A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H's NEW NOTION OF SCHISM, AND THE Vindication OF IT.  

IMPRIMATUR,  
March 10. 1691/ 2. Guil. Lancaster R. P. D. Henrico Epo. Londin. à Sacris Domest.   
LONDON, Printed for E. Mory at the Bible in St. Paul's Church yard. 1692.   

A Review of Mr. M. H's New Notion of Schism, and the Vindication of it.  
THE Vindicator gins with a Complaint of the unhappy Flames which have been kindled amongst us about matters of Church Government, and Worship. And tells us further, 
Vindic. p. 1:  That he must be as great an Enemy, that would not contribute his utmost to the extinguishing of them. And so far I confess we agree with him; but whether Mr. H. and his Vindicator be the sole Extinguisher, is a Question that may deserve some further debate. More has been said to the former already, than he is at leisure to answer; and therefore I shall only add one thing at present, viz. That those who have learned out the first occasion of Mr. H's Book, tell me, That it was to satisfy the Scruples of some particular persons, whom his Followers would have alured and drawn into his Conventicle. It was not to reconcile the differences amongst so many learned Men as are engaged in this Controversy. Neither was it to inform the world concerning that mighty secret, the true cause of our Animosities, viz. That all other wars and fightings proceed from our lusts, that war in our minds. 
Ib. p. 3.  St. James was ware of that, long before Mr. H. And as for his New Notion of Schism, [the breach of Love] it was calculated for the Ladies, and the great design of his Book was to make two Female Proselytes. Mr. H's Attempt was indeed modest, because this was all he aimed at, but this Vindicator abuses him, by ascribing too much to him. To place him in the Chair of Controversy, and make him the determining Oracle over those two learned Partles, the Churchmen and Dissenters, is enough to make any Man's head giddy, if he be not extremely confident; and is so plain an Abuse upon Mr. M. H. as must needs put him (if he be not very stupid) quite out of countenance. Especially if he does but remember what little success his Book had with those for whose sake it was written. For if it were not able to unsettle the minds of one or two of the weaker Sex, surely he cannot expect it to control the sentiments of wise and learned Men. And therefore it was an Abuse upon Mr. H. and an high piece of Arrogance in the Vindicator, to make so many his Pupils: as if all the Conformists and Nonconformists understood nothing at all either of the Duty of Charity, or the Cause of Animosities, or the Nature of Schism, till Mr. H. first informed them, and shown 'em their mistake.  
The Churchmen are absolutely condemned (if this Gentleman be Judge) for imposing unnecessary suspected terms of Communion mere Trifles, 
Vindic. p. 1. & 2.  under fevere Penalties; Fines, Imprisonments, Exile, etc. And certainly they were extremely to blame, if all this were done▪ and no body reclaimed; as it seems his experience has sufficiently convinced him: 
P. 2.  But other men's experience makes 'em of a contrary Opinion, who, notwithstanding all the constancy which this Man boasts of, found the Dissenters generally so good natured and flexible, that during the little time the Laws were executed, a dangerous Faction was broken, and more done towards bringing English Protestant's to Uniformity, than ten thousand such little blue Books as these of Mr. H. and his Vindicator will be able to effect. The good English Protestents, tho' a little fond of Novelty; yet when once the Teachers were suppressed, whose interest it was to bellow against all Establishmets, soon came into the Church: and without any fear of those Mormos wherewith they had been formerly terrified, did readily and cheerfully join with us in full communion. And perhaps the Teachers themselves might have learned Uniformity by this time, through the execution of those penal Acts, as well as their Predecessors and Brethren did before 'em. For the Nonconformists are not such absolute despisers of the things of this world, as never to look about 'em for secular advantage, tho' not so much I hope as to debauch their Consciences, yet enough to open their Eyes. And therefore when they saw themselves deprived of those goodly Tythe-Barns which had so plentifully fed them; and that the Government was firmly settled which turned them out; and withal knew they should have spoiled one another, if they had all Conventicled: they thought it high time to make further Inquiry into the terms of our Communion; and finding them at last to be much better than they imagined, many of the ablest and best thought fit to comply. 
Ib. p. 2.  More I am sure they were than either five or six; and therefore he needs not upbraid us with that number being departed from us: it being no wonder if five or six Clergymen in all England should be so ill preferred, and so little deserving; as to find it their interest to go over to the Conventicles, upon the opening of a Toleration, where less Learning will serve; and they will be much better paid, and thought of, than we could find them worthy.  

Ib.  Nor are the Penal Laws any more the Support of our Trifles, than the Penal Ordinances formerly were of theirs, (I mean, the Directory▪) witness that 23d of August, 1645. That if any Person or Persons whatsoever, shall at any time, or times hereafter, use, or cause the aforesaid Book of Common-Prayer to be used in any Church, or Chapel, or public Place of Worship; or in any private Place, or Family, within the Kingdom of England, or Dominion of Wales, or Port and Town of Berwick▪ every such Person so offending therein, shall for the first Offence, pay the Sum of Five Pounds lawful English Money; for the second Offence, Ten Pounds; and for the third, shall suffer One whole Years Imprisonment, without Bail or Mainprize. More of this kind may be seen in that Ordinance, but from this it is evident, 1. That our Ceremoni●…s did not fall into such Contempt, as the Vindicator supposes, p. 2. when the Enforcements were taken away, that being done by a former Ordinance, Jan. 3d. 1644. for if they had, there had been no occasion for these severe Penalties. 2. That Enforcements were necessary to support the Directory. And lastly, That they were necessary to preserve it from Contempt, for thus it was ordained, Aug. 23d 1645. That what Person soever shall with intent to bring the said Directory into contempt or neglect, or to raise opposition against it, preach, writ, print, or cause to be written, or printed, any thing in the derogation, or depraving of the said Book, or any thing therein contained, or any part thereof, shall lose and forfeit for every such Offence, such a Sum of Money, as shall at the time of his Conviction be thought fit to be imposed upon him, by those before whom he shall have his Trial: provided it be not less than Five Pounds, nor exceeding the Sum of Fifty Pounds. In this Act they have an Eye to those that might preach it into Contempt. So that it was not of such value in the Eyes of their own Ministers, but several of those who were at that time in possession of the Pulpits might possibly fall away, and preach against it. And as for the Service of the Church, Men were so far from totally neglecting it, that after Ten Years suspension of the Penal Laws, they found it necessary to discourage it. He that used the Book of Common-Prayer was to be adjudged scandalous, ejected out of his Living, and expelled the whole Parish, for fear lest he should make an Interest against the new Modes. So that here it seems Fines, Imprisonments, and Exile, were found as necessary to support the Presbyterian and Independent Worship, as the Church-Liturgy; and People were then as true to the latter, as either Mr. H. or his Vindicator can be to the former.  
But why are Penal Laws only the Props of controverted Ceremonies? 
Vind. p. 2.  The Papists, as well as other Dissenters, were obnoxious to the same Laws, as this Gentleman may well remember, since they joined their Interest and Malice to have them repealed; and yet, I hope, he will not say that the Papists were ever punished for not complying with Ceremonies: nor can it be reasonably affirmed concerning their Fellow-Sufferers, unless frequenting the Church, and receiving the Sacraments, disturbing Ministers, and holding Conventicles, Things which the Penal Laws do principally regard, are no more but Ceremonies: i e. in the language of this modest Gentleman, all Trifles, pag. 2. and Religious Impertinencies, pag. 13.  
I shall not trouble myself with giving further Reasons for the execution of those Laws, nor to show him that Religion has been preserved by such under most Christian Emperors; for having shown it to be the practice of their own R. Parliament, and Oliver, I suppose it is instar omnium; and will go farther with this Vindicator to make it authentic, than all the examples from Constantine to our own Age.  
It will be more proper for us to inquire into Mr. H's peaceable design, and how he has managed the Weapon (viz. the Notion of Schism) which he lately wrested out of the Gladiator's hand, Vind. p. 4. it being certainly a matter of no small importance; for if his account be so clear as this Gent. makes it, all Church Discipline is out of doors; their own as well as ours: and a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance, to the Quakers Meetinghouse, without any guilt, if breach of Communion be no Schism, as these Gent. allege: But if his account be not clear, or his Notion defective, or a false signification imposed upon the word Schism, than he has acquitted no body: the sober, moderate, and peaceable, must come to Church still; and only the worst sort of Bigotts remain in the Conventicle. The management of this business being therefore of such grand importance, upon both accounts, let us see how the little Champion has wielded his weapon.  
We have some reason in the first place to question the peaceableness of his design: for the Notion itself being contrived to encourage, and justify Separation; I am afraid the last result, and consequence of it, will not be Peace. Suppose a Man should introduce the same Doctrine into the State, and tell People that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies; That they need not own the present Government, nor submit to King William's Laws; they may govern themselves by a distinct Polity of their own; they may be for King James, or a Commonwealth, according to their several apprehensions: The Nature and Rights of Government are things dark, and obscure; and withal so trivial, and light, that it is not material what Form of Government, or Person prevails: so that diversity of Opinion, Judgement, or Apprehension, cannot be called, or looked upon, in itself, a thing criminal, Mr. H's Enqu. p. 7. provided they still preserve Charity. King William will never be so cruel as to hang 'em, only because their heads are not exactly of his size, ib. p. 19 I fancy those who are at the helm would scarce be persuaded that his designs were peaceable, tho' he should second this Discourse with the most earnest persuasions to Charity. And if Mr. H. or any body else, should attempt to debauch 'em with such anarchical Principles, he would be reckoned a mover of Sedition, rather than a healer of Breaches; and perhaps meet with such a Confutation, as the best Vindicator he has would not know what to say to. And his attempt is not much better with relation to the Church; it being not easy to conceive, how he that sets People at liberty to divide and break into Parties, (as Mr. H. does,) can be a promoter of Peace: for if it be lawful for People to separate, and break into Parties, there will be no longer any Union, than while their Interests, and perhaps their Humours, as well as their Principles, oblige them to it. When the several Religious Interests once come to interfere, the Parties themselves will fall out; and while they are striving for the mastery, not only ruin the Ecclesiastical, but likewise endanger the Civil Peace.  
Of this we had sufficient experience in the former Confusions, when the moderate, as well as the fierce, were engaged in the Cause, and every Man lent a Coal to inflame the Controversy. The moderate and peaceable Presbyterian, one that had obtained that character among all that knew him, could nevertheless tell the world in his Epistle, That Churches were not to be owned, after the independent m●…de: for it would lay the foundation of strife and division in the Kingdom, to have two ways of Church-Government, which may agree with some Machiavilian, but no Christian Policy, etc. And the Parliament was applauded by another moderate Gent. Because they endeavoured to fence the Vineyard with a settled Militia, and then to gather out the Malignants as Stones, 
Cotton upon the first of the Canticles.  and to make a Winepress therein for the squeezing of Delinquents. And the mild Independent is the very same, when he comes to be uppermost. Good Kings ought to put upon their People Laws, and straight binding to the Purity of Religion, and the Worship of God. It is not an Impeachment to their Christian Liberty, (as the Anabaptists do vainly talk) but an Ornament to their Beauty, making their Necks comely, as with a Chain of Gold. They were not only to chide the Money-changers, but to whip them away, and overthrow the very Tables, lest they should recover their Trade again. Dagon is begun to fall before the Ark, his Head is off, 
Mr. Bridge.  but let not so much as the stump remain. And if the like disorders should happen again, I am very much afraid lest these two charitable Gentlemen, Mr. H. and his Vindicator, would become as great Incendiaries, as any of the former. (Mr. H. already is not without grains of malice, too often sprinkled among his Charity:) And as for the Vindicator he is all o'er spite, and from the beginning of his Book throughout, by his false and malicious Suggestions, he breaks the Laws of Charity, and shows himself a Schismatic, according to his own Notion. Nay, at last, when he draws towards a Conclusion, lest his Readers should not have noted his many spiteful Reflections, he takes care to put them in mind, with a great deal of boasting Insolence, how roughly, i. e. how maliciously he has treated T. W. p. 90. From such Men who are so uncharitable, even while they pretend the contrary, and such Notions which introduce Anarchy, Confusion, and Licentiousness, little Peace is to be expected, whatever is designed. We know it is too much the custom of Politicians, to cry Peace, Peace, even when they mean nothing less: and every Man that has but the sense of the Kid in the Fable, will easily perceive in the present Case, that altho' it may be the voice of the Goat which we hear, yet it is really the Wolf that stands at the door.  
Nor is Mr. H. more unfortunate in his Methods of peace, than he is in the description of Schism. It is certainly the latest that has been coined, and perhaps the wildest that ever any man fathered upon the Scriptures, or offered to set up in contradiction to the received opinion of Sixteen hundred years.  
He tells us p. 15. that Schism is an uncharitable distance, division, or alienation of affections, among those who are called Christians; and agree in the fundamentals of Religion, occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things. From which description of Schism (if I understand it right) these following particulars may be regularly drawn. First of all, That he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church, may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian. For Mr. H. tells us that Schism is among those who are called Christians. Secondly, Tha●… Heretics in fundamentals are no Schismatics, for Mr. H. supposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the fundamentals of Religion. So that the grossest Heretics are excused from Schism, which falls heaviest upon those who differ about the smallest things, which is all one as if he should have said, the less the fault, is the greater the crime. For instance, If people divi●…e from the Church because they will not own the divinity of our Saviour, or the doctrine of the Trinity; these people are no Schismatics, because they differ in fundamentals▪ but if two Gentlewomen of his own Congregation should happen to fall out, and carry at a distance because they could not agree about the upper end of a Seat in Mr. H's Meetinghouse, this would be the horrid crime of Schism, the Arch rebel against God, according to every branch of the aforesaid description. Thirdly, Another inference to be made from it is, that alienation of affections is Schism, but a division, and alienation of Communion, is not. And consequently not one can charge another with Schism, except he be able to look into his heart; It being impossible to know according to this description, that people are really Schismatics, if they profess themselves to be in charity, except we could make enquiry into the secrets of their hearts, and discover every thing transacted there. And on the contrary, people may be the greatest Schismatics under the outward professions of Charity, and yet no body can accuse them with that fault. If these propositions be duly inferred from Mr. H's description, I believe he will not find many that will join with the Vindicator in his commendation of it.  
And as for the clearness he talks of, there are so many ambiguities still remaining, as perhaps may trouble another inquirer to explain to us. As 1st, Whether the uncharitable distance must really be among those who are Christians, or them that are none? for people many times call things by wrong names. Secondly, What he means by fundamentals of Religion? Whether, salutis, or theologicae veritatis? Whether those that are so to every man in his private capacity? Or those which are the fundamentals of Church Communion? Thirdly, What he means by little things? Whether division of affection about all manner of little things be Schism? Or only about Ecclesiastical little things, the trifles and Religious impertinencies which the Vindicator so frequently despises? The clearing of these particulars had been of no small importance in this controversy, and therefore if the describer had been pleased to have explained them to us, his notion might have been abundantly clearer than it is.  
But perhaps the Vindicator does not take this description for the clear account; and that may be the reason why he minces and altars it himself, p. 80. Whether for the better or the worse I shall not say. Perhaps the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ does the business; and the import of those words is the only thing of which he has given us a clear account. Vind. p. 4. Let us therefore take a review of that enquiry; and see whether there be any just occasion for such mighty boasting.  
Mr. H. tells us, p. 4. that there is but one Scripture in the old Testament, relating to this affair, viz. Numb. 11.26. When I observe that if this Text be nothing to the purpose, than there is none, and consequently either the Jewish Church was in no danger of Schism, at least wise not infested with it: Or else the inspired writings are seemingly defective; that have not one word relating to it. And furthermore it is to be noted that in this text there is no mention of any division or alienation of affections; and therefore unless it is to be found in some other place, (which, Mr. H. denies) there is not one old Testament Schismatic in the whole Bible. Or lastly, if there were any such guilt among them, it could not be of the same nature with that which Mr. H. determines to be the only Schism among Christians. But if all or most of these consequences be false, or absurd; they will give us some occasion to suspect the ingenuity, and truth of his first account.  
As to the instance he gives us about Eldad and Medad prophesying in the Camp; it is methinks extremely foreign to this controversy. They were to bear the weight of government with Moses under God, and to assure both Moses and the people of their Commission from Heaven, had the miraculous impulse of prophecy before the Congregation, as a full and certain evidence of their newly received authority. This prophesying was intended for a sign, as appears v. 23, 24. and therefore how either the Enquirer or Vindicator can make it a repraesentutive of their preach, I cannot imagine. These 
* Theodoretus ad quaestionem undenam evenirit Septuaginta statui ut praefecti sunt prophetasse postea vero minime (juxta Graecam scilicet versionem) respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— hoc autem seu Gubernationis judican●…ique munere inquit Theod. ornati sunt Septuag. illi & ut constaret populo divinum munus illos & consecutos quaedam statim praedix●…runt. Quod quidem receptior. Magistrorum sensui per quam consonum. Selden. de Synod. l. 2. c. 4.  Prophets were inspired to be the Rulers of the Nation, which I hope these Gentlemen will not as yet pretend to. They were all acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the case of our Nonconformists. If the Spirit should so rest upon them, that they could not forbear preaching; he were abundantly worse than Joshua that should complain to my Lord Moses, though it were in the Camp, or the stable. Eldad and Medad were two of the Seventy designed for government, (I wish these Gentlemen could afford as good a proof of their Authority to preach.  
They were left behind in the 
† Duo remanent Eld. & Medad non imperii negligentes sed humilitate submissi dum se honore arbitrantur indignos Hieron. Ep. ad Fabiol.  Camp, and there the Spirit rested upon them; which was a sufficient proof to Moses, that God had admitted them to the government, although absent from the Tabernacle: Especially considering that they were of them that were written, so that he might not exclude them. And therefore Mr. H. does impertinently allege in this case, 1 Cor. 14.32. That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the 
* Theod. quaerit. Eldad. & Medad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; ipseque respondet eos fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Prophets. Neither can he find that any of them scrupled, or refused, that Religious impertinence of coming to the Tabernacle; or to join with the rest in full communion, which had been the most eminent circumstance in the whole affair to his purpose. Nay lastly, the business was chief secular, and distinct from that which did more peculiarly belong to the Ecclesiastical body: and therefore there could be nothing in this case to illustrate the business of Schism.  
But why is this the only Text that occurs in the old Testament? Persons of far greater learning, and authority in the Church, have made use of several others; I hope you will say not impertinently when I give you their names. That of Aaron and Miriam has been thought by some not wholly unfit to illustrate the nature of Schism: they taking occasion from the infirmity of Moses, to lessen his authority, 
Ains. in loc.  and to raise their own; (as Mr. Ainsworth) intending no doubt to draw the people from him. And therefore their sin is called Emulation by Clemens Romanus, and by him applied to the latter Schism of the Corinthians, as Schism is usually the child and companion of Emulation, which made the Corinthians Schismatics, and their Leaders to break communion with, and to rebel against their lawful Presbyters, as Aaron and Miriam did against Moses, and the people of Israel themselves are taught subjection to the Priests, and Levites; lest God should do to them as he did to Miriam, Deut. 24.8, 9 inflict the same punishment for the like fault. From which reasoning in St. Clemens, it is plain he reckoned Schism in the Church, to be like Sedition in the State, something more than barely a breach of Charity. 
Vid. oped. l. 7.  That of Jannes and Jambres, was urged by the Donatists your Predecessors against the Catholics, who did not disown the way of arguing, but only set the instances right by comparing Jannes and Jambres with the Donatiss, and the Church with Moses whom they withstood. And St. Paul did not think so slightly of this instance, when he alleged it in his 2d. Epistle to Timothy, against the Gnostic Schismatics; who led captive silly women laden with sins, 
Vid. Hammon●… in loc. Clem. Rom. p. 120. Optat. cont. Parm. l. 6. p. 167.  who did not only break charity, but resisted the truth, 2 Tim. 3.6, 7, 8. That of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, is thought fit to be used by St. Judas, v. 11. concerning the Gnostic Separatists, v. 9 By St. Clemens against the Corinthians. By Optatus against the Donatists, calling 'em their wretched Masters, the dividers of the people, the Masters of the first Schism, the Schismatics, viz. your Masters, etc. And yet to Mr. M. H. it does not occur. These instances and many more of the like sort produced by St. Clemens, and others, as that of Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his Brethren, Moses and the quarrelling Hebrew, etc. though not all of them designed to run upon all four, as the Vindicator speaks p. 40. Yet being alleged against Schismatics, are intended some to show the mischiefs of Emulation and faction, which are always the ingredients of Schism; Others more nearly to signify the pernicious nature and heinous guilt, of making parties, in opposition to lawful authority; or to contend with them that are truly our Superiors in the Church, and by this way of arguing we may learn, that according to the sentiments of those primitive worthies, Schismatics are guilty of Emulation, which must necessarily be betwixt divided parties, and Interests, and consequently where there is Schism there is likewise a breach of Communion. And secondly that it is in opposition to our Ecclesiastical Governors. This must necessarily be the Sense of those who use this way of reasoning▪ but neither of these things could be imputed to Eldad and Medad; and therefore their notion of Schism could not be the same with Mr. M. H's. and that is (I suppose) the reason why he neither makes use of their Instances, nor they of his.  
By his exception against those Texts, which obliged the Jews to worship, (as he says) only in one place, viz. at Jerusalem. 
Mod. Enq. p. 3.  And to offer only upon that Altar; a man will be apt to conclude him extremely ignorant in the Religion of the Jews, and the mystical reasonings upon which it was built. To say nothing as yet of our own, how far it has any relation to it. He supposes first of all, that the Jews were bound to worship at one place, viz at Jerusalem, and secondly, that this obligation is vacated by that Gospel rule which wills us to pray every where, Enq. p. 3. Which two things if they be true (as he supposes) than the Male Jews never prayed at all, but when they came to Jerusalem, 
Ibid.  viz. 3 times a Year, at the Feast of Unleavened bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles; which methinks is a very scandalous account of the Jewish devotion, but the whole assertion is false. The Jews had their Proseuchaes every where without the Cities, their Synagogues within, the Tabernacle was at Shiloh, there was an Altar at Mount Ebal; Samuel sacrificed at Mispeh, and in Zuph, in Gilgal, and in Bethlehem; Elijah at Mount Carmel. They had their daily Sacrifices of the Sabbaths, and of the new Moons. Nor is it easy to imagine that they should all go once a week from the most distant places to Jerusalem, unless they had very little business at home, or were extraordinary Travellers. They had their Proseuchaes and Synagogues for public worship, and their private devotions which might be said any where. All inferior Altars and places of worship were in communion with the supreme one; and the persons who did legally and regularly communicate at them, were likewise understood to partake thereby of that one Altar, and therefore if the Synagogues be certainly the patterns of our Christian Assemblies, 
Ibid.  pray Sir assign us an Altar with which we must hold communion, which will surely be that of the Bishop according to the sentiments of the primitive Church.  
Nor was the precept of offering only upon one Altar so purely ceremonial, but that it was founded upon very rational, though mystical principles; according to tne sense and interpretation of the Hellenistical Jews, the end of it was to distinguish the Segullah, or peculiar people; those that were in special Union, and Covenant with the Deity, from those that were not or had broken off from it.  
The principle and archetypal head of that Union was God himself, to whom none but the Segullah were united. The Segullah were united by Sacraments, which were the legal Symbols and Ratifications of that Union▪ the High Priest was the representative of the Archetypal head, so that none could be in Union with God, unless united to the High Priest: None united to the High Priest unless they did partake of that Altar where he offered, and those which were dependant upon it. And therefore the Sacraments belonging to Schismatical Altars, viz. that of Samaria and its dependants, erected in opposition to that of the true High Priest, did not unite them to God, neither consequently were the Worshippers at that Altar to be reckoned of the Segullah, or peculiar people; but rather as the Altar of Samariah was against the Altar of Jerusalem, so were the Samaritan worshippers against the true Israelites.  
Now the Christians I hope are as well united to the Father and the Son as ever the Jews were. They are as truly the Segullah, or peculiar people, and the ways of transacting that Union by the Evangelical Sacraments and Priesthood as certain. And therefore have been maintained by the Primitive Fathers and Mr. Dodwell, upon the same manner of reasonings which the Jews used. 
See his one Altar.   
And if this way of reasoning be good, there are two other Texts in the old Testament, which will help to discover the notion of Schism; one relating to that Altar of the Tribes beyond Jordan, Joshuah 22. the other to those of Jeroboam, 2 Kings 17.  
Nor is any thing in this foolish paragraph conclusive against these reasonings, which it was either designed to Answer, or else it is very impertinent. No man ever denied that Christians might pray every where, in any Kingdom, City, or place wheresoever they come, only we desire it may be remembered that the Jews had the same liberty. And if private Christians may pay their devotion to Almighty God any where, in the Church, in their Families, in their Closets, in the Fields, and any other place; they certainly have the liberty to pray every where: and yet this cannot vacate the obligation of holding communion with one Altar, for the Jews themselves had the very same liberty while they were under that obligation. If Christians have a liberty to build their Oratories, and Churches for the public service of Almighty God, wheresoever they please, without being excluded, or confined to any place; they may certainly fulfil the Gospel rule of praying every where, and yet this will be no prejudice to their holding Communion with the Bishop of the Diocese.  
For if Uniting ourselves to a Congregation in communion with the Bishop, be any violation of that Gospel rule; because they meet in a particular Church and the Bishop lives in a particular City; I cannot see how Mr. H. and his Vindicator, will acquit themselves from the same guilt, whose Congregations are confined to a particular house, or a particular stable. Their people must be with their Teacher where ever he assembles, ours with their Priest at the place of public worship: And if we are to be condemned for breaking this Gospel rule, I can see no reason why Mr. H. and his followers should plead not guilty.  
'Tis true we are not confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem, the obligation was taken away by the authority of our Saviour, Joh. 4.21. in his answer to the woman of Samaria. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father: Not that it was forbidden to worship at either of those places, in the times of the Gospel; but the true▪ Evangelical worship should not be confined to either, the Jewish dispensation was to be laid aside, and a more spiritual one introduced; the literal to be exchanged for the mystical Israel. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father, in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit, and in truth. v. 23, 24. That which under the Gospel was to answer the High Priesthood, should not be confined to one City, or one Mountain, and that which corresponded to the worship she then discoursed of, namely the sharing in the same Sacrifices, should be henceforth so spiritual, and free, that all people might partake and communicate in it, however distant their residences were, which they could not do before. This, as it is the genuine sense of our Saviour's discourse, so methinks these following observations may be drawn from it. 1st, That there is something under the Gospel, which does really correspond to that solemn worship at Jerusalem, for it being that only which the woman discoursed of to our Saviour; his answer must necessarily bear a relation to it. And therefore the worship at Jerusalem, and the spiritual worship, were a type, and antitype one of another. So that as all the Jews did communicate at one Altar, in the like manner Christians must partake in the same spiritual Sacrifices. 2dly, That as the design of those anniverssaries was to keep 'em in the same Communion; so that spiritual worship here spoken of is for the very same end. 3dly, That as the Priesthood and Altar were the principles of unity amongst them, so there is a mystical Priesthood and Altar, which do the same thing among us. 4thly, That as he who broke the communion with that Altar, was off from the Church of the Jews; So he who separates from ours is divided from the body of Christians. And 5thly, That as in one case they forfeited the Jewish privileges, so they do likewise the Christian in another. These two last observations were included in the discourse, as is plain from our Saviour's confining Salvation to the Jews: For the conclusion bearing a relation to all the premises, the true worshippers under the Gospel, are parallel with those under the Law. And therefore as Salvation was of the Jews, and belonged only to those who did worship at Jerusalem; so likewise Salvation under the Gospel, must for the same reason, be confined to the spiritual Worshippers; that is to those who are united to the one Christian Altar, as the Jews were to that of Jerusalem, and by the same parity of reason all others excluded. So that I can see no cause why Mr. H. should conclude, that the binding of the Jews to communicate at one Altar, is nothing to us. For if we are under a parallel obligation to do the same thing, to preserve that unity in the spirit, which they did in the letter. If the Jewish Church was a representation of the Christian, and their Altar, and Priesthood a type of ours: Surely something is to be learned by us from what they did. Unity and Communion is something more than a Ceremony, and Schism which is the breach of it, is I suppose the same thing in the Christian, that it was under the Jewish OEconomy. St. Paul is pleased to argue from the Jewish precedents, for the right of maintenance; that they who minister about holy things ●…ive of the things of the Temple, they which wait at the Altar should be partakers with the Altar, and that even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. 
Mr. Dodw. one Altar.  Plainly supposing that our Clergy answers the Levitical Priesthood, our Churches their Temple, our Communion Table their Altar, and that what was thought equal in their case in the provisions of the old Testament, is for that very reason to be taken for ordained in the case of the Gospel Ministry; 
Vid. Mr. Dod. one Alt. p. 23.  there being no other Evangelical ordinance. And why we may not argue from Jewish precedents in the case of Schism, having the Apostles example for it in case the of maintenance, I cannot understand. St. Paul argues from the Aaronical, to the Melchizedechian Priesthood; from the Priesthood of mortal men, to the immortal Priesthood of the Son of God; from the rights of the literal, to those of the mystical Altar; and tells us that the Law was a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and yet Mr. M. H. is so apt a Scholar, that in one of the most eminent and principal instances, he can find nothing to his purpose.  

Sigon: de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 8.  The Synagogues Mr. H. allows were the patterns of Christian Assemblies, but not the Temple, p. 3. I should rather have thought the Synagogues, and Temple too; especially if we believe the account which Sigonius gives; in which he is followed by other learned men; viz. That Synagogues were first erected in the time of the Captivity, that they who wanted the Temple to pray and teach in might have some place like the Temple, in which they might assemble to perform that sort of duty. Now Mr. H. tells us that Synagogues were the patterns of Christian Assemblies: Sigonius that they were like and instead of the Temple, and therefore any man would believe that the Christian Assemblies and the Temple being both like the Synagogue, were also like one another: and consequently the Temple as well as the Synagogue the pattern of Christian Assemblies.  
But I suppose Mr. H. da●…es not allow the Temple to be a pattern for fear of the Altar, and the Vindicator we find is for Prophets, rather than Priests, p. 41. The Priests (he tells us) were engaged principally in the Ceremonial, but the Prophets in the Moral part of Worship; 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, ib. So that according to this Gentleman, Preaching is the whole business of a Christian Minister, and Prayers and Sacraments, which are the work of a Priest, are to pass for Ciphers, and Religious Impertinencies. Our Author might have considered, that the Spirit of Prophecy, so long as it lasted, did accompany the Priesthood; and when at last the Scribes succeeded in the place of the Prophets, Ezra himself was both Priest and Scribe, and accordingly prepared his heart to teach God's Precepts and Judgements in Israel, Ezr. 7.10. and (the Prophecy that sometimes accompanied the High Priesthood) seems to outlive all the rest, as appears from the instance of Caiaphas, who foretold the death of our Saviour; And, as the Apostle declares, this spoke he not of himself, but being High Priest that same year, he prophesied, John 11.51. So that Prophecy and Priesthood being united in the same person, if the Gospel Minister succeeds to the one, why not to the other? or if he succeeds to the Jewish Prophets, why not to such as were Priests, as well as Laymen? or if only to the Laymen, pray who were the persons after Prophecy ceased among them, to whom the Gospel Minister succeeded? or had he no Representative at all? perhaps you will say it was the Scribe, who being Interpreter of the Law was for that reason a Type of the Gospel Minister, like as the Synagogue where he taught was of Christian Assemblies. And thence we may infer, That the Scribe and the Synagogue are as like Mr. H. and his Congregation, as two Beans; and yet I am afraid the Synagogue will not suit his purpose, any more than the Temple; the Archisynagogus will spoil his Pattern, as well as the Highpriest: For as there is no such an Officer in the independent way, so both the Ordination and Government of the inferior Scribes belonging to him, he so far resembles one of our Bishops, that I fancy Mr. H. and his Vindicator will neither of them like him.  
The Instance of Eldad and Medad, and Mr. H's Opinion of the Old Testament being thus far considered; let us now attend him into the new, for there he tells us the special Enquiry lies, p. 6. And the Enquiry he there makes, is after the signification of the word Schism; and the Reason he gives for so doing, is because words, as he tells us, are the significations of things. Whether there be not a little Nonsense in this weighty Reason, (which he lays as the foundation of his notable Enquiry) I refer to the captions, being willing rather to excuse it in a Man of his parts.  
But he must pardon me, if I make bold to search more strictly into his ground work; 'tis in kindness to the Superstructure, which will not abide a Storm, if the Foundation be sandy. That Mr. H's is so, will appear, if we consider, that altho' words do signify things, yet one word does not always signify only one thing, neither is the same thing always signified by the same word. And therefore as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have several meanings; so other words in the new Testament, may express the nature of Schism, as well as that, or at least help us to understand, the true meaning of it. Thus Mr. H. himself interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 11. St. Paul by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Judas calls the Schismatics 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 19 St. John tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Joh. 2.19. And there are several other terms and passages in the new Testament relating to Schism, which methinks ought not to have been omitted, by one that pretends to give us a clear and a full account.  
And as Mr. H. is defective in his inquiry, by reason of his slighting all those passages, so neither is he exact in his interpretation of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you have the various meanings of 'em in a literal sense, viz. taken for a rent, and rending, and cleaving, and breaking, but little to the purpose, as he tells you, p. 6, 7. If it makes but little yet that little is something, which Mr. H. ought not to have passed over in silence, and another man will suppose that it makes a great deal; for as in the literal sense, it imports a separation of parts, the rending, or breaking, or cleaving of one body into two; So likewise in the Ecclesiastical there is something equivalent meant by it; viz. the dividing of Christ's body, the Church, and making two of that Society, which ought to be united in one: which is most visibly done by separation and breach of Communion.  
Secondly, He says it is used figuratively for a division, and that twofold, viz. 1st, A division in apprehension, and 2d, A division in affection. These two parts of it being the necessary ingredients of his description, but if there should be no real ground for this figurative distinction, if the places he has quoted for the difference in apprehension, may as well be understood concerning difference in affection, and so on the contrary, or if something more is to be found in 'em relating to this affair, than what Mr. H. has noted; then I suppose we may reasonably demure to his clear and full account. The Texts he citys for a division in apprehension are, Joh. 7.43. c. 9.16. c. 10.19. and Acts 23.19. Now let any man look into his Bible, and examine these passages, and I believe the meanest capacity will easily discover a great deal more than barely a division in apprehension. See Joh. 7. and there you will find the Sanhedrim, and their Officers, and the people divided about our Saviour. Among the people, some cry him up, as that Prophet, and the Christ; others object against it, but shall Christ come out of Galilee, & c? Among the Officers some were for taking him, others against it. In the Sanhedrim one party chid the Officers for not bringing him, v. 45. reckoning them seduced by him, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;  v. 47. and the people cursed, v. 49. Nicodemus to be of Galilee (which was then a term of reproach) because though one of the Sanhedrim, yet he was secretly his disciple, and stood up for him against them all, v. ●1. Now here was not only a diversity of opinion, but a dividing into parties; a struggling of Interests; a baffling of authority; a censuring and reviling of those that were for our Saviour, as deceived and accursed, and Galilaeans. Whether here was not a division in affection, and what is more, a division and breaking into parties, as well as a division in apprehension; let Mr. H. himself judge, or the Vindicator for him, in case he is not able.  
After the same manner he deals with Joh. 9 Where we read of a dissension among the multitude, concerning our Saviour, occasioned by his curing the blind man. Some contending that he was not of God, because he broke the Sabbath; others, that he was not a sinner, because he did such Miracles. The Man and his Parents were both of our Saviour's party, but the Parents durst not expressly own him to be the Messiah, for fear of the Jews. Pray, Sir, what where they afraid of? Was it lest they should differ in apprehension? the Text tells us otherwise. It was because the Jews had ordained, That if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be excommunicated out of the Synagogue, was to be turned both out of sacred and civil communion, and accordingly the Son himself was so used as we find (v. 33, 34.) for daring and persisting in that acknowledgement. Now where the one party were so incensed against them that owned our Saviour, and the other so zealous in their belief; as to argue for him notwithstanding the odium and trouble which thereby they might incur, to call a dissension betwixt these parties, only a difference in apprehension, has something in it peculiar to Mr. H. The dissensions betwixt private men may perhaps pass under that cold title, but the dissensions of parties and multitudes, (especially where people dispute warmly against the sense and interest of a Government, as those who took part with our Saviour, in the Jews opinion, did) for the most part signifies a great deal more. And should there have been such a dissension in behalf of King Charles the Second, or the Church of England, when the Independents were uppermost, the poor Malignants would have felt more than barely a difference of apprehension: And their Taskmasters would soon have interpreted it to be the making of parties; how far the cases are parallel, let the Reader consider.  
The next place he alleges for division in apprehension, is Joh. 10.19. and although some went so far as to cry out against our Saviour, that he is mad, and hath a Devil, which expressions could hardly be used without some warmth and resentment, as well as reproach and bitterness against those who owned him to be the Christ: Yet Mr. H. is so very ingenious, as to apply it only to division in apprehension, and so exceeding modest as to impose his mistaken sense (without so much as offering at any proof) upon the rest of mankind,  
Having done with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he falls next upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he says is used in the same sense, Acts 23.7. Here the Pharisees and Sadduces were divided about St. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there arose a dissension or an uproar, (for so the word may signify), and the multitude was divided, and altho' the dissension was carried on with the cries of the people, and the strive of the Pharisees, with so much noise and tumult, that the chief Captain was at last afraid, last Paul should have been pull●…d in pieces of 'em: yet this dividing of the multitude according to Mr. H's. clear account, did signify no more, but only division in apprehension.  
Suppose a man should have said the same thing concerning the dissension at the Boyne, about K. William and K. J. wherein the multitude was likewise divided; whether it would have been ingenious, or ridiculous, let Mr. Vindicator judge. 'Tis true, the Sadduces had had great Guns, nor did the Pharisees run away, neither do we read of any mighty General that lost his life, yet there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both cases, and St. Paul's life was in very great danger as well as King William's; it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 7. and but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 10.  
Now I suppose any one might conclude from all the aforesaid Texts, that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do import a division in affection; as well as in apprehension, or something more than either, or both of 'em together; namely, the dividing of the people into contrary parties; and therefore Mr. H. is neither ingenuous, nor fair, in restraining the words only to one sense, which are so capable of several, even in those very passages which he himself citys. If other people would have been as hasty and as fanciful as Mr. H. to infer a notion of Schism from the English of a word, and that again understood and expounded, as themselves please, without taking in the sense of the context to which it relates, they might have made short work on't, in proving Mr. H. and his Vindicator both Schismatics: for if Schisma be dissension, as it is rendered in these texts, Schismatici are dissenters, as these Gentlemen call themselves; and so the business is done.  
According to his ingenuity in expounding these Texts, he draws his inference from them; viz. That this diversity of opinion, judgement, or apprehension, cannot be call d or looked upon in itself a thing criminal; inasmuch as there are many things which (either because they are dark and obscure and so not capable of demonstration, or because they are trivial and of light moment, and so not worth a demonstration) it is no matter what opinion men are of concerning them, p. 7, 8. Now I would ask Mr. H. whether this paragraph relates to the aforementioned Texts or not? If not, than he might as well have told us his own opinion, with out quoting them it receiving no authority or confirmation from them: and therefore should not have been obtructed upon the World, under the pretext and umbrage of Scripture, but I suppose he intended it as a position, grounded upon the aforesaid Texts, as appears from his calling it this diversity; which pronoun relative This, must refer to the Antecedent Texts, and his own paraphrase, and exposition of them; and if so, it is one of the fliest Libels upon our Saviour, and St. Paul, and their believing Friends, and one of the best apologies for the Jews and Sadduces their Enemies, that I have lately met with. For if it were a thing so dark and obscure, or so trivial and light, that the difference was no way criminal, either on one side or other, if it were no matter what opinion me●… had of our Saviour and St. Paul, no matter whether they believed the resurrection, or denied it; no matter whether people took our Saviour for the Messiah, or a mad man; no matter what became of Christ and his great Apostles; or if these things were so obscure and dark, and their ignorance about them so very invincible, the Jews surely were not much to be blamed for any thing they did; nor the believers much to be commended for making such a pother about things of such small concernment, or at least so dark and obscure, that they could no way demonstrate whether they did right or not. This must needs be the consequence of this paragraph, if it relates to the former; and yet I am willing to excuse Mr. M. H. from it, having the charity rather to believe that he knew not what he said.  
I shall not trouble myself much about his pretty say, p. 8. tho' perhaps it might justly be enquired, 
Aquin. 22. q. 39 1. 3.  Whether Heresy does not always include Schism? Whether Evil does not sometimes happen from the diversity, as well as the erroneousness of Opinions? Whom he means by the Worshippers of the Diana of their own Opinions, and the Sottish; Whom by the Saints; and whether Mr. H. is not a Schismatic, according to his own Notion, by the uncharitable and partial Insinuations of his 3d, 4th, and 5th Paragraphs, in the last of which sure he means some body, when he talks of a great strangeness to the Spirit of the Gospel. The Disciples of St. John Baptist (he tells you) were hugely displeased, because Christ's Disciples did not fast so often as they did, and quarrelled with Christ himself about it, Mat. 9.14. Now all that those Disciples did, was to ask our Saviour a question in calm and proper terms, without any token of the least displeasure that I can find, viz. Why do we, and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy Disciples fast not? ib. And there was so much reason for that Enquiry, (considering how much Religion they placed in Fasting, and what a good opinion they had of our Saviour, and how hard it was for them to reconcile the practice of his Disciples, with the Character which their Master had given of him) that a Man would wonder how it came to enter into Mr. H's head, that John's Disciples were angry. Surely Mr. M. H. is of a very tender constitution, if he thinks that he who asks him a question, must necessarily be displeased, and quarrel with him. But if John's Disciples were so hugely displeased, and did really quarrel with our Saviour, when they asked him that question, surely there was a division in Affection, as well as in Apprehension: and therefore this Text, as well as the rest, might have been urged under that Head.  
Neither is the Case at all so applicable to the Dissenters and us, as Mr. H. would make it: The Fasting and Abstinence of John's Disciples, and the Pharisees, was arbitrary, and peculiar to their Sects, not enjoined by the Jewish Church; And, on the other hand, our Saviour had all Authority, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, (as he was both King and Priest) united in his Person. Now if in either of these Points, the Case of the Dissenters be parallel: If Mr. H. can show that our holidays, etc. are only the private Institutions of a particular Sect, without the Authority and Sanction either of Church or State; or if he can make it appear that he is equal to our Saviour, that he is a Priest, and a King, or a God among his People, let him change the Customs among them as soon as he pleases; let 'em fast all Christmas, and carouse all Lent and go contrary in every thing to the Rubric and Canon, provided [they have as much reason for their thoughts and practices, as we have for ours,] which (with submission to Mr. H.) we could never yet see.  
Thus much I shall freely grant him, that in case there arises a difference betwixt private persons, such as Mr. H. and I, about matters of Religion, (I should be but a saucy Procrustes, if I should go about to appoint the length of him;) but if Authority thinks fit to call him to the Standard, he is undoubtedly a Subject, and I know no reason why he should not go as well as I. Some People have not forgotten, since they of his Party did usurp Moses' Chair: how zealous they were for drawing up every body to their own pitch; not only those that were in Covenant, but those that were out: insomuch that if your size were too small, and you could not stretch, it would be next door to hanging before they had done with you. And notwithstanding the smoothness and love which Mr. H. personates in this Book, yet there is still so much roughness and spite, (which he could not hid, and which the Vindicator openly boasts of) in his rude usage of F.W. as makes me often pray, that I may never stand in need of either of these men's Charity.  
We come now to consider the second sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a Man would have thought by this time it had been half construed, but you must examine three places in 1 Cor. and thence you may be furnished with a true Notion of Schism, p. 9 Now if I had been as Mr. H. I would have scratched out all the former Impertinence; for if here be the true Notion, what's all this stuff for before? But then the little Book had been a great deal less than it is.  
Just now you must look into three places for the true Notion of Schism, but (Hocuspocus) turn over the Leaf, and you have it in one of them, 1 Cor. 1.10. I beseech you Brethren— that there be no divisions, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) no Schisms among you. And for the understanding of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you must observe this method, i.e. First of all, You must inquire into the exegetical Exhortations that accompany it. And secondly, Into the Corinthians miscarriage, which occasioned this Caution, p.— The exegetical Exhortations are, First, That ye all speak the same thing, viz in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, as he understands St. Paul; but then he tells us from himself, 
See Bishop Ou. E●… Convoc. Book, p. 226.  and Estius (one of those who debauched the New Testament with their Popish Annotations) That in little things it can never be made a Duty to be of the same Opinion, since it is morally impossible. Now, for my part, I can see no more impossibility for Men to be of the same Opinion in little things, than in great. There is but one truth (and one best) in both. Their nature is as plain, and it is as easy to me to find out my Duty with relation to Ceremonies, as it is rightly to apprehend the great Mysteries of the Incarnation, and Trinity, and therefore I know no reason why I may not agree with other People in little things, as well as in great. A Table-gesture is a little thing, and yet I suppose Mr. H. believes, that our Saviour himself made it a Duty to use it at the Sacrament. It would be pretty to see him demonstrate, according to his own Rule, that it is morally impossible that we who now think otherwise, should ever be of the same Opinion: and consequently, that our Saviour could never make it our Duty. If the Gentleman were better acquainted with Ecclesiastical History, he would find that whole Churches and Nations had their peculiar Customs and Ceremonies, and yet their Members agreed well enough in their Opinions about the things he calls little, while they had no such People as he to disturb their Peace.  
He bids us observe, That St. Paul does not oblige us to think the same thing, but (tho' your thoughts be divers) yet speak the same thing, (i. e.) in your Preaching and Converse, speak of those things only wherein you are agreed. I observed before from Mr. H. that they were to speak the same things only in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity; and if he will allow me to lay these two Observations together, the Sense will be thus, viz. you are not obliged to think the same thing, (i. e.) to be of the same opinion in the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, and in your Preaching and Converse, take care to speak of those things only wherein you are agreed; and as for the rest of the Fundamentals, you may let them alone, (i. e.) according to Mr. M. H. do not fall out, and fight about them. As if there were no difference betwixt mere silence, and falling out, and fight: But tho' Mr. H. may preach Fundamentals according to this Gnostic Rule, I am sure that St. Paul himself followed a contrary practice, or else he might have saved himself the trouble of many sharp persecutions, as well as a great deal of pains in this Epistle.  
Secondly, That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement; which (says he) must be understood of a serious endeavour after it, for otherwise a perfect conjunction must be reserved for a world of everlasting perfection. If Mr. H. had but looked into his Greek Testament, and duly considered the Original, perhaps he would have found no great reason for this Interpretation. The words of St. Paul are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be ye compacted, or knit together in the same mind and opinion. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is in the literal Notion, to compact, or knit together, either the members of a body, or the parts of a building, etc. So Exod. 15.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psal. 40.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and as Mr. H. observes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the breaking of a Net, John 21.11. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, in English, mending their Nets, Mat. 4.21. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed in the literal sense, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are by St. Paul in the Ecclesiastical.  
Nor were the Corinthians all agreed in the great Gospel Truths, as Mr. H. ignorantly supposes, p. 11. The Resurrection is surely to be numbered among the great Gospel-truths', and yet many of the Corinthians denied it, which gave occasion to St. Paul so strenuously to assert it in the 15th Chapter of this first Epistle, 
Clem. Rom. p. 60. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Vid. Chrysost. & Theodoretum in locum. Vid. Hammond. in cap. 7. v. 1.  and St. Clemens Romanus in his. That Marriage is lawful, and Fornication otherwise, are (I suppose) considerable Gospel-truths': And yet the Corinthian Schismatic allowed and practised Fornication, even such as was condemned by the generality of the Heathens, and no where scarce in use, (except among the brutish Arabs) viz. That a Man should have his Father's wife, cap. 5.1. And yet this done by a Doctor of some Church in Achaia, within the Corinthian Precinct, according to St. Chrysostom and Theodoret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Not only admitted to be a partaker of the Divine Mysteries, but likewise he had obtained the dignity of a Doctor. And altho' some of those ancient Heretics could dispense with Fornication, yet they dissuaded People from Marriage, teaching them, that it was of the Devil. That we ought to own our Saviour in times of the greatest persecution, is a great Gospel-Truth, Luke 12.9. and yet the Corinthian Schismatics taught and practised otherwise, (which Doctrine and Practice, St. Paul is likewise thought to oppose, chap. 3. ver. 11, etc.) and went so far as to partake of the Idol Sacrifices according to their worldly wisdom, that they might escape persecution, which made the Apostle argue that point, cap. 8. and to determine so peremptorily and severely, cap. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and the Table of Devils.  
I might give you several other instances of the Gnostick heresy, (too rife at that time in the Corinthian Church) but these surely are sufficient to prove against Mr. H. that they were not all agreed in the great Gospel-truths'. Now Heresy includes Schism as it breaks the unity of the Faith, one of the indispensible requisites to the unity of the Church. And therefore the Corinthian Heretics being Schismatics likewise (i.e.) disjointed, and lose from the body of the Church, the Apostle bids 'em be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, well-jointed and compacted in the Church. Again, in the same mind, and in the same judgement (i. e:) by uniting themselves to it both in affection and principles, a work surely to be done while men are in this world; and if it be not, Mr. H. will find it too late when he enters into another.  
I have only two things further to note under this particular. First, That the Apostle charging the Corinthians to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, or opinion (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉); it is strange how Mr. H. could observe that they were not obliged to think the same thing, And secondly, That this Text relating so plainly to difference in apprehension, even according to his own exposition, it is no less unaccountable to me, why it might not as well have been reduced under that head, as any one of those which he alleged to that purpose.  
Secondly, We must inquire into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this caution, which, he tells us, we have, v. 11, 12. There were contentions among them, v. 11. Now the contention was about their Ministers, as Mr. H. assures us, p. 11. But I would ask him, first of all, was there no miscarriage antecedent to that contnetion? Yes surely, their heretical and wicked opinions, which occasioned the antecedent caution, viz. That ye all speak the same things. In these the Schism was founded, and they were probably the occasion of their ascribing themselves to Paul, and Apollo's, and Cephas, and Christ. For where difference in opinion occasions debates among people, not only the merits of the cause, but likewise the original of each party, and the means of knowing what they pretend to teach others are very frequently enquired into. Thus it was in our Saviour's case, when he taught something new and extraordinary, beyond the common rate of their ordinary Scribes; Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the Carpenter's son? Is not his Mother called Mary, & c? And are not his Sisters all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mat. 13.54, 55, 56.  
And there seems to be abundantly more occasion, for the like enquiry in the case of the Corinthians; as will appear, if we consider the circumstances of those early times, when this Epistle was written, especially what means of knowledge the Corinthians than had; and what proofs they might make use of to evince the truth or falsehood of any Doctrine in debate.  
They could not have the writings of the New Testament, (this Epistle being one of the first. And it may reasonably be conjectured (perhaps proved) that of that little which was then written, they had seen nothing. For neither in their Epistle to St. Paul, so far as St. Paul alludes to it, neither in his to them, is there the least intimation of any such thing. And yet in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Gospel of St. Matthew (which were of a prior date) had they been in their hands, they might have found the resolution of some of those cases which they put to the Apostle, and therefore saved themselves the labour of that part of their appeal.  
And as for the writings of the Old Testament, there were two sorts of errors, (not to mention any more) which were not easily confuted by their authority. One was touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection, which (although it might be proved from the Old Testament, yet the Gnostics who denied it, may reasonably be supposed to have learned from the Sadduces, some of their first Masters, how to evade those proofs; and as for the other Judaizing Doctrines, the Old Testament did so far seem to countenance them, that it was not likely that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be able to prove it otherwise. And therefore it might become the skill and authority of the great Apostle himself to show the contrary.  
And as the Corinthians had not the assistance of the written rule, either for information, or proof, in these cases, so both must be derived from their Teachers; either in word or writing. For instruction (besides what they had learned from our Saviour and his Apostles) they had their Prophets and Evangelists continually among them who being endued with the Spirit, were thereby qualified to instruct and educate the younger converts in the Doctrines of the Gospel, and from these the Corinthians received their common Instructions.  
But as the Orthodox Prophets had their true inspirations, so the Heretical Teachers pretended to the same; and as the former had their true miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrines, so the latter had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their lying wonders for the confirmation of theirs, to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. And that which made it still more difficult for the ordinary Corinthians to judge betwixt them, was, because both parties continued in the same communion: the Heretics not daring to go out (i. e.) to separate from the Church, till a considerable time after this, when many of the Apostles were dead.  
Now where both sides were equal in order, pretended to the same inspirations, the same miracles, and lived in the same communion: the proof of each Doctrine must depend upon the credit and authority of those persons from whom it was derived. If from Christ, it was the greatest; if from the Apostles, it was next; if from one of the first Converts (well learned in the Christian doctrines) highly approved and dignified by the Apostles, (as Apollos was) it was of the last great authority. Thus St. Paul recommends the authority of the household of Stephanas, as being the most early Converts in that Region, the first-fruits of Achaia; who having addicted themselves unto the Ministry of the Saints, I beseech you brethren (says he) that you submit yourselves unto such, 1 Cor. 16.15, 16. Therefore acknowledge ye them that are such, v. 18. Hereby plainly directing them which side to choose, viz. those that were of Stephanas, Fortunatu●…, and Acha●…cus's party, who took part with the Apostles, and consequently were Orthodox. So likewise he magnifies his own authority, as prior and greater than that of the first-fruits; telling them that he planted, Cap. 3.6. as the wise Master-builder, he had laid the foundation, v. 10. That although they had ten thousand Instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers▪ for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the Gospel, c. 4.15. So that having received their Christianity originally from him, they ought not to gainsay his doctrines, they might not oppose their first-fruits to his authority. The College of their Prophets could not judge him. And as for those who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore said, they were of Christ (i e.) had heard our Saviour themselves, and therefore pretended to have received their Doctrine from him, and were consequently of greater authority than the first-fruits, who received theirs only from the Apostles, yet these were not to be credited in opposition to St. Paul, who being chosen into the number of the select witnesses, no other witness that was not one of that number could be equal to him. Or if any man should oppose the authority of an Apostle, St. Peter, or any of the rest, against St. Paul's, yet the Answer is easy, Is Christ divided? Can he make two men the Apostles of contrary doctrines? The Apostles and all other Orthodox Teachers must necessarily speak the same thing. They being labourers together with God, c. ●…. 9. Ministers of Christ, Stewards of the mysteries, c. 4.1. but can lay no other foundation than that is laid in Jesus Christ, c. 3.11.  
So that if men pretend the authority of St. Peter against those Doctrines that are really St. Pawles, their pretences by this very argument are proved fictitious, and St. Peter could never be the Author of any such thing. Or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who say they are of Christ, should pretend his authority against that which is tr●…ly St. Paul's, yet the answer is the same: Is Christ divided? He chose o●…t Paul, and gave him his Spirit to preach these doctrines, and therefore those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily belie our Saviour, who cannot be supposed to make the Apostles Preachers of one Doctrine, and himself preach the contrary. And yet if any man should set up Paul against the true Doctrine of Christ, so as to make him the patron of their new Doctrines, because he had the authority of an Apostle, yet the answer is easy, Is Christ divided? He cannot have the authority of Christ to preach two contrary Doctrines, neither ought he to set up any Doctrine of his own against the Doctrine and Authority of Christ, which is the ground of that farther reasoning, Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gaius— and the household of Stephanas, lest any should say that I had baptised in mine own name, c. 1. v. 13, 14, 15. Tho we are Stewards of the mysteries, have the authority of Apostles, and are accountable to no man save only to the Lord, c. 4.4. yet this authority does not empower us to be the patrons of contrary doctrines, that we should preach to you one doctrine formerly, and now the contrary be obtruded upon ye under our names. It is required of Stewards that a man be found faithful, c. 4.2. and therefore we who are such aught to be true to our Master, and consistent to ourselves. So that if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.8. And that they might take the greater notice, he ingeminates the sentence, as we said before, so say I now again— If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed, Ibid. v. 9  
Now for the Orthodox to say they were of Paul, or Apollo's, etc. (i. e.) that they received their doctrines from them, was the same thing then as to quote Scripture now, i. e. it was the utmost authority they could allege. But when the Heretics pretended to the same authority, the Orthodox had no way left but to appeal to the Apostle himself, that it might appear under his own hand, what his doctrine really was, and which party was in the right, and accordingly they dispatched their Letters to him, by Stephanas, etc. by whom likewise they received his answer in this Epistle concerning the things in debate.  
So that it was the Heretical Gnostics only (not the Orthodox party) who are reprehended by the Apostle for saying, I am of Paul, etc. 'Twas necessary for them to allege these great authorities, that they might counterpoise the Orthodox, who justly pretended to the same, this being one of the best ways of proof in an age of inspirations, while there was little or nothing written.  
And accordingly we find it made use of by the succeeding Heretics, till such times as the Canon of Scripture was collected, and made up, (which was the best part of a Century, at least, after the writing of this Epistle.) And when that was done, they could not easily forget the same artifice, but still vented their doctrines under the patronage of great names, so the Ebionites pretended to be the followers of St. James; the Basilidans of St. Mathias; Basilides himself of Glaucias, (the hearer of St. Peter) Valentinus of Theodades (who was conversant with St. Paul, etc.) Sometimes they opposed the truth by pretended and false traditions, otherwhiles by spurious and supposititious writings, and at last by corrupting the very Text itself by their base interpolations.  
Nor is it to be supposed that this was the practice only of the latter Heretics, you may trace it in St. Paul's second Epistle to the Thessalonians, written several years before this 1st. to the Corinthians— That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by Spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, etc. 2 Thess. 2.2, 3. Herein alluding to the pretended revelations, the false and spurious traditions of Heretical Teachers, and either some counterfeit Epistle urged under the Apostles name, or at least their corrupt glosses and interpretations of those words in the 1st. Epistle, c. 5.2. and perhaps it may not be unreasonably conjectured, that it was a counterfeit Epistle, or at least that such practices were then in use, because the Apostle is so careful to give 'em a certain token in the close of this Epistle, whereby they might distinguish betwixt those that were genuine, and those that were otherwise: The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle, c. 3.17.  
And if this was the practice of the primitive Heretics, both before and after the writing of this Epistle to the Corinthians, we may reasonably suppose, that they did not wholly omit it at this time. And therefore I see no reason (but rather a great deal to the contrary) why any body should be blamed, for saying, I am of Paul, etc. save only those Heretics.  
'Tis not to be supposed that the Orthodox complained of themselves, for if they knew themselves herein faulty, they might easily have reform, without ever acquainting the Apostle with it. And it is something remarkable, how Clemens 
* Clem. Ep. ad Corinth. pag. 110. Edit. Lond. 1687.  Romanus aggravates the latter Schism of the Corinthians, by extenuating this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But that siding was less criminal, for than ye took part with the Apostles, who had born their testimony, and a man highly approved by them, but now what kind of men are they that have turned you aside, etc. From which words it is plain, That as the latter Schismatics were all of a Party, so were the former: And therefore the being of Paul and Apollo's, and Cephas, etc. is comprehended by St. Clemens under one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So that according to the circumstances of those times, the reasonings of the Apostle, and the account of Clemens Romanus, they were all of one Party, whom the Apostle reprehends, for saying, I am of Paul, etc. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them (those who had seen and heard our Saviour) pretended to be of Christ, (i. e.) to have received theirs from St. Paul, and St. Peter; the elder Converts, among the rest, who had been baptised by Apollo's, to derive theirs from him. So that the Schism of the Corinthians lay, in opposing the sound and orthodox Doctors, maintaining their wild Heresies, under the pretence and umbrage of these great names; and all other Heretics, who altho' they forsook not the Communion of the Church, yet making a Separation within it, and forming a Party against the truth, and opposing their Orthodox Governors, have been reputed Schismatics upon the very same account in all Ages.  
Having thus far given an account of the Corinthian Schism, which will do but little service to Mr. H's Notion, let us now take a further view of his Enquiry, and consider how ingeniously he manages the matter. He tells you, That Schisms and Contentions are one and the same thing; as if Schism and Contention had been convertible terms, and every one that contends, tho' for the greatest Truths against the most pernicious Heresies, were for that reason a Schismatic. Mr. H. might as well, and as truly have said, That Schisms and Factions are the same thing, because St. Paul calls them likewise by that name: But, however, to lay the greater Emphasis upon the word Contentions, he adds, 'tis worth noting that Clemens Romanus in that famous Epistle of his to the Corinthians, still calls Schisms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contentions, En●. p. 11. Now from this Note of Mr. H's, I hope he will give me leave to make another; which is, that Mr. M. H. never read that famous Epistle: For tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes used in that famous Writer, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and several other words, by which St. Clemens means Schism, 
As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 110, 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 108. Edit. Lond. 1687.  are brought in more frequently, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural scarcely once in that whole Epistle: But Mr. H. being a modest, as well as an ingenious person, was, it seems, contented to steal a Note out of Mr. Pool's Synopsis, rather than undergo the drudgery and Greek of that famous Epistle.  
'Tis strange how Mr. H. in the next Paragraph should say, The Contention was about their Ministers. Our Saviour was ascended up into Heaven long before this, and it would have been a strange wild fancy in any Corinthian, not to be contented with any other Minister excepting only him. If Mr. H's Congregation at the next Election of a Minister, should be divided into four Parties, and one of them be for Christ, and no one else, I fancy the rest would conclude, that either they were not right in their wits, or else that it is purely a trick to have none at all.  
And besides, it would be hard for Mr. H. to assign any reason why any body should prefer Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, before Christ. I always thought our Saviour might have had the preference. And among all the wild Opinions of that Age, I believe neither Mr. H. nor his Vindicator can name one Heretic, who ever professed himself to be for Paul, etc. rather than for Christ.  
He tells you, That he that was of Apollo's, was as much a Schismatic as he that was of Paul; which is very true, (tho' not for the reason which he gives.) They were all of one side, against the Orthodox. There being not four Parties among the Corinthians, as Mr. H. fancies, St. Paul himself makes but two, viz. the Orthodox and Heretics, as is plain from that part of his salutation, ver. 2. To all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.  
He tells you, pag. 12. That if one went to hear Paul, and another went to near Apollo's, that did not make a Schism: no, nor if one communicated with Paul, and another with Apollo's; which is certainly true: for it would have been no more Schism to hear and communicate, as aforesaid, than it would be among us to communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London. But I would fain know of Mr. H. how they must at that time hear and communicate with St. Paul, who was then in Asia? how with Christ, who was then in Heaven?  
There was no occasion for silencing either Apollo's or Cephas, for they were of the same mind with St. Paul, and the other orthodox Doctors. And yet there might be occasion enough to silence some of the schismatical Teachers, who made use of their Names, to give a reputation to their own Heresies; and accordingly you find the Apostle threatening them, 2 Cor. 13.2. Now I writ to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again I will not spare. And in the 10th Verse, Therefore I writ these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me, etc. which power was not only to silence, but to excommunicate those Teachers, and inflict that further punishment which then attended those Censures, and accordingly the incestuous Doctor was to be so dealt with by the Apostle's authority and order, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. to be delivered unto Satan, by being excommunicated out of the Church, for the destruction of the flesh, that Satan having him in his power, might torment his body with diseases and pains.  
For such a power as this the Apostles had, whereby they were more especially enabled to convict Heretics of Imposture, who pretending to Miracles as well as the Apostles, it was not easy for the common People to see which were in the right, unless something extraordinary appeared on the one side more than the other. And in this case nothing could be so proper, as that power of inflicting punishments upon the very persons of the Wonder-workers. They might equal the Apostles themselves in their pretences to Inspirations, to Mystery, and Knowledge. Their Tricks and Conjurations might perhaps seem as strange to the common People, as any true Miracles: But when the Apostles inflicted miraculous punishments, and yet they could neither save nor avenge themselves by all their power, it would be plain enough to every one, who it was that acted by the power of God, and consequently which side were in the right, and which Cheats and Impostors. Thus St. Paul threatens the elated Gnostics, to know their power, 1 Cor. 4.19. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, i. e. it will not be so easy for you to judge by disputations, etc. who are the orthodox members of God's Church, as by these more evident demonstrations of power, which make the case plain to every man.  
And yet the Apostle was always tender how he used those rigorous methods, this power being given for edification, and not for destruction, 2 Cor. 13.10. it was only to be exerted upon the most notorious and incorrigible Offenders. And this is the reason why we meet with so few instances of it, and why the Apostle leaves it to their choice, how he should deal with them. What will ye, shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness, 1 Cor. 4.21. And this power seems to be appropriate to the Apostles, and their Successors the Bishops of that early Age: For why else does the Apostle in the case of the incestuous Corinthian, affirm himself to be present in spirit at the meeting of the inferior Ministers of the Church. [When ye are gathered together. 
1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. ] What matter whether the Apostle were present any way or not, if his presence were no way necessary? why should his spirit with the power of Christ, be so emphatically mentioned, ver. 4. if the Assembly had that power of Christ, so as to do it without him; perhaps one reason might be, because the Corinthian was a Doctor.  
And we find the same authority over persons of that degree, appropriated to the succeeding Bishops. So Timothy might bestow the marks of Honour, and likewise receive Accusations against an Elder, and rebuke them that sinned before all, so as to terrify others, 1 Tim. 5.17, 19, 20. Titus was to rebuke sharply the Gnostic Prophets, those who bore the like character in the Christian Church, to that of Epimenides among the Heathen, (i. e.) were Priests and Diviners, to stop their mouths, which was surely to silence them, Tit. 1.11, 12, 13. So that the Apostles and Bishops who succeeded them in Authority, had power to silence the schismatical Teachers, which is all we contend for: But neither they nor we are for silencing those Ministers that being duly ordained, are sound and orthodox, according to Mr. H's Supposition; and whether he and his Vindicator belong to the former, or the latter sort, we are willing at any time to stand a fair Trial.  
As for his instance of Apollo's, it will do him but little service, if Antiquity is to be credited, which makes this very Apollo's the first Bishop of Corinth; and it is to be noted, that there were Teachers and Ministers before, and therefore if Apollo's was the first Bishop, he was of another Order. And their boasted Father St. Jerome expressly tells us, that upon this very Schism of the Corinthians 
* Hi●…ron. in Comment. ad Ti●…um. , In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur. Not that there was no Episcopal Authority before this time, it was lodged in the Apostles till now, and this was the first time they communicated it to any other person.  
With the like ingenuity Mr. H. expounds the second place in this Epistle, where he finds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, telling us, First, That it could not be meant of breach of Communion, because they all came together into one place, v. 20. Secondly, That the Schisms were Quarrels and Contentions about some little things relating to the circumstances of public worship. Thirdly, That the quarrel seems to be obout the time of beginning their worship, in every of which conjectures Mr. H. is grossly mistaken, and seems not to have understood St. Paul's meaning, as will appear if we consider,  
First, That although it is true, as I noted before, that Schismatics did not as yet hold any separate Conventicles, yet there was a most notorious breach of communion, even at the Communion-Table; and their miscarriages were so great, and of such a kind, as were scarcely reconcileable with the nature of a Sacramental Feast. Insomuch that the Apostle tells 'em, v. 20. When ye come together into one place, This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, and the reason was because they did not communicate one with another. For in eating every one taketh before other his own Supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken (i. e.) The rich who contributed more plentifully to the common feast, did not suffer the poor to be sharers with them, but snatched up their own oblation, and eat and drank it themselves. So that those who by reason of their poverty, brought little or nothing, went away hungry and ashamed, v. 21, 22. Now this was so much a breach of communion, that according to this practice there was really no communion at all. The rich looked upon what they brought as their own Supper, to which no man else had any right, and for this reason were so hasty to eat it up themselves, that the poor had nothing. So that while one party had nothing to eat, and the rest eaten every man his own without communicating one with another, there was so great a violation of the designed communion, that really they made it no communion at all.  
And yet I can find no quarrels, or contentions among them. The rich who fed so plentifully had no reason to quarrel, for they had their full share even to excess. And although the poor had really a just cause of complaint, yet perhaps because they brought nothing they thought it not seemly to mutiny. All the Apostle mentions concerning their behaviour is that they were hungry, v. 21. and, as may be collected from the next verse, out of countenance and ashamed.  
'Tis pretty to see Mr. H. bringing in his little things here again, as though Heresies, v. 10. to violate the pious design of a feast of Charity, v. 20. to be drunken themselves and starve the Poor. v. 21. to expose their poverty▪ and put them out of countenance; and all this in the Church, at their Agapae, or feasts of charity, were to pass under the title of little things. If there had been any quarrels among 'em, these, according to the Apostle, must have been the occasions; which surely cannot be little things in the opinion of any man, who has not himself a very large Conscience.  
The reason why the Apostle bids them tarry one for another, ver. 33. was, that they might have communion by eating together, and not, according to their rude and irregular practice, take every one before other his own Supper. But it is unreasonable to conclude, That they quarrelled about the time of their meeting: For altho' the time were fully agreed on by every man's consent, yet unless all Clocks, etc. went alike in those days, and all men's speed were equal, some would come sooner, and others later, as well as they do now; and the first might devour what they themselves brought, before such times as the rest could be there to partake with them.  
I shall observe only two things more, before I pass to the next Scripture.  
1. That Mr. H. in his account of this, very ingeniously passes over the next and immediate Context, ver. 21. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest among you. Now suppose that any man should infer hence, that the Schism mentioned, ver. 20. was occasioned by their Heresies; that their Divisions were only into Sects and Parties, some being orthodox, and some otherwise, as it is among us, and that hence proceeded the other irregular practices; I would fain know what he has to say to the contrary.  
And 2dly, It may perhaps try the wit of Mr. H. and his Brethren, to give a clear account how St. Paul's reasonings, ver. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, can any way quadrate, or be reconciled to his Notion. And yet they must be all brought in, or else the 33d verse quoted and urged by him, will bear no manner of relation to the 18th, which he designs it to interpret.  
The last place Mr. H. mentions, is 1 Cor. 12.25. That there be no Schism in the body. I shall pass over his Remarks, p. 14. it being sufficient for us, that he is pleased to acknowledge, pag. 15. that to be Schism, which breaks or stockens the bond by which the members are knit together; which thing is so notoriously done by separation, and breach of communion, that whoever is guilty of that, may, according to Mr. H's Assertion, justly be charged with Schism. That Bond, he tells us, is not an Act of Uniformity; neither, say I, is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence. And therefore, notwithstanding the late Act, nay, tho' we should have no Act of Uniformity, yet all this would not excuse Mr. H. and his Vindicator from being Schismatics, according to his own Argument.  
True Love and Charity in point of Affection, (as Mr. H. assures us) is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together— And Schism is that which breaks that Bond. That Schism does usually break Charity, no man will deny, Mr. H. and his Party are sufficient instances of this truth, as those persons who have the zeal and courage to oppose their Faction, do always find when ever they fall into their hands.  
And that Love and Charity is likewise a means to prevent Schisms, as it always pays a just deference to all spiritual Governors, cools and abates the violence of Faction, makes People humble, obedient, and docible, and causes all to endeavour after peace and unity, we do readily acknowledge; and for this reason both the Apostles and others have all along in their discourses about Schism, pressed men to Charity, as a necessary means to bring them over to conformity and unity with a sound and orthodox Church. But to infer hence, That Charity in point of Affection, is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together, and that Schism consequently is nothing else but uncharitableness are Positions only fit for Mr. H. to assert, and the Vindicator to justify.  
St. Paul does not say, as Mr. H. falsely quotes him, That it is the unity of the Spirit that is the bond of peace, Eph. 4.3. but exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: so that the bond of peace must needs be something more than barely the unity of the Spirit. And by the unity of the Spirit, more is certainly to be understood than only Charity, as appears by the References made to it in the Context, ver. 4.7. & 11, etc. which thoroughly considered, makes this Text little or nothing to Mr. H's purpose.  
And withal it is to be remembered, that the Apostle insists upon several other ties and obligations whereby Christians are knit together, besides Charity, viz. they are incorporated into one society, one body, as well as animated by one spirit, ver. 4. united in one hope of their blessed calling, ibid. united as Subjects to the same Lord, as Professors of one and the same Faith; initiated into the same Mysteries; and Partners in the same Covenant, by one and the same Baptism; and united by our union and communion with the orthodox Governors and Pastors of the Church, which, St. Paul tells us, were given us for the perfecting of the Saints; or, according to the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the compacting or knitting together of the Saints, ver. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the edifying or building up of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith▪ etc. unto a perfect man, etc. that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, ver. 13, 14. From all which it appears, that Mr. H. is for one Doctrine, and St. Paul for another; and therefore having laid both opinions before the Reader, I freely leave it to his own choice whether of the two he will follow.  
Charity is certainly the bond of perfectness; but what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 3.14. Mr. H. has not informed us: which surely he ought to have done, before he had made any inference from these words, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mercifulness, 
Hammond in loc.  as it does, Luke 6.36. or perfectness, in all the duties of Christianity. Charity may either way be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or bond of it; for Charity is a very large and comprehensive virtue: The Apostle tells us, it is the fulfilling of the Law. So that every duty you can name is included in it, and every sin a violation of it: The Thief breaks Charity, when he picks his Neighbour's Pocket: The Murderer, when he cuts his Throat: The Traitor, when he conspires against his Prince: And the Schismatic, who makes Broils and Factions in the Church. But still, if any one should ask you— Pray, Sir, What is Treason? and you should answer, uncharitableness? What is Murder? uncharitableness. What is Theft? uncharitableness. What is Schism? uncharitableness. I believe no man would take you for a Conjurer in Logic, any more than in Divinity.  
And yet this is all that Mr. M. H. has done towards furnishing the world with a New Notion of Schism, and to acquire to himself the glorious Titles of Modest and Ingenious, which the Vindicator so liberally bestows upon him, pag. 3. which how well he deserves, let the Reader judge, and upon these doughty premises he found'st his Description of Schism; which ought, I suppose, to have been a definition, that being much more proper for a Man of Art, and much more suitable to his design, of giving you the true nature, or formalis ratio: which are things a little too nice to be regularly inferred from every bungling Description. And having thus far enquired into Mr. H's Account, let us now return to the Vindicator: I fancy they are both of a Family, and therefore let us see whether he may not put in a better claim to the aforesaid Titles.  
He acquits Mr. H. pag. 4. from being Author of the Reply, fearing lest he should have a share in the credit of it, of which there was no great danger; for every body at first sight was willing to discharge Mr. H. it being not easy to imagine, that he that could be the Author of such a Book as that of Schism, should ever be able to make any tolerable Vindication.  
In the next page he condemns T. W. for preferring Churchmen before Dissenters, (i.e.) his Friends before his Enemies. To this I shall only answer, That it is natural to all Mankind, and his own usual practice, and therefore I may as well blame the Vindicator upon the same score, especially for so partially preferring Mr. H. before Dr. Hammond, p. 49.  
He boasts, pag. 6. how early he and his Party were ware of the Advances of Popish designs. I would fain know where their Eyes were during the whole Reign of King James II. and the Toleration of King Charles, when, according to the sense of all wise Men, the Popish Agents were most industrious.  
In all the glare of Gospel-light these Gentlemen could see no danger, but rather did all they could to shelter and hid the design from other observing Protestants. Dr. W.— 
* Vox Cler. p. 10.  had 100 l. for writing a Book to that purpose. Lob and Owen were in Fee with King James. Several of the principal Nonconformists assisted in the management of the Jesuitical Intrigue. Many of their present Patrons were the Men pitched upon at Court, to complete our Ruin, by repealing the Penal Laws and Tests, and thereby letting Papists into the Parliament, and their Priests into our Churches. No Man among them opened his mouth against the common Foe, or endeavoured to fortify his Conventicle against Popish delusions. And in the whole Catalogue 
* Vid. Catalogue of all the Discourses published against Popery, during the Reign of K. James II. p. 33. printed at Lond. A. D. 1689.  of Authors that appeared during that Reign, in the defence of our Religion, there were but Two Nonconformists in all England, who had the Honesty and Courage to set Pen to Paper in those Controversies.  
So that altho' these Gentlemen can be ware of Popery as soon as any People living, (perhaps, when the greatest danger is what themselves invent) yet, as the wise man observes, A Gift blindeth the Eyes: Sprinkle a little Money among their Leaders, and give a Toleration to the rest, that the Subjects may be paying in the Country, while the King pays them at London, they are all easy, and well satisfied, while they are all getting money; so that do what you will, they apprehend no danger. I appeal to the Memory of all England, whether this be not the Case: I appeal to your own Consceences, wishing that you may repent, and beg pardon.  
For I must tell you further, (and perhaps it will be a kindness to let you know it) that however successful you may seem to yourselves, in preserving your Reputatton among the less discerning Mob; yet the more sober and thinking People are very much scandalised at these Practices, and sometimes do not stick to say, That your zeal against Popery is all counterfeit; your design only to get uppermost; and that you can either rail against the Papists, or join with them, whether way soever does best fit your purpose of ruining the Church. Nay, some uncharitable People go further, and say, That since you joined with Popery against the Church, more than ever you did with the Church against Popery, they are afraid lest if that Religion should prevail, (which God forbidden) you would be a great deal better Conformists than you are now.  
He is again angry with T.W. for mentioning those great Men who have written in defence of the Church, pag. 6. and endeavours to oppose him with another Catalogue of baffled Names, Reynolds, Cartwright, Blondel, Amies, Daille, etc. People that have been so fully answered and confuted by Mr. Hooker, Dr. Hammond, Bishop Pearson, Mr. Dodwell, and others, that if the power of Reason could ever prevail against Interest and Prejudice, a Man would think there needed no further Arguings with these Gentlemen, whether this be so or not, we are willing to refer with him to the judgement of all disinterested persons, if the Vindicator will but tell us where we may have a Council of those who are truly such: For to me, the whole Christian world seems to be concerned in these Controversies. Those who have a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, or Bishops, as well as we; and those that would have all these, if their circumstances were so happy, are certainly for us. And as for that smaller Party who are for none of these, and are most of them confined within our King's Dominions, they are all biased and interessed against us; so that in rejecting the judgement of every interessed Party, methinks the Gentleman learnedly appeals to no body at all.  
Only perhaps the Turks, Jews, and Heathens, in his Opinion, may be proper Judges, who, I confess, are not much interested in the quarrels among Christians. And yet taking in all Mankind, (which must surely comprehend those that lived in former Ages, as well as the present, and I am sure they do not appear to be the Patrons or Friends of his Schism) the Jews must condemn him upon the same Principles as they did the Samaritans; the Turks and Persians laid too much stress upon the business of Succession; and the most revered Laws of the noblest body of Heathens that ever lived in the world, were expressly against him: 
Leg. 12. Tab.  Separatim nemo habessit Deos, neve novos neve advenas nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto, constr●…cta à Patribus delubra habento, Ritus Familiae Patriaeque servanto. So that I know no Patron, either Christian or Heathen, the Gentleman has to appeal to, unless it be his own scattered Party, or some of his Friends, the New Whig Atheists. And as for their Judgement and Approbation, much good may it do him, I know no Man of ours that envies his happiness.  
There is a wonderful vein of Argument (not to say Discretion) in his management of T. W.'s Honours, pag. 7. If he supposes any weakness in himself, he does not pretend to be infallible. Suppose he makes but a slip in style, (which he hopes a Friend will pardon) the performance must necessarily be all vicious. But, on the contrary, if he allows a Dissenter the least grain of Christian temper, humility, or consideration, so as not to be totally divested of all three, it is enough to saint him, he needs trouble himself no further, for his condition is very hopeful, and cannot be desperate, pag. 8.  
But, above all, the Address to the Sceptic does most afflict him, especially that T. W. should suppose any Sceptic to be obstinate, pag. 9 Now, for my part, I cannot perceive that ever he supposed any such thing, his words are these: If thou be Sceptical, a slighter of our Religion, obstinate and perverse, a despiser and reviler of the Clergy. By which it is plain, T. W. intended four several Characters of those who are Enemies to the Church, now there is no necessity that they should all be united in the same person; but if they are all found among the members of the same Faction, (as certainly they are) it is abundantly sufficient to acquit the Alderman. However, the witty Vindicator, by changing Sceptical into Sceptic, and putting obstinate to it, taketh care to make Nonsense, where otherwise it is not to be found. This being a part of the Ingenuity of these Gentlemen, to make Faults where they cannot find them; and to raise Blunders out of their own imagination, and then confute them; which surely is the worst, tho' one of the easiest ways of arguing that a man can choose.  
He is mightily offended with the Alderman, for making the Ninth Article of the Apostles Creed the Standard whereby to discover Schism, as if it were a most heinous Crime, no less than declining the Authority of Scripture, to make use of it. The profession of that Creed has been the badge and symbol of all orthodox Christians, for many past Centuries: which certainly it would not have been, if they had not all believed it to be agreeable to the Scripture. And unless these Gentlemen have a mind to extinguish all the former sentiments of the Christian Church, that they may the better impose upon the World what ever Notions they please, I know no reason why it should now be laid aside. 'Tis plain T. W. never intended to rival the Scripture with this Article; for he goes on immediately to explain it by the sacred Text, though▪ in this Case he cannot be so happy as to please our peevish Author.  
He quarrels with him likewise about the Origination of the Catholic Church, and is angry that he does not date it from the Creation of Angels, or from the Beginning of the Jewish Church: As if the Gentleman had never heard of the distinctions betwixt the Church Visible, and Mystical; Jewish, and Christian; or some body or other had put it into his head, that the Angels are Christian, it being the Catholic Church under that denomination only that T. W. spoke of.  
When our Saviour uttered those words, Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church; I desire to know of the Vindicator, whether he did not speak of the Church de futuro, and as yet unbuilt? And when St. Luke says, And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved; whether he did not speak of it as already begun? so that the Christian Church must have its beginning betwixt the time of that first saying to St. Peter, and that other in St. Luke. If the Gentleman will try his Chronology, and assign us the year and day, we shall gladly hear him; but if he will still derive its Epocha from the Creation of Angels, we are ready to assert the contrary. In the mean time he ought to be a little sparing in his Reflections upon T. W. for if he were a Dunce, and a Blockhead, or a ridiculous Trifler for this account of the Origination of the Catholic Christian Church, both 
* Probantibus actis Apostolorum descensum Spiritus Sancti quam Scripturam qui non recipiunt nec Spiritus Sancti esse possunt. Qui necdum Spiritum possint agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam defendere qui quando & quibus incunabulis institutum est Hoc corpus probare non habent. Tertull. de Prae. cap. 22.  Tertullian and St. Jerome 
† Acta Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur Historiam & nascentis Ecclesiae infantiam ●…xere. Hieron. Ep. 103. , (not to say our Saviour) and St. Luke, must equally be comprehended in the same charge. Nay, the Vindicator himself grants in the next Paragraph, that the Apostles and Disciples were the Church, without either Jews or Angels: And therefore if T. W. were a Fool for passing them by, I hope the Gentleman will not disdain to bear him company.  
He is mightily troubled, pag. 11. about the admission of Church-Members, that it cannot be done barely upon their profession of Faith, without complying with some significant Rites that are alien to Scripture-Rules. If he had but told us plainly what he had meant, I could have given a more direct Answer, in the mean time let him know that we decline the Charge.  
The Disciples and Believers submitted to the authority of the Apostles, in things indifferent. And if our English Dissenters would be as just to their Successors, according to the rules and examples recorded in Scripture, no body would require more from 'em. As for the saying of the Bishop of Worcester, (which I suppose he durst not quote, because he was conscious to himself that it was nothing to his purpose) it concerns the Papists only, and for what belongs to us, I refer him to many other excellent say of the aforesaid Bishop, in his Unreasonableness of Separation.  
In the next paragraph he complains that Christianity does not make a greater progress in the world, and immediately charges the failure upon needless ceremonies, and want of worth in the managers. Now whether this be so or not he may easily try, if he will either send Mr. H. or go himself, (for I do not question but he will allow both to be exceedingly well qualified) and give a call to the unconverted. Let 'em try the Emperor of China or the Cham of Tartary, or (as T. W. advised them) the grand Signior if he pleases, if the sanctity of the Preachers, the Spirituality and simplicity of Doctrine and Worship after the Congregational way; If zeal against Ceremonies without adoring any sort of Religion will do the business. We shall soon see whether the Independent, or the Jesuit, are more successful (for there lies the controversy) the Divines of the Church of England are no way concerned, having not been much accustomed to travel upon that errand.  
It seems he never heard that the Apostles did actually preach the Gospel to all nations, neither do I believe they did to all Countries, and to every person in every Nation. But if he will give us leave to expound it of some persons out of all Nations, (which I suppose was all that T. W. meant, and the thing is true, for) St. Peter we read preached Acts 2. and his Congregation consisted of people in all probability out of every nation under heaven, Acts 2.5.  
That the primitive Bishops had the power of ordination and government, (whereby their authority did exceed that of mere Presbyters) and that the Churches of several Presbyters were united under the government and care of one Bishop, has been sufficiently evinced by divers learned Pens: particularly that of Ephesus, (one of the famous Seven in Asia) has been again and again proved to be so governed. And this is all that we need to contend for; but if nothing less will satisfy him than having every Diocese acred, that he may know exactly the extent, (which he so briskly calls for, p. 13.) let him be at the charge of it himself, we for our parts are well contented with less ado, unless it were to more purpose. The primitive Dioceses being never supposed to be all equal, but some greater and some less, as well as the modern.  
Neither is it necessary to show that their modes of worship were exactly the same with ours: the Vindicator himself assures us that they did not agree among themselves about the circumstances of worship; and then how can he expect that they should all agree with us. That they used and imposed things of the same nature with what he calls our modes, and that our Governors are warranted in doing the like by their example and Authority, is all we need to show; and that has been done often enough already by divers hands.  
We confess that Bishop and Angel are not convertible terms, and yet suppose St. John had said Angels of each Church in the plural number (instead of Angel in the Singular); I would know how any man could prove Episcopacy from those texts. And surely where an Argument may be made from the number in which a word is used, he is not far amiss that should say such a thing is plain from that word.  
He triumphs in the next paragraph p. 14.15. as if he had found the Independent notion in one of T. W's. assertions, Nay he cannot see how there should be a multiplication or plurality of Churches till the increase of believers, according to the Episcopal model. If the Gentleman will be pleased to put on his spectacles, I will endeavour to show him how. Suppose then that one parcel of converts were made at Jerusalem, another at Corinth, another at Ephesus, another at Antioch, and another at Rome, and a Bishop and Presbyters constituted over each particular Church. I desire him to consider, whether this will not be the thing which T. W. spoke of, viz. A multiplication or plurality of Churches by the increase of believers, without any necessity of supposing that Churches must multiply like Bees, only by sending out a Colony when the Hive is too full.  
And suppose a Colony were sent out under the conduct of a Presbyter, and he still under the government of the same, or another Bishop, I suppose this would do the business, without any great service to the Congregational way.  
But why did not the Vindicator give us some Scriptue-instances of this famous notion? For, if a Colony must needs be sent out under independent Officers, when ever believers grow too numerous for one Assembly, it may surely be proved that some time or other it was so. And therefore I must call upon Mr. Vindicator for matter of fact, which unless he can produce (and I am pretty sure he cannot) he must not expect that much credit should be given to him: It being a little too much for him to impose his notions upon us, as if they were all according to Scripture; and yet not one Text to be found for them.  
I would fain know how many Congregations there were in the Church of Jerusalem, when the believers increased to so vast a number in so short a time: Three thousand you meet with converted, Acts 2.41. More daily added, v. 47. Five thousand you find mentioned, Acts 4.4. Multitudes both of men and women added, c. 5.14. And yet still the word of God increased, and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith, c. 6.7. Now I desire him to give me his Answer to these following Queries: Whether all this number of Believers did make one Congregation or more? Whether or no they were under the Government of only one Bishop? Whether each of them was known to his Bishop, and to one another? Whether they could not be Members of the same Church, till they were all personally acquainted? Did they all ordinarily meet in one place to worship God? And if so, where was it? Were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so capacious? Or did the Jews lend the Temple for an ordinary Meeting-place to the Christians? How the Preacher could be heard by all this Multitude at once? Whether the vigour and strength of his Lungs, or the thinness of Jerusalem air, did enable and qualify him for that loud Performance? Or whether he had the Conqueror's Engine, or Sir Samuel Morland's Speaking Trumpet? Or a peculiar sort of voice (like Mr. Baxters' Friend, who preached to a Congregation of ten thousand men, so that they could all hear him, and yet his voice was none of the loudest) I desire his information in these particulars, that we may see whether it be likely that the Church of Jerusalem did increase and multiply in the Congregational way: but we hope he will not stir a syllable from the sacred Text, that being no way proper for a man that receives nothing but express Scripture.  
In the next Paragraph he falls foul upon one of his own blunders. And because T. W. affirms that all other Churches were one with that of Jerusalem, all united in one body, under one head Christ Jesus, thinks he confounds him mightily by proving a variety in circumstances of worship (as if to say) that those Churches were united in one body, and that all Members agreed in every circumstance of worship, were the same thing, and he that confutes the latter, confutes the former also.  
He might have considered, that even in that variety, many other Apostolical Churches were the same. The Churches of Rome and Corinth, and most others, were made out of Jews and Gentiles, who had the same different apprehensions about Jewish Ceremonies, as well as that at Jerusalem; And therefore the difference was not betwixt Church and Church, but betwixt the Members of the same Churches, who were left at liberty by the Apostolical Synod, except in three things; And for that Reason the Gentile Dissenters cannot possibly be the Patrons of ours, unless the Vindicator can show, that the Jewish Ceremonies were imposed, as ours are, by some Christian Church. If he can prove, that Rules were given, and Matters of Decence imposed, and that any Christians in that Age refused to submit to 'em, let him name 'em, as the Precedents of his Cause and Party; I dare say, That every Churchman will allow 'em to be so.  
In the next Paragraph he is fond of the Notion which he quarrelled with in the last (so inconstant are those people that know not what they would have). It fits the Independents as exactly as if it had been made for 'em; for they hold a Unity for Substance (though not for Circumstances); they are united to all true Churches, though for condemning Bishops (who are doubtless the principal and most necessary Members); they partake of the same Table, though they set up Altar against Altar; they are the same with us in the External Worship and Service of God, though in Covenant against us▪ and they refuse to communicate with us either in Sacraments or Prayers. They are all united to the Head, though not into one Body, either among themselves or with others: For that part of Unity I observe the Gent. passes over, and with a great deal of Reason, it being hard to find several Members united into One Body, and yet still remaining all independent. That wherein they differ from others is according to the Apostolical Mode; That wherein others differ from them, is nothing but Innovation; Otherwise they are the same with all true Churches, if you will believe this Gent. To all which I shall only apply, and argue in the plain words of St. John; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us, 1 John 2. 1●….  
Touching the Continuance of the Church he agrees with us, p. 17. Only about the Authority of the Apostles he is pleased to fall out, not apprehending how any Man can succeed the Apostles in their Apostolical Power. If he means the Authority they had in the Church (i. e.) over the Presbyters, and other Members, we affirm Bishops to be their Succ ssors; it being not reasonable to suppose, that any Branch of Auth rity given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them▪ for if their Authority over the Presbyters expired with their Persons▪ why should that over the People continue after 'em, unless the Gentleman will suppose (which I suppose he will not) that the Laity are the only persons that need the Regulation of Superiors. All Multitudes must have Governors, and the common Presbyters are certainly oo Numerou: a Populace to be all independent. Let 'em submit therefore to Bishops their Successors, as they did to the Apostles themselves, especially till such times as you can find a Text to prove, That the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life; it being a Matter of such Consequence in the Universal Church, that few will believe you upon your own bare Word.  
As the Authority of the Apostles was Universal, and extended to the whole World, and was the same in all Churches, p. 18. so Bishops do succeed them in the same Authority. And if it were not for those Humane Agreements (which the Vindicator cannot disallow), the Government Ecclesiastical must be so exercised; And I could wish the Gentleman would be pleased to consider, whether a Bishop is not as truly a Bishop, and a Presbyter as much a Presbyter, in any other Man's Diocese or Parish, as he is in his own? Is he suspended or deprived when he's out of his own bounds? If not, I hope he may be a Minister, like the Apostles, all the World over. And yet the exercise of his Ministry confined within certain limits. Nor does this Notion give the Pope any greater power in England, than it does the Archbishop of Canterbury at Rome (which is none at all.) On the contrary, if Ordinary Pastors are Pastors only within their own Precincts, Mr. H. and his Vindicator (though Ordained) can be none, because they exercise their pretended Ministry in other men's Parishes.  
He will not dispute the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus, but he tells us, it signifies nothing till the nature and extent of that Office be first determined out of Scripture, p. 18. As if the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were no Scripture. We find Timothy appointed by St. Paul to examine the Qualifications of such as were to be Ordained; to lay hands suddenly on no Man; to receive Accusations, and proceed judicially; and to rebuke before all even Elders themselves, if there were occasion. Titus was to ordain Elders in every City, to set things in order, to rebuke with all authority, to admonish and reject heretics. And this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction wherewith Timothy and Titus were invested, is what the Bishops have all along exercised, and do still challenge at this day; and therefore we justify the present Episcopal Authority by these two Scripture-Instances. And as the Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers, the most Ordinary Pastors (call 'em Bishops, or Presbyters, or what you will) being all independent, without ever a Timothy or Titus to supervise and govern 'em; by the same Scripture it stands condemned, and is plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern.  
And if the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant, by reason of their frequent Removes from place to place (as the Gent. supposes, p. 19) our Bishops are extremely like 'em in that particular, their Office being always very itinerant in their Episcopal Visitations. But this is an idle Fancy, which he probably learned from Mr. Baxter (an idle one I call it); for if the Office of Timothy and Titus was really itinerant, they were certainly out of their Office while they stayed at home, the one in Ephesus, and the other in Crete (though doing that very business for which the Apostles placed 'em there) which how well it agrees with Scripture and common Sense, let every discerning Reader judge.  
If none besides St. Paul were concerned in the Ordination of Timothy and Titus, 

Sed quod ab uno Apostolo gestum est id ab omnibus simul Apostolis gestum esse dicitur ob Collegium & Consortium Apostolatus Vales. Annot. in Philos●…org. H. E. l. 3. c. 15.  
Sub imperatore Claudio loco duorum unicus Praefectus Praetorio Constitutus est Burrhus Afranius. Sub Nerone Burrho mortuo duo praefecti praetorio constituti su●…t ut unius successores. Pears. de success. Diss. 1. C.IX ubi plura in hujus argumenti fidem, allata legas.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos. l. 11. c. ult.  
Augustus Constantinus in suburbana villa Nicomedi●… tricessimo & primo▪ Imperii sui anno diem functus est liberis de▪ successione 〈◊〉 Orbis testamento Haeredibus scriptis. Ruffin. H. E. l. 1. c. 11.   it surely justifies the present Ordinations by a single Bishop; but if others joined with him in Imposition of Hands, as the Gent. supposes in the following p. T. W. was not much out; several of the Primitive Bishops being Styled Apostles by the Ancients, as well as the Twelve: And therefore before he had condemned T.W. he ought to have told us who those were that laid on hands with St. Paul, and to demonstrate 'em Unworthy of that Title. But it is sufficient to justify T. W. that what is done only by one, has been commonly said to be done by the Apostles, by reason of their being Colleagues, and Partners in the same Apostleship.  
I dare answer for T. W. That this Man's Notion of a proper Succession never entered into his head; No Man besides Blondel, and his quarrelsome Brethren, ever reckoning it improper to call Two persons the Successors of One, when really they are so. When Two Persons are Heirs to One, in the same Estate, or succeed him in his Authority, they are called by Civilians (and I believe not improperly) Haeredes, or Successores partiarii. When the Roman Empire became divided, I would fain know, whether Constantine the Great, and Jovian, etc. had no Successors? And I hope the Gent. will allow Their Majesties, K. W. and Q. M. to be called the Successors of K. J. without any great Absurdity. And as there are Instances enough to be given of Two Persons succeeding One in his Secular Estate and Authority, so I know no Reason, why Two Bishops may not as well succeed One Apostle in the Ecclesiastical. The larger the Apostles Province was, the more Divisions it was capable of, and consequently the more Successors he might have; Timothy might succeed him at Ephesus, Titus in Crete, etc. Nor does this succeeding of the Apostle in these Two Provinces, give 'em an equal Power in one another's Dioceses (as the Vindicator supposes, p. 19) any more than the King of Spain has Power at Rome or Constantinople, because the Roman Emperors are numbered amongst his Predecessors, by Franciscus Taraph●…, and other Spanish Historians.  
Nor is there any necessity to suppose (as the Gent. would insinuate), that the Apostle must either be suspended, or degraded, or translated to an higher Seat, to make room for the Succession of Timothy and Titus in the Sees of Ephesus and Crete: For it is evident, the Apostle himse●…f gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges (choose how much or how little he reserved to himself.) So that they had the full Ordering and Government of those Two Churches, and did therefore succeed the Apostle in it, even while he was alive.  
But if the Vindicator will needs call 'em the Apostle's Coadjutors, while he was alive, and give 'em the Title of Successors only, after his Decease, I know T. W. will not quarrel with him; it being no way contrary to any thing he hath said. In the mean time I must desire him to forbear making wry Faces. If any one shall still assert, That St. Paul Ordained his Successors at Ephesus and Crete; for as it is impossible, that the Apostle should have any Successors, unless ordained by themselves; nor very probable that they ordained 'em when they were dead: So according to the Opinion of the Ancients, and common Sense, they are said by T. W. to ordain 'em while they were alive. Thus Irenaeus, 
Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3.  Ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi— quos & Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes. And a little after, speaking concerning the Bishops of the Church of Rome, Fundantes igitur & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. From which Two Passages it is plain, That the Apostles ordained Bishops their Successors while they were alive, and that Linus, a single Person, succeeded the Apostles in the plural; which is the double blunder, in express terms, wherewith our nimble-sighted Author charges T.W. p. 20. Nor will Tertullion easily free himself from our Author's Censure, if he ever hears of that Passage de Prescript. c. 32. Evolvant Ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ad initia decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit habuerit Autotem & Antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census s●…os deferunt, sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne Collocatum, sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum itidem perinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum Constitutos Apostolici Seminis traduces habeant. So that according to Tertullian, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Con. Antioch. c. 23.  the Apostles ordained the first Bishops in each Church, and were their Predecessors, and they the Apostles Successors. Nor was it ever thought so great a Mystery, by Men of Sense, either in Ancient or Latter Ages, for a Bishop, or other Person, to ordain or constitute his Successor, as this Man makes it. The Council of Antioch de●…rees it Unlawful for a Bishop to constitute his Successor: But if (according to the Opinion of our Author) they had thought it a thing impossible, they would certainly have spared their Pai●…s, it being not very usual for Wise Men to make Laws against Impossibilities. Valerius ordained St. Augustine his Successor, and he Heraclius▪ Augustine of Canterbury, ordained Laurentius to succeed him in that See, according to Bede, 
Bedae Ec. Hist. l. 2. c. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 20.  who (says he) did it after the Example of St. Peter, who is said to have consecrated Clemens, evangelizandi adjutorem & simul Successorem; And Epiphanius gives the Reason, why other Persons were made Bishops in the Life-time of St. Peter and St. Paul, even because the Apostles did frequently travel into other Countries to preach the Gospel, and the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop: To which I might add, That Severus, Bishop of Milevis, and Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz, did, after the Example of the Apostles, ordain Persons to succeed 'em in those Sees. And now surely nothing but that Faculty of Ignorance (if there be such a Faculty) wherewith he reproaches T. W. p. 21. could have emboldened this Vindicator to charge a Man with Nonsense and Blunder, for asserting plain Matter of Fact, when there are so many Instances to be found of the same Nature, according to the Sense and Practice of several Ages.  
I fancy few, besides this confident Author, will deny Linus to be the Successor of the Apostles; and yet that he died before 'em, is maintained by Bishop 
* Pears. de success. Diss. 2. c. 2. Vid. etiam Vendelin. de Clementis Temp.  Pearson, who, though he was a Learned as ●…rotius, yet he is as positive as T. W. that Linus immediately succeeded the Apostles in the Roman Chair. And therefore I cannot but wonder, that our Author should pretend, That all the Learned Men in the World deliver 'emselves timorously and uncertainly about this matter. It is a Caution that Reeb, the Jesuit, gives all young Students, to beware how they assert a thing to be the Opinion of All Authors: For, says he, if any one happen to be of a contrary mind, you are quite shamed. Now here's some Modesty in a Jesuit, but such is the Confidence of this Nonconformist, that he pretends to tell you the Sense of all the Learned Men in the World (though he never heard of their Names), as readily as if he himself had been one of 'em, or at least, they had been his Familiars, and most intimate Acquaintance.  
With the same Gaiety, he affirms in the same page, That to say the Line of Apostolic Succession of Bishops hath continued in all Ages to this present time, is an Assertion without the least shadow of Proof; yea, contrary to the Acknowledgement of all Church-Historians, p. 21. Pray, Sir, what Church-Historians ever acknowledged the contrary? A Man would imagine, that he meant only those of his Party, who have been a Scandal to their Undertaking; 
Nihil clarius in ●…ota veterum Doctrina successione Romanorum Pontificum, Phil. le Pr. in not. ad Tert. de ●…re. c. 32.  or else, if otherwise, ●…t could be done, he needed not to have been ashamed to have given us their Names; but I am afraid, he is no better acquainted with Church-Historians, than with other Learned Men.  
Only as to the Papists (so lately his Cronies), we may, I suppose, take his word, that they own insuperable Difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See, p. 22. But what is this to the purpose? they neither deny, nor doubt, that there was a Succession (although, for want of Writings, they cannot determine the Order wherein those Bishops succeeded). There are Difficulties concerning the Succession of Monarches in several Kingdoms, not easily solved for want of Authors▪ And yet to say, All Catalogues are false, because we cannot tell certainly which is true, or because (through distance of time, and want of Authors) we cannot tell who first succeeded: To conclude that there was no Succession at all, is a way of arguing peculiar to its Author.  
If Irenaeus could Name all the Successors in the Apostolic Churches, as the Gent. grants in the forecited page, I presume he could not be mistaken in the Succession of Linus. And if this Vindicator had been but so learned, a●… to be acquainted with that Father, he would not have been so Angry with T. W. p. 21. for Asserting the same thing that Irenaeus does. 
L. 3. c. 3.  I shall not trouble myself with his Mistake about the Year of that Father's Death; for though he disputed about the business of Easter Seven Years after that, in which (as some body told this Gent.) he died; yet it is no great matter, since hearsays will serve a Nonconformist instead of Chronology.  
With the same Skill he proceeds to inquire, how it came to pass that the Apostolical Succession was propagated in so few Churches as the Patriarchal were? As if it were the Opinion of any body, that no Bishop, besides the Patriarches, did any where succeed the Apostles. If he ever met with such an Assertion, let him tell us whose it is: In the mean time, if (for want of Argument, and Understanding in these Controversies) he quarrels with his own Chimoeras, I hope it is not to be called a Confutation of T. W.  
We have a Catalogue of our English Bishops; so that we can name 'em as they succeeded, so far as we have History to inform us, which is for many Centuries. And as we find the Succession Regular, where we have a clear Account; so we have no Reason to doubt of the like Care in former Ages; which is satisfaction enough to us, that our present Ministry is regularly derived from the Apostles. And he that shall Assert the contrary, so as to make us doubt of it, must bring proof from good Authors, That the Succession was interrupted, or else he will be but a feeble Exposer of our Principles. It is not sufficient to say, we are uncertain whether we have any true Ministry or Ordinance, p. 23. we rely upon the Providence of God, and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors, for a Right Succession of Ministers, as well as pure and genuine Scriptures. And although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the one, not entire Fasti in the other case; yet no Man shall bereave us of our Confidence, unless he can produce Matter of Fact, and show, that we are deceived upon either Account. I fancy the Vindicator does verily believe, that he came regularly from Adam; and yet suppose any one should object, that he cannot tell his own Pedigree, and give a Series of his Ancestors down from Adam to himself, and conclude, that the Succession might therefore be broken; some one of his Progenitors might have ne'er a Father; and since he has not History to inform him perfectly in the Case, he ought not positively to affirm▪ That he is of the Seed of Adam: Would the Gent. take this way of Arguing to be strong and conclusive? if not, I would fain know what occasion we have given him to impose it upon us.  
But that he may not seem to talk wildly, and without any manner of Ground, he puts Two Cases, which I presume were all he could think of, wherein the Line of Succession might be broken▪ p 24. The first is, If there should happen a Vacancy in any of the Apostolical Churches, and Sees, for some Years, and the succeeding Incumbent be a Person ordained by an Abbot, who is no Bishop (as the Northumbrian Bishops were by the Abbot of High, says the Margin), 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 so indispensible? It must do so, if you will believe this Author, p. 25. But I say, there is no Nece●…y of the Line being broken, though we grant the whole Case; For suppose, that all that Succession of pretended Bishops derived from the Abbot, should be at last extinct, and the true Bishops of that, or a Neighbouring Province, called in to consecrate, the Line of Episcopal Ordination would be right enough, notwithstanding the Abbot, and all his Usurpers. Or suppose, that after the Bishop was ordained by the Abbot, One or Two Rightful Bishops should join with him in the Consecration of the next, in this Case the Line would be right enough; and all that can be said is, That there was One Usurper in the Line of Jurisdiction, who never was within the Line of Order, and consequently could make no intercision in it.  
And perhaps to prevent any Irregularity in the Succession of that Order, the Apostles gave the Example, and the Church enjoined, That a Bishop should be ordained by Three at least; 
Ap●…st. c. 1. Con. Nican. c. 4. Con. Are●…. c. 21. Con. Laodic. c. 12. Con. Paris. 1. c. 6, etc.  and likewise, that he should be Constituted with the Approbation of his Metropolitan, and Comprovincials; which practices were certainly a very great security to the Right Succession, it being not very likely, That all the Bishops of a Province should be so extremely careless, to suffer an irregular Ordination, and the Persons concerned to Consecrate all void of that Character, which they pretended to bestow.  
After all, That ever any Abbot that was no Bishop, did ordain Bishops, I do utterly deny. Adamnanu●… in his Life of Columba, 
Adamn. Vit. Col. Usher. Primor●….  makes mention of a Bishop in the Abbey of Hylas; and that there was always one residing there, is confirmed by Bishop Usher, out of the Vlsle●… Annals: And perhaps the Bishop of D●…nkeld (as the Learned Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures) joined in the Consecration of Bishop Aldan, Finan; 
Bp. of St. Asaph of ●…h. Gou. p. 102.  and Colman had the like Ordination: But Tuda, the next in Succession, was ordained a Bishop among the South Scots in Ireland. So that should we allow his Instance true, viz. That A●…dan, Finan, and Colman, were ordained by the Abbot, yet that Succession at Lindisfarn, in all likelihood, failed in Colman, and the Line of Order was right in Tuda▪ and consequently, his Marginal Instance is nothing to the purpose; an Instance that has been frequently urged by the Nonconformists against Episcopacy, and as often confuted from the most Authentic History of those Times by divers Learned Men: 
Vind. C. E. cap. 9 Vind. Ignat. par. 1. c. 10. Orig. Brit. Ch. Gou. c. 5. Barbos'. Past. p. 2. All. 3. Num. 3.4. etc. Maur. de Alz. de Prac. Episc. Dig. p. 2. c. 5. Num. 6, 7, 8, 9 Aquin. Sup. q. 38. ar. 1. Res. ad ter. Vid. Victor. in Sum. Num. 216. Sect. de Sac. Ord. Non facile crede●…em Victor. in sum. Num. 237. quem seq. Vivald in Candle. aureo. p. 1. tit. de Sacram. Ordin. Num. 17. In fine asserenti se vidisse quandam Bullam Papae concedentem facultatem sacerdoti conferendi Diac. & Sub. Diac. Barbos'. Past. p. 2. Al. 3. N. 4. Ap. c. 67. Nicaen. c. 19 Con. C. P. c. 4  Bishop Bramh●…ll, Bishop Pearson, the present Bishop of Worcester, and St. Asaph, and Mr. Dodwell, have so fully Answered this business of Hylas, that a Man would wonder at the Confidence of this Gent. that he should still hope to impose the same Mistake upon the World.  
Nor does the Church of Rome allow that an Abbot who is no Bishop should Consecrate a Bishop. They are so far from allowing it, that their Canonists generally declare, that the Pope himself cannot empower any Presbyter to Ordain so much as a Deacon. An Abbot who has Jus Mitrae & Bacu●…, a Cardinal or an Ordinary Presbyter by Commission from the Pope may confer the lesser Orders, but not the greater, or those which are called Sacred, viz. those of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon; nay even as to the lesser, Thomas Aquinas, Joh. Major, and Paludanus Affirm, that it is safer to receive the Order of Sub-Deacon from another, than from such a privileged Presbyter: And although Anguianus and some few more are of opinion that the Pope might Empower a Presbyter to confer the Higher Orders, yet it never was the allowed practice of that Church. And I challenge him to produce so much as one instance of any Abb t that was no Bishop, who ever Consecrated a Bishop. As for Subdeacons and such people, who are sometimes Ordain●…d by Abbots, the Gentleman knows well enough we have no occasion for 'em, in England, and therefore the Succession of our Bishops may be just and regular notwithstanding this first Case.  
As to the Second, viz. Whether this line of Ordina ion may be continued in a Schismatical Church? We Answer, 1st. That such was the care of the Primitive Church, so great a regard they had to a right Succ●…ssion, that they who thought the Ordination of certain Heretics void such as the Pa●…lianists and Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. decreed 'em to be Ordained by a Catholic Bishop. And it is likewise determined by the first Council of Constantinople concerning the Ordinations made by Maximus Cymicus, that they are all null▪ they neither allowing him to be a Bishop not those Ordained by him to enjoy any Function among the Clergy. And in the Roman Church, 
B●●n. T●m. 9 p. 2●4▪ P●●tin. d● V●. Pont. p. 22.4. Contra ●●ephanum, III. al●s iv Mabill. in Ordi●. Rom. Com. p. cxix.  particularly those ordained by Constantine (the Lay-Invader of the Papal Chair), were by a Council under Stephen the Third or Fourth, to return to their former Orders, (unless they were in great Esteem with the People, and in that Case they were to be re-ordained by the Church; and for fear of laying the Foundations of a future Schism, it was further decreed, That none of 'em should be promoted to any higher degrees. By these and many other Instances, it is plain what Care the Church has taken to re-ordain, or utterly silence those whose Orders they thought void.  
And lest any such persons should creep into strange places▪ and there invade that Office to which they had no Right: No Man, either of the Clergy or Laity, 
Ap. 〈◊〉 12. con. 〈◊〉 30 con. 〈◊〉 c. 33. 〈…〉 C. 〈◊〉 c. 7. con. 〈◊〉. c. 12. con. Elizbe●●. c. 51.  was to hold Communion with 'em, under pain of incurring the Ecclesiastical Censures▪ No Clergy Man was to go abroad without Commendatory Letters; no bishop to be ordained without the Knowledge and Consent▪ of his Metropolitan, and the Neighbouring Bishops; No Heretic to be admitted into Orders; and if ordained to be deposed▪ No Man to ordain in another's Province: By which, and several other Canons, it became extremely difficult for any such Heretics or Schismatics, whose Orders they thought void to make any considerable intercision in the Line of Succession.  
But I can see no Reason, why the Line of Ordination may not pass through a Schismatical Church; For although by Schism People are out of the Church, and while they continue so▪ cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments; yet to say. That ●●●h are absolutely destroyed, and nullifyed; so that a ●●●●…matick l●●● the Characters, and can neither be a Christian 〈…〉 (i. e.) not the Subject of Apostolical Power, till he be 〈◊〉 ●●● baptised and ordained, is an Assertion beyond all that I c●●●…d ever yet meet with. The Meleti●ns were Schismatics, and 〈◊〉 th●se 〈◊〉 by Meletius were received into places where oth●●… 〈…〉 though the Paulianists and 〈◊〉 were to be rebaptised 〈◊〉 ordained by the 19th Canon of the Council of Nice 〈…〉 those ordained by the Nova●●●…ns, 
* 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. c. 8.  when reconciled to the Church▪ were to continue in the same Station which they enjoyed before (except Catholic were in possession) by the 8th Ca●●… of the very same Council. From which Instances it is plain, T●●●… according 〈◊〉 the Sense of those Fathers; though Schismatical 〈…〉 ●●●…ieties were out of the Church, yet it did not wh●●…Y d●v●st 'em 〈◊〉 their Character, so as to make 'em no longer the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 call Power, as this Vindicator would insinuate.  
Nay, the severest Enemies to Heretical Ordination●▪ never went so far as our A●●●or, as appears from what they declare in a ●●●●●…lel Case, viz. that of Baptism. St. Cyprian himself owns the practice in his days to admit reconciled Heretics, 

Vid. Cypr. ad Quinte●…. Steph. ap. Cyp. ad Pomp. cp. 74. Crescent. ap. Conc. Carthag.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ap Eus. H. E. l. 7. c. 7.  
Ec. His. l. 1. c. 9 Apos. c. 67. Con. Nic. Can. 19 etc.  
Ap. Cypr. Ed. Ox. Ep. LXXV. Novatus à Th●…umagade ap. Con. Carth.   as Penitents only with Imposition of Hands, if at first they were Baptised by the Orthodox Clergy. And so Heraclas of Alexandria took care that such persons should renounce their Heresies, not at all requiring 'em to be Rebaptised. And in like manner Miletius retained his Character tho debarred the exercise of his Function by the Decree of the Nicene Council, as appears by their Synodical Epistle in Socrates. So that here the case of Baptism and Ordination run parallel: neither being made void by mere Heresy or Schism, and accordingly we find them put together in several Ancient Canons, and in Firmilianus' Epistle to St. Cyprian, etc.  
'Tis true the case was otherwise with those Baptised or Ordained by Heretics or Schismatics; they were to be Reordained and Rebaptised, according to the Sentiments of those African Fathers. How consistently with their own practice let others judge; for if Heretics or Schismatics, did retain their Character while they were out of the Church, as those Fathers seem to allow, I can see no reason why it should be totally out of their Power to confer the like upon other Persons; for if it be said that they lost their Character, by departing from the Church, how they could obtain it again, without a new Ordination is passed my understanding: And therefore why Miletius himself should retain his Character, 
Socr. ubi. sup.  and yet those Ordained by him be confirmed or settled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (if by those words is really meant a Second Ordination) I must learn from others.  

Vid. Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 18.  As for the grosser Heretics, that lived before the time of St. Cyprian, and whose several manners of Baptising were so Monstrous and Wicked, I cannot wonder if the Ancients thought fit to Baptise them over again: Their former Baptism wanting the necessary words, and being Consequently void in the very performance, and therefore when Tertullian and other Fathers reject their Baptism, I am of opinion it makes little for St. Cyprians Cause. So that notwithstanding the Testimonies produced by a Learned Author, 
●…aun. Ep. 15.  Agrippinus might be the first introducer of that Practice, as Vincentius Lirinensis testifies: 

Vincen. Lirin. Com. c. 9 p. 21. Edit. Cantab. 1687.  
Ap. Cyp. ut Supra. Vid. & Cyp. ipsum in Ep. ad Ju●…aian   And this I am the rather induced to believe be, cause Pope Stephen then condemned it, as a Novel Custom, and Firmilianus and other Africans, seem to own, at least could not deny that it was so, as appears by the Answer they made to that Objection.  
So that by the most constant usage of the Church in those first Ages, the Baptism of Heretics was not to be admitted in gross, neither was it Universally to be rejected upon St. Cyprians Principles: there being a difference to be made betwixt those Heretics who did not really Baptise at all, and those that did. And so you find both the first and second Councils of Arles, admit such as were Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 
1. Con. Arcl. c. 8. 2. Con. Arcl. c. 16. 17. Optat. 1. 4.  and Rebaptising only those that did not believe in the Trinity, nor Consequently use the Essential Form, and so Optatus declares, Quodcunque in Trinitate factum est bene factum est.  
The like distinction I reckon is to be made concerning Ordinations: viz. Those who derived their Orders only from Heretics, and Consequently never had any Succession from the Church, were justly to be reputed as Unordain'd, but those Ordained by Heretics, who had their Ordination originally from the Church, and did not omit any thing necessary to the conferring of Orders, had no occasion for Reordination. And to let pass the distinction betwixt the Novatians, and Cataphrygae, made by the Nicene Fathers, Optatus and St. Austin have both of 'em settled the point in their Controversy with the Donatists, 
(a) Vinc. Lirin. c. 11. p. 26. Ed. Cant. 1687  who pretended the Authority of the African Council, for Rebaptising the Catholics. Thus 
(b) In hoc Sacramento Baptismatis Celebrando tres esse Species Constat, etc. Optat. l. 5. p. 143. Edit. Com. 1599  Optatus in Celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism, there are three kinds of things which you can neither increase, nor diminish, nor pretermit: The 1st. is the Trinity. The 2d. in him that Believes. The 3d. in him that does the Office, but they are not all to be esteemed of equal moment: For I look upon two of 'em to be necessary, and one as if it were necessary. The Trinity obtains the principal place, the Faith of him that Believes comes next after this, and the Person of him that Ministers is nigh, but cannot be of the same Authority. The two former remain always unalterable, and fixed, for the Trinity is always the same, and the Faith in several Persons is but one, both always retain their proper Efficacy, but the Person of him that Ministers is known that it cannot be equal to the two former sorts, for this reason, because it alone appears to be alterable. etc. And 
(c) Ibid. p. 141, 142.  a little before he acquaints us with the practice of the Church at that time: As oft as any one Baptised by you (i. e. the Donatists) desires to come over to us, we receive him according to the Example of our Master with all simplicity, for, far be it from us that we should call him back again to the Font who is already washed, far be it from us that we should repeat that which is to be done but once, or double that which is but one; for so it is written by the Apostle, saying, there is one God, one Christ, one Faith, one Baptism. And St. Austin confirms the same thing: 1st. of all distinguishing, aliud est non habere, aliud pernitiose habere, aliud salubriter habere; 
Aug. l. 2. Cont. Ep. Parmen.  and then telling us concerning those that are separated from the Unity of the Church; that there is now no question but that they both have and may confer (both Orders and Baptism). Sed pernitiose habent, pernicioseque daunt, quia extra Vinculum pacis sunt. and the same Father asserts the same Doctrine a little before in two cases; First, If any of the Schismatical Clergy be reconciled to the Church, though it seems expedient to allow them the exercise of their former Function, yet are they not to be Reordained, etc. and Secondly, If on the contrary the Church judges it not convenient to allow them any Ministration, 
Vid. Tim. Pro●…. C. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Coteler. Ec. Gr. Mon. T. 3. p. 420. & E. Niceph. C.P. Epist. Canonic. Ibid. p. 459, etc. Mason Br●…mhal. Burnet's Vind. p. 60.  yet their Ordination is not hereby made void, but continues with them still, etc.  
To this I might add the practice of the Greek Church in former Ages, and the opinion of the Romanists at this day, who although they are as little friends to those they call Schismatics as any People in the World, yet the most Learned of them declare that no Man indeed ought to receive Orders from either Heretics or Schismatics, and that both he that gives and he that receives them sin greivously, yet where Heretics or Schismatics that Ordain were truly Ordained themselves, and the Ordinations made by them according to the Forms of the Church, such Ordinations are valid, and Heretics or Schismatics so Ordained, need no new Ordination, but only to be reconciled. And this we find alleged by Protestants against those Popish Enemies, who sometime have urged the very same Argument against our first Bishops, which this Vindicator makes use of now. I wish this were the only instance wherein, the Papists and Dissenters are agreed against us.  
And now let the Gentleman take his Answer to this difficult question: Whether Schismatics can Ordain? It being generally given in the Affirmitive; if we may be allowed to believe, as most People do, the deriving of our Orders through a Schismatical Church can be no prejudice to the line of Succession: And yet all those Persons who have thus determined concerning the validity of Schismatical Ordinations think Schismatics out of the Church as much as T. W.  
Perhaps our Author expected to Triumph in this Concession, and that made him call so earnestly for an Answer to this Question: Supposing that if Ordinations made by Schismatics are granted to be valid, our present Non-conformists may find a place among the Clergy, when ever Mr. Baxter and— can obtain a Comprehension without a new Ordination, but this we deny: For although Schism does not invalidate any man's Orders when they are really given, yet this will be no plea for those who never were Ordained; which must needs be the case of many of you who deny the Order of Bishops. For we believe with St. Jerome, that the Power of Ordaining belongs only to the Bishop, and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are all Void and Null; and till you can prove the contrary we take you for no more but a parcel of Lay-intruders into those Holy Functions to which you have no right, (those of you only excepted who have been Episcopally Ordained.)  
And those who have enquired more nicely into your Mission, are apt to suspect that many of your first Apostles, from whom several of you, in all probability, do derive your Orders, never were Ordained; and how to distinguish those from others, at this day, we cannot tell. And this is an Observation which I suppose the Vindicator had never met with; or else he would scarce have been so confid●…nt, as to tell us, p. 26. that they are in the Line still. And yet it is hard to say, whether he was not ware of some such thing; or else what should make him so earnest, as to lose so many Pages against this Line of Succession? which, if it would do him no good, would certainly do him no harm. Methinks it is, at least, a Matter of Reputation to succeed the Apostles; and therefore I can see no Reason why this Vindicator should take such pains to oppose it, unless (being conscious to himself, that his Party has no pretence to it) he would, if it lay in his power, make it void or needless, to prevent others insisting upon it, who he knows can make out a better Claim.  
It has been the common practice of many others, besides this Gent. to lay aside those Notions which their Circumstances would not bear, and to find out New Devices with which they would more easily quadrate. And therefore we cannot wonder; that he looks upon Ordination to be no more but a Public Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges, p. 26. Most of this Man's Party have no other Ordination (and perhaps many of 'em not that). Otherwise, we know, the Saints are as tenacious of Privileges as other Men. And therefore if they could make any tolerable pretence to the Line of Succession, they would magnify it to the full as much as we do.  
But why only a Public Approbation of Miniseterial Abilities? Does the Public Approbation of a Man's Abilities invest him in his Office? Will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a Man a Judge? or from the Universities a Minister, without any Commission from the King, or Ordination from the Bishop, or any body else? But this is such a way of making Clergymen, as never was heard of before. And indeed our Author himself puts in Two other Circumstances in the next page, viz. That he be chosen by the rest, and set apart by the most competent Judges, which amounts to a great deal more than only a Public Approbation.  
And these Judges he supposes may be Laymen in certain Cases of Necessity: As in case that a Company of Laymen be cast upon an Island, or remain in same Country, when their Pastors are all killed, or turned Heretics. But in the first place, I must put him in mind, That as no Man is to meddle with the Sacred Offices (except he he called of God), no Man to preach, except he be sent; so no Man is to call or send as from God, but he that is Authorized by him for that purpose. Our blessed Saviour himself, when he gave Commission to his Apostles, recites his own; All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth; Go therefore, etc. Mat. 28.18, 19 As my Father sent me, so send I you, John 20.21. And We hope our Dissenting Brethren, when they go about to Ordain, will not disdain to follow his Example. In all Ages of the Church the calling or sending of persons to the Work of the Ministry, has still been the business of a select Order of Men: Neither is it to be altered now, except our Author can show us a Text of Scripture, whereby Laymen are impower'd to Ordain the Clergy, or some Scripture Instance to justify that Practice. And if this cannot be done, I should be loath to be one of those Laymen, though never so discreet and knowing, that shou●…d presume to appoint Ambassadors for Almighty God, without his Order. Neither can I see any Reason, why a Man may not as well be a Minister of Jesus Christ, without any Mission at all, as by the Mission of those persons who never were sent themselves.  
As to the Three Cases, wherein ou Author supposes that such Lay-Ordinations became Necessary, we have no Instances before us in Ecclesiastical History of that kind, nor any particular direction in Scripture to do as he thinks we may. And therefore we cannot tell what Method God Almighty would take in such Cases; whether he would revive the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and call persons to the Ministry after an extraordinary manner, that hereby the Authority might again appear to be derived from himself, rather than accept of such unauthorised Ministers, as are only propounded by the People.  
Nor is it so easy to guide ourselves by Arguments drawn from seeming Necessity, in cases where there is no such Necessity at all. For instance; Suppose that a Company of Christian Women were cast upon an Island, whether would one of them, of the best Qualifications, chosen by the rest, and approved, and set apart by the most competent Judges among 'em, to administer in Holy Ordinances to them, be a true Minister of Jesus Christ, and a Lay Person no longer? Here is the same Necessity which our Author supposes; And if the Case holds as to the Men, I can see no Reason why the Women (whose Salvation is as Necessary) should be rejected. But if a well-qualified Sister should happen to win the Hearts of the most competent Judges in Mr. H's Congregation, she must, according to our Author's Argument, be a tru●… Clergywoman at their next Election. Suppose that the Sacred Scriptures should be totally destroyed, or so corrupted by Heretics, that it were impossible to learn out of 'em the great Christian Trut●…s, would not Papists, upon this Supposal, cry up the Use of Unwritten Tradition, and the great Necessity of an Infallible Judge? Would not the Socinian argue stiffly for Natural Religion? which might be practised well enough after all that loss? And why should not the Quaker put in for a share, and prefer the Conduct of Inward Light; which may easily survive the Written Word? And yet what Orthodox Believer would abate his Reverence for Scripture, upon the Inferences of such People? No more will it become us to admit Lay-Ordinations up n that of our Author, from this Supposal of Necessity. As wise Men as he would have concluded another way: Not that Laymen are to Ordain Ministers, but that where Ministers a●…e wanting, People may either minister to themselves, or communicate without Symbols; or forbear till such times as Ministers can be had. Why may not Almighty God as well dispense with some One of these things, as with a Lay-Ordination? And therefore when so many other Courses may be taken, I would know by what Logic this Vindicator can prove, That Lay Ordinations become Necessary! And if not Necessary, all his Argument is at an end, whereby he would make 'em lawful.  
I believe there never was any Case of Absolute Necessity for Lay-Ordinations; but if possibly such should happen as the Gentleman mentions, I am apt to believe that Bishops and Ministers, duly ordained, might be had from other Countries; And if not, methinks it would be reasonable and fit, that we should first see what God would do in such Cases, before we presume to do any thing of ourselves, for which we have no Scripture Warrant. In the nighest Cases to his, those of the Abyssines, etc. 'tis plain the Persons concerned were of a quite contrary Opinion to that of our Author: The Abyssines did not think their want of Ordinances did empower 'em to Ordain Clergymen; but were contented to be without those which are to be dispensed by Priests, till such times as Frumentius returned from Alexandria, who was there made a Bishop by Athanasius, and his Colleagues in Council; And yet they served God in the best manner that Laymen could do. They had their Conventicula, Meeting-houses, as Ruffinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oratories or places for Prayer, as Socrates, 

Buffin. H.B. l. 1. c. 1●….  
Soc. H. E. l. 1. c. 19  
Sunt enim Conventicula loca privata inquibus collectae fiunt & ab illis: distinguuntur. Ecclesiae quae sunt publici juris, etc. Vales. Annot. in Sec. l. 1. c. 19   but not to be called Churches, as Valesius distinguishes: They Catechised, but did not Preach: They prayed, but had no Sacraments that we read of. And when Frumentius came back, like an Apostle of the Country, he was Endowed with the Power of Working Miracles, as the most Authentic Evidence both of his Doctrine and Mission.  
N●…w if those Christians had been of this Author's Opinion, it might have saved Frumentius the Fatigue of so long a Journey, for the Christian Merchants at Auxumae might have Chosen, and Approved and set him apart, and without ever troubling Athanasius, he had been a true Minister of Jesus Christ, sufficiently Authorised to the Work, 
Vindic. p. 27.  and a Lay Person no longer. And if Oswald, King of Northumbria, had but understood the Nature of Ordination, like this learned Gentleman, he needed not have sent to the Abbot of Hylas for Bishops; he and his Privy Council, or others of his Christian Subjects might have ordained enough. For probably there were not only Christians but Presbyters in Northumbria at that time: Twelve Thousand being baptised according to Nennius and Paulinus; their Archbishop, 

Nen. H. Prit. c. 65.  
Vid. chronic. sanct. cru. Edin. ad an. 627. Angl Sac. Tom. 1. Hist. de Success. Ep. Dunelm. ib. p. 691.   with the Assista●…ce of Edwin their King, having spent six years in planting and settling Christianity there, and but two years betwixt his going off, and Bishop Aidan's coming thither. And unless the Gent. can show the contrary, viz. That none of the former Converts were then remaining; or if they were, that none of 'em were better qualified, none more competent Judges than the rest; but all alike. It is plain, by their practice, that they were not of his Opinion.  
When ever a new People were Converted to the Faith, great care was always taken to have a Lawful Ministry among 'em, both Bishops and Presbyters duly Ordained: 
Ruffin. H. E. l. 1. c. 10.  For this Reason the Iberians dispatched an Embassy to Constantine, desiring that Pri●…sts might be sent 'em. 
Soz. H. E. l. 6. c. 38.  And when the Saracens were Converted, Mavia, their Queen, desires that Moses, a Saracen, might be the Bishop of that Nation; and when he refused to be Ordained by Lucius of Alexandria, the Bloody Arian, the Roman Magistrates (we find) carried him to the banished Bishops for Orders, which they needed not have done, if they had been of the Mind of our Author: For if Ordination be nothing more but a public Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by the most competent Judges, Moses was really Ordained before ever he came at those Bishops; his Ministerial Abilities being publicly Approved by the Roman Magistrates and the Queen, before he left his own Country. 
Ang. sac. p. 423. Tho. Chesterf. de Episc. Cou. & Lich. Ibid. p. 425.  So when Peada, King of the Mid-Angles, was Converted and Baptised in Northumbria, he brought Home with him four Presbyters, viz. Cedda, and Adda, and Betti, and Duma, that he might Propagate the Christian Religion among his own Subjects, and Diuma was afterward Consecrated the first Bishop of the Mercians and Mid Angles, by Finan Bishop of Northumbria; and yet I doubt not but his fellow Presbyters were competent Judges, and might have made him a Bishop as well as Finan, if our Author's way of Ordaining had been then found out: But as the Church never dreamed of any such rare Inventions; so it is plain they thought Episcopal Ordination necessary, that the only way of deriving that Authority from our Saviour, was by Succession, and that no Man might Administer in Sacred things, unless he were thus Admitted. And for this Reason the Council of Celichyth under Wulfred, Archbishop of Canterbury, were so wary, that they would not admit an Stranger of the Scotch Nation to perform any Sacred Office; quia incertum est nobis unde & an ab aliquo Ordinentur, 
Spelm. Conc●…. Ang. Tom. 1. 329.  because it was uncertain to them by whom, and whether they were ordained by any body at all.  
Now as it is plain, from all these Instances, that the Christians of several Countries and Ages, were of a quite contrary Opinion to that of our Author, so I might add several more, were I not to deal with Persons, who, rather than lay aside that Scheme of Government which they have lately espoused, will despise all Antiquity; insomuch that the practice of the very Apostles themselves cannot escape their Censure; 
Vind. p. 27.  witness that unseemly Jest wherewith the Vindicator endeavours to Ridicule that Sacred Ceremony; viz. Imposition of Hands; which being used by St. Paul, in the Ordination of Timothy, what is here said against it in General Terms, is no less a Libel upon him, than it is upon us.  
I wonder who taught him the Notion of an uninterrupted Succession of our English Monarches, from the Eldest Son of Noah. 
Ibid.  If he can produce it from any Author, I shall then believe that he can speak truth for once. In the mean time, I cannot but admire, that a Man who disputes with so much Pertness, as if every thing that he says were all Oracle, should want either the Sense to understand, or Integrity to report so plain a Notion.  
If our Loyalty to English Monarches is so great a Trouble to these Gentlemen, that they cannot hear it asserted, without torturing their Ears, we cannot help it. I confess it is no more than what I always thought; and since the Gent. so freely owns it, I hope it will be taken notice of: For the Government (which G●…d be thanked is not yet quite a Commonwealth) must needs be concerned in that Grievance; And he that can libel the Grandfather with so much Impudence, 
Vind. p. 57, etc.  and triumph in the Subversion of those Principles, which lately supported the Monarchy, cannot be thought to wish very auspiciously to the present Reign.  
And yet notwithstanding their Natural Aversation, and Spite against Monarchy, so easy and flexible are those Gentlemen to any thing of their own Interest, that when King James the Second afforded 'em a Tolerat on, No Compliments were too high for him. Subversion of Religion, and cutting of Throats, the dangerous Consequences of a Popish Successor, were absolutely forgotten: The Monarch was no Bugbear, nor the Papists neither; Prerogative and Dispensing Power were harmless, innocent things: His Leige-People, the Dissenters, 
Leads Address, June 25. 87.  were vying who should most feelingly express a Thankful Heart; They magnified him as the Generous Leading Pattern to the Princes of other People, and a Father to his own; The Assertor and Restorer of God's immediate Dominion over Conscience; the covering Cherub, under whose refreshing Shadow they promised themselves Rest— The First and Happy Instrument, 

Independ. and Bipt. in the County of Glou. May, 87. Dissent. of Maldon, Great Coghall, etc. July 9 87.  
Dissenters in Leathward in Cumberl. Aug. 87.  
Presbyter. of Colchester, Aug. ●…. 87.   under God, of the present and future Peace and Prosperity of his Dominions— One designed for great Services, the blossoming whereof was then made visible in his Celebrated Wisdom, in happening upon the most melodous Harp to charm all evil Spirits, that many other Princes had no Skill to use; (though according to others Concarring herein with many Noble Princes before him.) But as others thought fit to express themselves— Of all that ever sat upon the English Throne, It shall only be said of Your Majesty's Reign, That from the Western Ocean, even to the Frozen Thule then had the Churches Rest, and were multiplied, no one forbidding them— Your Royal Indulgence, like the Sound of the Jubilee Trumpet, has so exhilarated the Hearts of your Dissenting Subjects, that they want Words to express their Gratitude, and Tongues to Celebrate your Clemency, etc. So dear was that Unhappy Prince to these People, upon the Account of the Indulgence (though at the same time they knew well enough, that he inte deed hereby the Ruin of the Established Church), that they followed him with Acclamations and Shouts, beyond all others, wherever he came. The Flattery of their Addresses had no other Bounds but want of Wit; 
You have hereby echoed to the angelical song, which brought him into the World, who at his ingress into it brought peace, and at his egress out of it, bought peace, and thereby immolated that Resignation of a narrow interest, for the Divinity of a more general Preservation; and so tuned the strings of your auspicious Government, as to make melody over your whole Empire. Presbyt. of Hull, Octob. 87. And a little after, they call him plainly their Redeemer.  and that Defect was oftentimes supplied with Fustian and Blasphemy. He that reads 'em, would think many parts of 'em to have been taken out of their Prayers; insomuch that God Almighty and King James the Second had in many instances the very same Compliments. Nay, if the Prophets did any where magnify the Divine Clemency by a most extraordinary flight of Expression, it was presently got into the Addresses, and applied most ingenuously to King James, to enhance the Dissenters Gratitude for that Illegal Act. So that methinks there is little Room for this Gentleman to talk of Lewd and Extravagan Caresses between Ambitious Princes and Aspiring Churchmen, Vind. p. 28. while those of his own Party are extant, and may be seen.  
Though it should be granted, That Ceremonies have no Moral Goodness in them (as he says is acknowledged, p 28.) yet Decency has; which we think will not easily be preserved without them; and that it is fit they should be chosen and imposed by the Authority and Wisdom of Superiors. For if otherwise Religious Offices were to be performed, according to the Opinion and Will of every Rude and Fantastical Person, we see by the Practice of Conventicles, where that Liberty is taken, how awkardly they would be managed, to the great Scandal and Offence of the more Ingenious and Sober People. Nor is it easily to be imagined, That God Almighty should be better pleased with the Rudeness of their Worship, than with the Decency of ours. Especially considering, That besides the Practice of the Church in all Ages, we have the Injunction of the Apostle, That all things be done decently, and are to Worship God with our Bodies, as well as with our Souls, which are God's.  
As to the Ceremonies of our Church in particular, they are so few, and easy, that he must certainly be a Man of more than ordinary Peevishness, or less than ordinary Sense, that can take 'em for Encumbrances upon the Worship of God. The Vindicator himself, upon Second Thoughts, will not, under pretence of Spirituality, 
Vind. p. 38.  reject the Natural Decorum of an Action in the Worship of God which I am very glad to hear, And if he will but do One Thing more, viz. allow the Bishops and Clergy, in Convocation, to be fit Judges of that Decorum than every mean and half-witted Pastor, there would be very little more required from him.  
I am confident, when this is done, that people will be better reconciled to our Ceremonies, than to suffer themselves to be Excommunicated, and Damned, for not complying with them, as the Vindicator talks, page 28. In the mean time, if any Man be so stiff and peevish, or malicious against the Church, as to deprave her Ceremonies, and so far despises her Jurisdiction and Government, that he will not vouchssafe an Appearance to the most Legal Summons, nor yield to the most Reasonable and Just Monitions in that Case, she does pursue our Saviour's Rule— He that neglects to hear the Church, we think aught to be reckoned as an Heathen Man, and a Publican, or in the Language of the UNITED MINISTERS— When all due Means for the reducing him prove ineffectual, 
Heads of Agreement. Tit. 3. Sect. 4.  he having hereby cut himself off from the Church's Communion, the Church may justly esteem and declare itself discharged of any further Inspection over him.  
And in this practice the mildest Protestant Churches agree with us▪ 
Eccles. Dis. of the Reform. Churches of France, transl. into Eng. 1642.  The Reformed Churches of France having used a Coercive Power over their inferior Members. Those that should stir up Strife or Contention, to dis●…oyn or break the Union of their Church, concerning some Point of their Doctrine or Discipline, or about the Method, Matter, or Style of the Catechism (though of Humane Composition), or the Administration of the Sacraments; Public Prayers, etc. shall be censured as Rebellious Persons— And in case they will not renounce their Errors— then they are to be cut off from the Church. If the Pastor or Elder do it, he shall presently be suspended from his Charge and Employment, and be proceeded against at the next Ecclesiastical Synod. If he teaches False Doctrine, and persists after Admonition; If he is not obedient to the Admonition of the Consistory, or Convicted of Heresy, Schism, or Rebellion, against Ecclesiastical Order, he is to be deposed. If he thrusts himself into the Ministry, where there is pure preaching already, and will not de●…it when warned of it, he is to be quite cut off, and proceeded against as the Synod shall think fit. And the same Course is to be taken with all his Followers. And at the End of that Book, we are told, That this Order and Discipline had been resolved and concluded on by no less than Twenty Seven National Synods, from 1559 to 1637, etc.  
Now if these Reformed Churches of France were not to be Censured as Uncharitable, for the Establishment and Exercise of this Discipline, I know no Reason why ours should lie under that imputation.  
In the next Paragraph he finds fault with T. W's. Notion of of the Communion of Saints but gives none of his own, whether for fear lest he should mistake, or lest his own Party should be condemned by it, I shall not now inquire. It is certainly a nice Point for Separatists to manage, It being hard for those that neither Pray with, nor receive the Sacraments, nor live under the Government of any Church, to Demonstrate plainly how they hold Communion with all, as this Vindicator confidently pretends. However though he could establish nothing himself; yet that he may do something towards finding fault with T. W. he proceeds to examine his aggregate description of the Communion of Saints, which he tells you consists of these things.  
First, A firm belief of all the Articles of Faith contained in the Apostolical, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. Now this mightily offends him: 1st. Because it was not said in Scripture; as if he that believes those Creeds did not believe Scripture. Those Creeds, though of human composition, 
Symbolum Apost. exigi coepit ubi variae Haereses in Ecclesiam irruperant Voss. de tribus Symb. Dis. 1. c. 14.  yet are according to Scripture, and contain the Faith into which Christians are Baptised. They are the Symbola wherein the Orthodox of all Countries agree, and whereby they have distinguished themselves in several Ages, from those Heretics which did not assent to them. The two former have been generally received, and admitted, into the Liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, and therefore it is strange how the Vindicator can suppose that the Greek and other Eastern Churches are shut out by this condition of Communion.  
'Tis true in the Article of the Procession they objected against the Latins, the addition of Filioque in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed, (and perhaps not untruly, considering that in the old Ordo Romanus published by Hittorpius, wherein that Creed is ordered to be used in both Languages these words, though in the Latin, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui ex patre filioque procedit, qui cum patre & filio. simul adoratur Hittorp. Ord. Rom. de Diu. Offic. p. 39 Ed. Col. 1568. Vide & Voss. de tribus 9 symbol. Diss. 3 c. 20. etc.  yet are omitted in the Greek). But nevertheless they used the Creed, and from them it came Originally into the Latin Church. And as to that which we receive under the Name of Athanasius, those among the Greeks who thought it to be his, had always a very great veneration for it. But in some Greek Copies the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are left out. So that upon the whole matter the Eastern Churches have no quarrel against either of those 
* Combefis. ad Man. Calec. not 59  Creeds. All their contention with the Western in this case is about the true Reading of them 
† Symbolum fidei, quod ipsi profitentur idem est atque illud quod Latini in Missa recitant: Differunt in eo à Latinis quod ipsi de Spir. Sancto. dicunt, qui ex Patre procedit, Latini qui ex Patre filioque procedit; id cum Graeci non negent idem cum Latinis dicere existimandi sunt. Leo All. de Cons. l. 3. c. 10. Sect. 1. . And therefore unless he had been more particular about that, this first Branch of T. W's. description may stand, and yet neither the Greek or any Eastern Church be excluded.  
Secondly, To partake of the same Table, 'tis true T. W. did not mean the same individual Table, as the Gentleman rightly supposes, and yet he meant something more than barely the same Eucharist in Specie; Heretics and Schismatics, may deliver the same Eucharist in Specie; and yet he that Communicates with either is not thereby in the Communion of the Saints.  
Thirdly, To join all in the same Holy Prayers, and Supplications, and giving of Thanks: T. W. does not hereby Excommunicate all the rest of the World. For although the Forms of Holy Prayer, etc. are different in several Countries, yet people joining with the Church where they live in its Holy Devotions, do answer this Branch of the Description and those Christians who refuse and separate from them are certainly Schismatics.  
Fourthly, To be Subject and Obedient to our Spiritual Rulers, and Governors, who have derived their Authority from the Apostles by a due Succession in all things pertaining to godly Life, Decency and Order. He cannot except against this: They are desirous to give due Honour and Obedience, to their Spiritual Governors who derive their Authority from Christ, but still he endeavours to justify their Separation upon two accounts.  

Vind. p. 32.  First, Because he thinks the Bishop ought not to Govern so many Congregations, nor by such Rules, and Officers, as they do Neither,  
Secondly, By the nomination of the Civil Magistrate without the consent of the People, or the Ministers within the Diocese, and while he does so, he is a Creature not to be found either in Scripture or in the Primitive Times, and therefore can be no Spiritual Governor of theirs by Divine Right.  
As to the Government of so many Congregations, we think it not Essential to the Office of a Bishop: It being not the greatness of the City he lives in, or the extent of his Diocese, or the Number of Congregations, but the Ordination that makes him a Bishop. We acknowledge with St. 
Ep. ad Evagr.  Jerome that the poor Bishop of Eugubium had the same Order, and Authority, with him of Rome, and that he of Tanis was equal in that respect to him of Alexandria, 
Soz. l. 2. c. 14.  and that Milles the Martyr in Sozomen who had never a Christian within his Diocese, 
Ibid. l. 7. c. 19  was as truly a Bishop as he who had all Scythia under his care.  
On the other hand to persuade us that the great Extent of a Bishop's Diocese does make void his Office, will be a task, I am afraid, too difficult for our Author to manage. We have no such Doctrine in Sc ipture. And this conceit as it is beyond the malice, so it is below the Sense of all Heretics and Schismatics in former Times. And if it were true, the Apostles themselves must have been the greatest Usurpers: They having a larger extent of Jurisdiction even according to this Author, than any of their Successors. But this Argument has been so Copiously, and so lately managed, by Doctor Maurice in his Learned Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy; that I shall only need to refer the Reader thither.  
Secondly, As for, the Officers used by our English Prelacy, we think them such as are extremely useful, in order to the more regular and easy management of the Episcopal Charge, The Chancellor is a Person well learned in the Canon and Civil Laws, and consequently able to judge or assist the Bishop in his Judicial Proceed. Nor is it any great exception against him, in my Opinion, that he is a Layman, while there is no Necessity for him Personally to perform any of those things which belong only to the Clergy: 
Lyndew. de Constit. q. incontin. Dec. Rural. vid plura de judiciis, c. 1. Dec. Rural.  The Dean Rural is a Temporary Officer under the Archbishop or Bishop, ad aliquod ministerium exe●…cendum Constitutus.— Cujus Officium est in Causis ecclesiasticis citationes ei transmissas exequi— cujus sigillum in talibus erit auctenticum.  
The Rules they go by are the Canon and Civil Laws, where the Laws and Canons of our own Kingdom have not expressly directed. The Authority they have is from the Bishop, and the Law. So that he who disobeys them in the just and legal Exercise of their Authority, disobeys both. How Sacred and Certain that Authority is, I wish these Gentlemen may consider.  
And if it were purely a matter of Choice, yet methinks Church-Affairs are more likely to be well managed under our English Prelacy, by such Officers and Rulers, than after the Independent Fashion, by the Sudden and Arbitrary Determination of every Mean and Ordinary Past●…r, perhaps in a Consistory of Clowns, who must Pole for that Truth and Equity, which they do not understand: And if either the Pastor, or any body else happens to be wiser than the rest, so as to judge right, have Power to overrule his Sense and Arguments, either by Votes or Tumult.  
Neither, Thirdly, Do we think the Consent of the People, or of the Ministers of the Diocese, Essential to th●… Office of a Bishop: Our Saviour Constituted his Apostles without it; We have no Command in Scripture for any such Consent: The Practice of the Primitive Times was various; and therefore we think it a Matter left wholly to the Discretion of the Church. Mathias and Justus seem to be appointed by the People, as well as the Apostles, Acts 1.15. etc. But the Apostleship was not determined by that Election, but by the Lot which fell upon Mathias: For Justus, who was equally Sharer with him in that Act of the People, was thereby no more an Apostle than he was before. And perhaps the same way of Choosing by Lots, might be used by St. John, as Mr. Dodwell conjectures; but was never, 
Diss. Cyp. p. 12.  probably, in Use after the Apostles Days; though if it had been Necessary, we cannot believe it would have been omitted in the following Ages. The Seven Deacons (we read) were Elected by the People, but received their Authorities and Office from the Apostles, by imposition of Hands.  
And these are, I believe, all the Instances of Popular Elections that can be found in Scripture; but from none of 'em is it evident, that the Election of the People did contribute any thing that was Essential to Holy Orders.  
The Reason why it was admitted, was, that they might confer the Power and Character upon the Best and most Unexceptionable Persons; such as were of Honest Report; which could not so easily be known, without consulting the Multitude: 
Cyp. Ep. LXVIII. Ed. Oxon.  And this is all the Use that St Cyprian makes of the aforementioned Instances, who tells us, That it was so ordered in the Case of Eleazar, the Son of Aaron, and aught to be so, that the Crimes of ill Men may be Detected, and the Deserts of Good Men Extolled— And that the Apostles proceeded so diligently and warily in the Choice of Mathias, and the Seven Deacons, lest any Unworthy Person should creep into the Service of the Altar, or obtain the Degree of Priesthood. And he adds further, That in his Time it was the Custom for the Neighbouring Bishops of the same Province, to Meet and Choose a Bishop in the presence of the People, who fully understood each Man's Life. And after this manner they advanced Sabinus into the Place of Basilide.  
All this seems to be plainly allowed by the Council of Laodicea, which will have none to be made Bishops, but such as are of Known and Approved Conversation; 
Con. Laod. Can. 12.  and provides that they should be constituted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Discretion of the Metropolitans, and Neighbouring Bishops In which Po●…nts it agrees exactly with St. Cyprian s Model; 
Can. 13.  an●… yet the Canon immediate  following, will not allow the People to choose those that are to be advanced to the Priesthood; and therefore surely their Consent was not then thought Essentially Necessary to the making of a Bishop. Nay, so far was the Church from the Opin on of this Author, that upon the Death of Auxentius, 
Theod. H. E. l. 4 c. 7.  the Arian Bish p of Milan, the Synod petitioned the Emperor, That he would choose one to suc eed him in that See; which certainly they would not have done, if they had thought that his Nomination would have made him such a Monster, as our Author speaks of, viz. A Creature not to be found in Scripture, or the Primitive Times.  
I might add several other Instances of Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarches, chosen to their respective Charges, by the Discretion of the Emperor and other Princes; but I suppose it is not necessary.  
As to the Nomination of our English Prelacy; suppose it had been of right Originally in the Clergy and People, yet they by their Representatives in Parliament, 
25 H. 8. c. 20.  have confirmed it to the Prince; So that it is his by Law: And for my part, I know no Reason why it should not so continue. Episcopacy is the same, choose who Names; it being not the Nomination, but the Ordination that makes the Bishop. And if that be the same now which it was in the Primitive Times, our Episcopacy must needs be the same with theirs.  
Page 33, and 34. The Gentleman is willing to be tried by the Pattern of those Churches which are truly Primitive; but I find he dares not venture far among 'em, for fear of losing his Cause. He complains, That a Century, or Two, made a considerable Change in the Features of their Government and Worship: but in which Century that Change was wrought, he durst not inform us. However, if he pleases to venture his Cause upon it, let him take any of the first Fifteen, to prove Congregational Episcopacy; and (provided he will allow the Writers of that, or the next Age, to be credited before those that lived later) I shall freely join issue with him.  
We have a Specimen of his Abilities already, page 34 and 35. where he tells us, That Ignatius charges the Bishop to take a personal cognizance of every Member of his Church, not excepting the very Servants.  
And Secondly, That it was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's Day; and that 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? To which I Answer:  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc.  First, That Ignatius does indeed require of the Bishop, to discourse people singly, as God should enable him: But how does this prove, That he was to take a Personal Cognizance of every particular Member of his Church? Had he no body to assist him in the Remoter parts of his Charge? Why could no Man else acquaint him with the Frailties and Misdemeanours of particular persons, but all must depend wholly upon his own Cognizance and Observation? Or because he was not to content himself barely with Public Preaching, but was to discourse 'em particularly, as he found occasion: Does it therefore follow, that he must needs be acquainted with every Member o his Church? How if they were too numerous, or liv d too remote to be all Personally discoursed with? All that Ignatius requires is so far as God shall enable him; Which kind of Expression, methinks, implies some difficulty— Let Assemblies be held often; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Inquire after all by their Names; do not despise, or behave thyself insolently towards the Men-Servants, or Maid-Servants.  
This, I suppose, is the Passage to which our Author principally refers. Though if he had been able to have quoted it, we might have been abundantly more certain However, from this it is not to be concluded, that he must take a personal Cognizance of every Member of his Church, or that he was the Pastor only of One single Congregation; For how does he prove, That those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be only at One Place? Why might not the several Assemblies in his Diocese be as well comprehended under that Title? Again, how does our Author prove, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more but the Ordinary Congregations? Why not the more Extraordinary Assemblies, when the Bishop Visited? Perhaps the Bishop had a Scroll, wherein the Names of Christians were enroled; and in calling them over at his Visitations might inquire into the Faith and Manners of particular Persons, and call for the Men themselves, and as he found Occasion, discourse 'em, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of Doctrine, Admonition, or Reproof: Or, peradventure he might call over the N●…mes of the Congregation where he himself was present, that he might hereby discover who were heretically inclined: For even then such Persons began to withdraw from the Communion of the Church, and to hold Conventicles, though very privately. And if we take it in the latter Sense, it will contribute little to his Cause, unless he could first prove, That the Bishop's Congregation would not be a Pattern to the rest, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Id. ad Smyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  
Vid. Dodw. in Irenae. Dis. 1. Sect. XVII.   and that there were no Subordinate Presbyters to do the same thing, by the Bishop's Order, in other Congregations within his Diocese.  
And that there were more Congregations than one under the Bishop of Smyrna, is evident from that Pass●…ge of Ignatius, in his Epistle to them; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ig. ad Smyrn.  Let no man perform any of those things which belong to Public Assemblies, without the Bishop, That Eucharist is to be thought valid, which is either under him, or at least, which he allowed. What had he to do to allow the Eucharist in Congregations Independent upon him, and to talk of giving allowance to himself in his own is to great a Blunder for Ignatius to be charged with. So that all the distinction here made is betwixt a Congregation under the Bishop, viz. that where he was Personally present, and another Congregation Assembled by his permission, and allowance; and must consequently imply that in the Church of Smyrna there were several Congregations under one Bishop, what relates to Servants is nothing to this purpose in Ignatius, whatever it was in our Authors Head.  
Nor is the Second Alligation more regular or just than the former. (Antistitis manu) in Tertullian (for thence it came Originally by way of Mr. Baxter to our Author) referring not to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 
Aquam adituri ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistit●… manu contestamur nos Renunciare Diaibolo etc.— Eucharistiae Sacramentum & in Tempore victus, & Omnibus & mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis Caetizbus, nec de Aliorum manu, quam praesidentium sumimus. Tert. De Cor. Milit. c. 3.  but to the Form of Renouncing the Devil, etc. which was preparatory to Baptism, and the persons to be Baptised did it sub Antistitis manu, for (ex) as this Man quotes it would have made it Nonsense. Tertullian does indeed speak of the Lords Supper not to be Received nisi de Praesidentium manu, But this will do our Author no Service: The word Praesidentium including the Bench of Presbyters, as well as the Bishop in Cathedra.  

Vid. Pears. Vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Assert. 2. Dod. in Iren. Dis. 1. Sect. VII.  Nor will the Passage out of Irenaeus, which he so hastily misapplies (if fully cited and understood,) afford any advantage to his cause. Presbyters in that Father, oftentimes denoting the Age, rather than the Office of those Persons meant by it, as divers Learned Men have already observed. And in that Sense not only Presbyters, but likewise Bishops, Deacons and Laymen might be comprehended under that Title: And accordingly Irenaeus distinguishes by divers Characters telling them what sort of Elders they were to hearken to, 

Qua propter eis qui in Eccles. sunt Pres. obaudire oportet hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus, qui cum Episc. Successione charisma veritatis Certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. Iren. l. 4. c. 4, 3.  
Iren. l. 4. c. 43   viz.  
First, Eyes qui in Ecclesia sunt, those who are within the Pale of the Church.  
Secondly, Hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis, etc. those who had the Succession from the Apostles, and who together with the Succession, in their Episcopal Charge, did receive the sure Gift of Truth, according to the Will of the Father.  
Whence it is plain that Irenaeus in this place, means Bishops only when he talks of the Apostles Successors. And therefore our Author's Inference in behalf of Presbyters having their Succession from the Apostles as well as Bishops, is out of Doors. Irenaeus reckons up the Bishops of Rome in order as they Succeeded to Eleutherius then Bishop, who was the Twelfth from the Apostles, concluding Hac Ordina●…ione & Successione, etc. by this Ordination, and Succession, that Tradition which is in the Church from the Apostl●…s and the Preaching of the Truth is handed down to us. From which it is plain that Succession in their days, was more than bare Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship: For they Succeedded the Apostles.  
First, In Power and Authority, So Irenaeus— quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias Committebant— quos & Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum, Locum Magisterii tradentes.  
Secondly, In Place, So Linus was constituted the Successor of St. Peter, and St. Paul, at Rome; and Irenaeus tells us further that they made him Bishop. And therefore if his Successors afterwards mentioned kept up to the Apostles Model, they must likewise derive their Office as he did, from Persons invested w●…th the same Character, and Consequently as Linus was Ordained by the Apostles, who had that Episcopal Authority in themselves, which they conferred upon him, So the rest down to Eleutherius must be Ordained by Bishops. And if so let our Author consider with himself whether his Notion, or ours, is nearer in all Points to the sense of those Times.  
When I consider how nice and strict this Gentleman was in the Notion of Succession, P. 19 20 that he could not allow Two Bishops to Succeed One Apostle, nor One to Succeed Two, I cannot but wonder that in the Writing of 16 Pages, his Head should grow so lose as to make it no more than Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship. Surely if this be the truest Sense as the Gentleman affirms, One Bishop may Succeed Two Apostles, or One Apostle be Succeeded by Twenty Bishops without any such absurdity or Blunder as our Author cries out against in the forequoted Pages.  
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 n●… cause is given, cannot be without breach of Charity with our fellow Christians, Page 37. Yes it may through the prejudices of Education, or for want of understanding: People may take that to be New which is very Old, and that which is very Decent and Fit to be Imposed, to be altogether Needless; and withdraw themselves from particular Churches framed according to Scripture Rules, when purely out of mistake they think them otherwise. They may be led by Interest, or won over by persuasion, to a new Communion, and yet have no hard thoughts of that Church, or its Members, which they left. I cannot believe that every Dissenter at his first going off from the Church of England, does immediately hate us; I find several of 'em very Kind a●…d Affable Persons; And yet if our Author has granted Right, all their Charity (though a very good and commendable thing) cannot excuse 'em from the Gild of acting schismatically.  
And because our Author has granted this, I shall grant likewise, That Schism is frequently the Effect of Uncharitableness, which perhaps was all that honest Mr. H. meant, when he call d it formalis ratio. People are sometimes froward and peevish, and apt to take Pe●… at little things; and when they are once angry, and out of charity will forsake the best friends in the world (though perhaps for worse Company); And the new Acquaintance, if he be not very dull, will be ready enough, for his own advantage, to find out Suggestions, true or false to confirm and improve the Quarrel.  
Again, Uncharitableness is otherwise the Effect of Schism, when People have no way to justify their Separation from an Orthodox Church, and to support and propagate the Cause which they have engaged in, but by vilifying and aspersing its Members, and abusing every thing that belongs to its Communion: And when by the long continuance of these Practices, they have so far wrought upon their own belief, as to think those Objections right, which at first were only taken up to serve a Passion, or Design; and that both Persons and Things are really as bad as they have been used to represent 'em: When they look upon others as the Enemies of God, and Opposers of his pure Worship, as Reprobates, and Damned themselves and Hinderers of the Salvation of others. It is no wonder if they make no Scruple of the most Violent and Uncharitable Practices: Especially when Ambition, Covetousness, and Vainglory go along with these Conceits.  
And yet in the very height of Violence and Cruelty, it will be no mean Task to persuade 'em, That they are uncharitable, nor consequently Schismatics in Mr. H s Notion; For Charity is seated in the heart, which no Man can look into; and therefore the breach of it not otherwise Visible than by outward Practices. And as to those, be they never so Villainous, yet it is in vain to object 'em▪ while they are committed under the Patronage of a Rjghteous Cause, and also with a great Appearance of Devotion and Sobriety. If you are robbed and plundered by One of these People, you are not to call him a Thief, or to say, he was Uncharitable, for thus undoing his poor Neighbour; for it was only the spoiling of an Egyptian, or, in another Phrase, the weakening of the wicked. If they kill you, it cannot be Murder, so long as the Example of Phineas stands upon Record.  
Or if he destroys his Prince, yet if he can but once pass Tyburn, he's no Traitor; there is Scripture enough, as he thinks, to discharge him from that Gild. And as for the more puny Instances of Uncharitableness; such as Lying and Slandering, and raising Tumults, and the most Grave and Solemn Perjuries, to promote the Cause, either the Love of Good Men, or Zeal for Reformation, will easily excuse 'em among Friends: And to prevent Scandal among other People, if they be done one Day, they may be denied the next.  
If any Tradesman appears more than ordinary in Defence of the Church, no Schismatic is to have any Dealing with him; and if you say, he is Uncharitable, he tells you, No, surely! He has the Management of his own Purfe, and may lay out his Money where he pleases. If any injured Catholic goes about to Right himself in a Court of Judicature, get a Jury of Donatists, and he is so far from obtaining any Relief, or Benefit of Law, that he is sure to be Condemned. And if you say, the Jury was Unjust, they will bring their Action.— Take Warning by your Neighbour; for they went according to their Consciences, and you are not to question their Reputation. If any Clergyman appears against 'em, in Defence of the Church, it shall be their whole ●…usiness to make him Odious, to expose his Faults, in case he be any way o●…noxious; which Charity would rather cover, and by Detraction and Calumny, to lessen and deprave the Character of the most Excellent Persons. If he be of a Grave and Reserv d Conversation, they shall accuse him of Pride; if more cheerful and free, he shall be Reputed Dissolute; if Thrifty, Covetous; if Liberal and Charitable, it shall be said, that he does it out of Vainglory, or the hopes of Merit: And if he be more than ordinarily strict in the Duties of Fasting and Prayer, he shall be reckoned Superstitious, and the best Title he can obtain, will be that of a very great Formalist In fine, be they Clergy, or Lay-people, the violent Schismatic, he that either manages the Faction, or hates the Church, will never speak well of 'em, where he can find the least Occasion, or pretence to speak ill.  
And, as in all these Instances, the Charge of Uncharitableness is confidently evaded, so I would know of these Gentlemen, how Schism, in their Notion, may be discovered, so as that a Dissenter may be Convicted, if he be really Guilty: For if it be one of the blackest Crimes, the Arch-Rebel of all in Christ's Kingdom, it is very fit that it should be reproved and discountenanced. But I cannot see how this can be done, till we first know how to fix it upon particular Persons, We desire theref●…re a plain Answer:  
First of all, by what Rules that is to be done?  
And Secondly, Whether those who are concern d in the fore-mention d, and such like Practices, are not real●…y Schismatics? For if they are▪ we hope that Mr. H. and the rest of his Way, who boast what Power they have within themselves to Admonish, Suspend, and Reject Scandalous Persons; will so order the matter that th●● may be no such People in any of their Congregations. For otherwise, if we see a Book written to prove Uncharitableness to be Schism, and the Crime of Schism therein aggravated to the highest degree, and yet the Author's own Congregation crowded with Uncharitable People, what can we think of the Discourse, but that it was all mere bant●…r; And that all the Power of Admonishing, etc. which they so eagerly challenge, is to be employed only for the Advantage of the Conventicle, but never against any of those Practices, though never so violent or scandalous, that serve to promote its Interest.  
What he says to p. 40. has been already Answered, as far as it is material; And there ends his Vindication of Mr. H's Notion. So that having examine d him hitherto with as much Patience as he did T. W. I shall pursue him no further, hoping that I need not trouble myself about the Remarks on either side.  
FINIS.