear nor see. How many of the Privy Council, Judges and Magistrates believe us to be Schismaticks we know not, but we do not think any of them grounds the charge meerly upon our leav­ing the Churches, which was all Mr. H. spoke of here — when you have prov­ed that the presence of God is as much confined to your Churches as it was to Jerusalem, your instance may be worth something — but when our Sa­viour tells us, that Distinction was to be immediately laid aside, 'twas very imper­tinent to urge it now —

I do not know whether Mr. Dodwel may have hired you to cry his Books; but he knows very well where to find his Answer, though you do not. Mr. Bax­ter has saved us that Labour, in more Treatises than one.

He complains we rob their Parish Churches; I suppose these men look up­on all within the parochial Precincts to be their own Goods and Chattels; but this cannot be pretended to be by Divine right, and therefore the Transgression thereof cannot be the true Nature of Schism; whilst men have Preachers thrust upon them without their Election or Consent, (which is perfectly contrary to Primitive Custom) no wonder if they leave them and go to others they are better satisfied in.

Mr. H. very candidly endeavours to extenuate the difference betwixt Prote­stants — who all believe the same Christi­an Faith, and joyn in the same abhor­rence of Papal Delusions; to which the man replies, by this a man may be an Arrian, a Socinian, or Atheist, and yet free from Schism— what! do these believe [Page 78]the same Christian Faith with us — I could almost blush for this mans gross disingenuity.

He's now become such a perfect Hu­mourist he cannot forbear Quarreling with us for not reading the Prayers made for the Wednesday Fast, and asks us what account we can give to God and the Government for such Omission.

Sir, You may know if you please, that the Kings command to read those Prayers does not extend to us, we are not mentioned nor designed therein; and where there's no Law, there's no Trans­gression; We have reason to think the Government does not in the least questi­on but that we are as hearty in our Prayers on this occasion, as T. W. who was somewhat with the latest in testify­ing his Allegiance thereunto.

'Tis a gross Calumny that we impute our Prayers to the immediate Dictates of the Spirit of God— much less the Levities and Impertinencies of them — we do believe there is a gift of Prayer that is to be attained by the use of or­dinary [Page 79]means, and nevertheless is from God, who is the Fountain of every good and perfect Gift— and this is ful­ly and excellently vindicated by that truly Pious and Worthy Bishop Dr. Wil­kins— The words you put in the Mar­gin as charged upon Mr. H. are very false, as many Persons of as untainted Reputation as your self can testifie. You might have spared your Commendation of the Liturgy, we grant there are ma­ny good Petitions therein, but we know no reason to limit our selves unto it, as if a man without the Gift of Miracles could not speak Sence in a Prayer, but by a prescribed form of words; but it were Presumption to attempt it when Miracles are ceased, as our great Adver­saries to conceited Prayers pretend; which (by the way) is little less than Lam­poon upon the common sence of English men.

I have now waited upon the Citizen through all those Passages of his Book, which even he himself can think mate­rial; and upon the whole I make little question, but every sober unprejudiced Reader will joyn with me in these Re­flections.

I. That Mr. M. H. has given us the true Scriptural Notion of Schism; that is [An uncharitable Alienation of Affection amongst professed Christians, occasioned by their different Apprehensions about little things.] This was the very thing which St. Paul reproves as Schism in the Corinthians, and no doubt he knew very well what he said, and was acted by too good a Spirit, to become a false Accuser of the Brethren. To this T. W. has given no manner of Answer— but instead of that, peremptorily asserts that the formal Nature of Schism is diversity of Communion, which both contradicts Scripture, and leaves the matter still in Confusion and Darkness; for since where­ever there is a diversity— there must be two parties diverse, this definition may make both or either of them Schismati­cal— but does not determine, which, till all the Circumstances of the case be con­sidered— which makes it evident that the form of Schism lyes not in the di­stinction of Communion it self, but in the true Causes of it: which upon due search will be found to be one of these two, either Uncharitableness or Unwilling mistake; to lay so dreadful a charge as [Page 81]this of Schism is accounted upon an in­voluntary mistake seems very hard, and not agreeable with the Nature of the Gospel that makes so large allowances for this kind of weakness; and has com­manded us all to do so: It must therefore necessarily fall upon the former, which having more of the perverseness of the Will in it, and being much more con­trary to the Nature of Christianity, and to the Unity of the Spirit, appears by all marks to be the real Criminal after which the Hue and Cry was sent.

II. That the design of Mr. H's Books appears to be honest and peaceable; it is no way calculated to serve a Party or Interest, but to promote Catholick Love and Concord amongst Christians, this is the professed end, and natural tendency of his Hypothesis, which has so favour­able an Aspect upon all sorts of Christi­ans, that every honest Man must necessa­rily wish it were true, and be glad to see it well made out; for he's no Chri­stian that can take pleasure in thinking all Parties besides his own are out of the Catholick Church, and Road to Salvati­on; or that can be sorry to find that [Page 82]the Catholick Church comprehends a great many more than he formerly thought it did.

It has been an unhappy Error, and which too many on both sides have en­tertained, That either the whole party of Dissenters must be Schismaticks, or the whole Body of Conformists must be so. This mistake has animated even sober Men to charge each other with Schism in their own defence, thinking they had no way to clear themselves but by accusing the other; and I am perswaded this is one way by which some Men keep up pre­judices in the minds of many worthy moderate Gentlemen against our Congre­gations, as if coming to hear amongst us, must necessarily argue the Parochial Congregations Schismatical — and on the other hand some strait-laced Dissenters, think if they should at any time occa­sionally hear in a publick Congregati­on; they presently thereby condemn their own, which are great mistakes, as plain­ly appears by Mr. H's Arguing — for Schism is a personal fault, and cannot be charged upon a whole Party, unless every Person therein discover that Un­charitable [Page 83]Alienation of Affection from others which the Scripture calls Schism.

Indeed it will be very difficult to ac­quit those Persons from the guilt of Schism, that were the promoters of those Impositions, from whence our Divisions proceed; for since they themselves ac­knowledge the questioned terms of Com­munion to be unnecessary — the insist­ing so obstinately upon them, cannot in reason be thought to proceed from any other Spring but that of Uncharita­bleness, and the more pernicious, they Judge our Dissenting to be, the more Uncharitable they, that would rather we should turn Schismaticks and be Damned, than a few Ceremonies should be laid aside, which they will own might be omitted, without hazarding the loss of one Soul. But as for the Passive Con­formists, whose part has been only to comply with these Impositions, and have not justified or abetted either the making of them, or the violent prosecution of Pe­nal Laws upon them; (and several such we know there are) these are no way chargeable with Schismatical Practices; on the other hand those fierce Dissenters [Page 84]cannot be cleared from Schism, that un­charitably condemn all Conformists in the lump, and look upon none of their Congregations as true Churches — if any to excuse them say this censure of theirs may proceed from a mistake, we answer 'tis such a mistake as is occasion­ed by their animosity and prejudice, which will not give them leave to Weigh the thing impartially, and there­fore is Schismatical; for want of Cha­rity is at the bottom, and distorts their Judgments to pass so severe a sentence.

By this it appears that Mr. H's Book was writ with a Catholick Spirit and De­sgn, because it favours neither side — but censures — or justifies Persons of both sides, according to their Charitable or Uncharitable Tempers and Actions.

III. That T. W's Hypothesis and No­tions of Schism are very Erroneous and confus'd — I confess 'tis pretty difficult to gather his meaning in this case, and I have reason to think he does not him­self understand it; he looks upon Schism to be the reverse to Unity, which right­ly understood is very true; but then he [Page 85]gives us so many and variant descripti­ons of this Unity, some too large, and others too narrow, that no Man knows where to have him — He never distin­guishes of Unity in Essentials, Integrals, and Accidentals — betwixt Internal and External Unity, betwixt the Unity of the Universal Church — of a National Church, of a Diocesan Church, and of a Particular Church; but having got hold of a Word like a Man in a delirium, runs away with it, till he has lost him­self and his Readers too; I have with all possible seriousness often considered, upon what Foot these Men will fix their charge of Schism they so confidently ad­vance against us, and by what I can ga­ther from their Writings it must be upon some of these.

1. Our withdrawing our selves from the Government of the Bishops — with­out paying Suit and Service to their Ec­clesiastical Courts — but till it be prov­ed from Scripture, that they have the pretended Jurisdiction over us, this can­not be Schism. In Commission'd Offi­ces, Extent of Power changes the Species, and if it do not so — we may have one [Page 86]Bishop in a Nation, nay one over all the World.

2. Our want of true Ministers with Episcopal Ordination — but this like­wise depends upon the proof of the for­mer; if Pastors of single Congregations be Bishops in Scripture sence, then is our Ordination valid and regular too. I men­tion not the pretended Line of an un­interrupted Succession, because that has been sufficiently discussed before; and in­deed the sober part of Conformists look upon it as an idle Whimsey, and will by no means so far destroy the certain­ty of their own Ordination and Mini­stry as to put it upon that Issue.

3. Our Omission of the appointed Rites and Ceremonies; but till it be proved that these are requisite to Church-Uni­ty — or that the Convocation that ap­pointed them had any power over us Jure Divino to require our Submission, we cannot be guilty of Schism by the Omission of them — the Canons of our English Convocations pretend to no power, till Confirmed by Act of Parliament, and 'tis not the breach of a Civil Law [Page 87]that makes us formally Schismaticks, for then could there have been no such thing as Schism in the Primitive Chur­ches, where the Civil Authority was wanting; not to mention that the Ci­vil Power has left us now to our Li­berty.

4. Our Transgression of Parish-Bounds; but this cannot be formally Schism, for such Districts, are but prudential things and are Dispensed with by themselves in many cases, as by going to hear in other Parishes, which is frequently done in all parts of England without any such censure — also by setting up Chappels within Parochial Precincts, whereby Con­gregations are gathered out of many Pa­rishes, and this if not allowed, is very generally practised and connived at; for my part I think in ordinary cases it is most regular and convenient that there should be such Bounds fixt and obser­ved; but this being but prudential, will not bind in extraordinary cases; as for instance, where the Parishes are so vast­ly great, that not a Tenth part of the Parishioners can have room in the Pa­rish Church. Where the Minister is no­toriously [Page 88]and intolerably scandalous or ig­norant; for though in doubtful cases, it is fit this should be left to the deci­sion of the Ministry — yet there may happen some cases so plain and evident as to decide themselves. Likewise where approved Pastors are violently and inju­riously thrust out, and others imposed contrary to our consent, by those that had no power so to do — Also where we cannot partake of all Ordinances without complying, with sinful Terms, this will not only warrant but necessi­tate our joining elsewhere — In all these cases we are not bound by the prudential order of Parish Bounds, and before they can prove us culpable, they must demonstrate that none of these cases are ours; and yet after all, if they should do so, since this is but a matter of Order, and not of Essen­tial Unity — they could but convict us of an Irregularity, not that Damn­ing Schism these Men speak of.

But we cannot but admire to hear some Learned Men descend so much below themselves as they do, when they say our Meetings are Schismatical, for [Page 89]we have no true Ministers; and why so: Why, Because we have only Pres­byterian Ordination; And when we urge that this Unchurches the Reformed Chur­ches beyond Sea, they answer, No, though Presbyterian Ordination may be valid amongst them — yet it is not so with us, because our Ministers are Ordained in a Schism — thus the Inva­lidity of our Ordination must prove the Schism, and in requital of its Kindness, the Schism must prove our Ordination invalid, and so we are got into the Cir­cle, and by treading such rounds, con­tract that giddiness which makes us fall foul upon one another.

My last Reflection is, That as T.W's Hypothesis is false and confused, so the Temper, Management, and Design of his Book appears to be equally vicious — this is too evident in not reciting whole passages, but leaving out what was necessary to compleat the ARgument — his notorious perverting the plain sence of Mr. H's words — invidious insi­nuations, scurrilous reflections, and down­right falshoods, which you find taken notice of in this Reply. And as I am [Page 90]assured a great many sober Church-Men have observed, and resented such unfair dealing in his Book; so I believe none of them will blame me if I have treated him a little more roughly than a Man of his consistency can well bear; If our Brethren of that Perswasion will either suffer us to live easily amongst them; or take such Methods for our Conviction as are proper to work up­on Rational Creatures we will thank them, and shall endeavour not to be behind hand with them in Civilities — but if they be resolved to turn loose upon us Men of Brutal Lusts and Lives, that will venture to fly at any thing; and if we must be Hated, Anathema­tized, and (when the time comes) Per­secuted, because we are not Converted by such Men and Books as these, there is no remedy; we leave our Cause with a Righteous God, and all the sober part of Mankind.

We come now to the Conclusion, wherein T. W. with all Meekness and Christian Charity [i. e. with all he has] would perswade Mr. H. he is in a desperate Condition, has no Title to [Page 91]the Promises, nor any place in the Ca­tholick Church; It is lamentable to think what depraved Apprehensions, these Men have of God and Religion, and Hea­ven, that would exclude all from thence that differ from them in a Thread, or a Shoe-latchet: The great Design of our Redeemer was to rescue Men from the Slavery of Sensual and Sinful Affections, and bring them into a state of Obedi­ence, and Conformity to God; to teach them to deny Ungodliness and Fleshly Lusts, and to Live So­berly, and Righteously, and Godly in this evil World;Tit. 2.12, 13. and those that do so may comfortably look for the Blessed Hope and Glorious Ap­pearance of our Lord and Saviour: They have a Right to all Church Priviledges here, and to Heaven after all — but we have a sort of Men amongst us that threaten all with Damnation that are not of their length in every thing — as if when they can torment us no longer upon Earth, the Eternal God would quit his own fixed Rules of Rewarding and Punishing Men according to their real Holiness or Iniquity, and become the Exe­cutioner of those unjust and furious Sen­tences [Page 92]they have here denounced against us; but we thank God, Christ has the Keys of Hell and of Death, and will not open and shut at their command: And though an immoderate Zeal for a few Ceremonies, serves some Men at pre­sent for a Sanctuary, whither they retreat when pursued by an accusing Conscience, yet a little time will convince us all, that without Holiness no Man shall see God — and since that time is at hand, 'tis fit in these lesser things we should let our Moderation be known unto all Men.