A VINDICATION OF Mr. H's Brief Enquiry Into the true Nature OF SCHISM, FROM The Exceptions of T. W. THE Citizen of CHESTER, AND Sincere Lover of Truth.  
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercer's Chapel. 1691.   

A Vindication of M. H's brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism, etc.  
THAT man must be a great stranger in England, that knows not what unhappy flames have been kindled amongst us about matters of Church-Government and Worship; and he must be as great an Enemy that would not contribute his utmost to the extinguishing of them: A great deal has been writ on both sides, to convince the World where the fault of our Division lies. The word Schism has been tossed like a Tennis-ball, from one side to another, till by such motion those violent heats have been caused, that have much endangered both our Church and State. Great endeavours have been used to fasten the guilt upon such as impose unnecessary, suspected Terms of Communion, and it has been fiercely retorted upon those that refuse to comply with such Terms, and after all, the Difference remains, and for aught we see, is like to do so still. Some have fancied the severe Execution of Penal Laws, by Fines, Imprisonment, Exile, etc. would have put an End to that Separation, which they thought proceeded from a Factious humour, not to be tamed any other way; but Experience has convinced them of a quite contrary Effect: Others have persuaded themselves,  such Enforcements were laid aside, the Controverted Ceremonies would of course fall into contempt, for being (by acknowledgement) things purely indifferent (that is to say) mere trifles, without any native worth or strength, they cannot be rationally supposed to stand any longer than they had those external props to bear them up; and herein they have not been altogether disappointed, for they hear of five or six of the Clergy, and those not of the meanest sort, that have chosen to quit their Preferments, for the ease of their Consciences, now they may Preach the Gospel without bearing that burden; and were our present Liberty improved to a Comprehension, more such Instances might be expected, and the World would then see whether all this troublesome Zeal for the things in Controversy, has proceeded from the real value of the things themselves, or the valuation of those external Advantages affixed to them.  
But since neither Dispute, nor Penal Laws have hitherto brought English Protestant's to an exact Uniformity, it is worth every honest man's Enquiry how under these different Modes of Worship, all men may be induced to live quiet and peaceable lives, as becomes those whose Interests are so inseparably united, both by a Sacred and Civil Tie.  
Mr. M. H. has made a very modest and ingenious attempt that way; from which we expect the greater success, because he has certainly hit upon the true cause of our Animosities, which, as all other Wars and Fightings, proceed from our Lusts, which war in our minds; were these as entirely subject to Reason and Virtue as the Gospel would have them to be, it would not be in the power of greater Controversies than ours, to make us run so fiercely one upon another, breaking all the Bonds which our Religion, natural Relation, and Civil Concernments have laid upon us: And because a great deal of harm is many times done by a mistaken Scripture word, and it is necessary to take the Weapon out of the Gladiators hand: He has given us so clear an Account of the true import of the word Schism, as it is used in Sacred Writings, as does acquit all the sober, moderate, peaceable men, and only falls upon the fiery, proud, censorious Bigots of both Persuasions.  
In so healing an Enterprise as this, he could fear no opposition except from two sorts of persons; The furious Zealot, who will find himself too deeply concerned to be quiet and easy; And the Debauchee, who makes use of the Controversy only as a blind to cover his own lewdness, and a pretence to act his malice against the more serious Professors of Practical Religion. Whether that T.W. who has encountered this peaceable Design, belongs to the former or latter sort of men, I shall leave to his own Conscience, and those that are better acquainted with him to determine, but by the complexion of his Book he seems to have a mixture of both.  
Before I proceed to the Examination of his Pamphlet, I think myself obliged to do Mr. H. that Justice, as to assure the Reader he has acted no part at all in this Reply, nor ever saw one word of it before it came out of the Press, and therefore is not chargeable with any Errors whereof it may be guilty.  
The Gentleman gins his Preface imperiously enough, and is very liberal in bestowing his Titles of Honour and Disgrace. The Episcopal Clergy he vouchsafes to salute Learned and Pious, the Dissenters Fools and Schismatics, as if 'twere his Province to make an oracular decision of the Controversy, and to give Laurels or Halters at his pleasure: But as it is to be hoped, the Clergy he speaks of will not value themselves, their Piety or Learning overmuch, upon the bare sentence of a person, that is so little a Judge of either; so it cannot be expected, the Dissenters should immediately confess themselves Fools and Schismatics, because the Citizen has pronounced them such. It is no new thing to them to be called Names, to be represented as Rebels and Traitors, unfit for Humane Society; and it has been formerly an unsufferable crime to endeavour their own vindication, and these men have been so long accustomed to a hectoring abusive kind of Language, that they have forgotten how to speak with common civility to persons that are almost as good men as themselves. [Little shifts, restless spirits buoying up a Faction] have been decantate terms to do the work of a common Foe, in ruining those that were more early ware of the advances of Popish Designs than some of their Neighbours: But 'tis some what strange such words should be heard at this time a-day, when our Governors, and almost the whole Nation are convinced how much this kind of Language, and the Severities that were kindled thereby have contributed to those great evils from which the Nation is but lately escaped.  
He musters against us the great names of Hooker, Bramhall, Hammond, Sanderson, and divers more; but why should he leave out his Modern men? Why should Parker, Dryden, L'Estrange, with their [learned elaborate and Orthodox Writings] come in for their share of Honour? I know none so weak as [to set Mr. H's Book in comparison with these] 'tis evident his subject and design is variant from theirs; but if we thought fit to imitate his Pedantry, we could tell him of Reynolds, Cartwright, blondel, Ames, Daille, Owen, Baxter, etc. whether these men have not done as much to prove the Imposers Schismatics as the former to prove Dissenters such, is referred not to the Judgement of T. W. or of an Interessed Party, but of all the unbyass'd part of Mankind upon a fair hearing, which yet we could never obtain. Mr. H's design was to create a good agreement betwixt Parties that had been so long and learnedly contending; and in this I know of no professed Adversary he has but T. W. and whether his design be not more honest than this man's, and his management more rational, will be speedily tried.  
Our sincere Lover, before he finishes his Preface, makes his honours to three sorts of Readers, the Churchman, the Dissenter, and the Sceptic, and he does it with as good a grace as can be expected from a man in his circumstances.  
As for the true Member of his Church, he's assured of him [that he has been taught the Candour to cover the faults] of a weak Brother— be the performance never so vicious, Zeal for the Church will consecrate and make it pass with applause amongst such as himself; [and if they be but pleased, he's satisfied] for to humour them, was all he designed.  
Now to the Dissenter, [if he be one that has not sacrificed his name to the factious, so as to divest himself of all Christian temper, humility and consideration:] But what a strange supposition is this? Is there ever a Dissenter in the World that is not devoted to Faction, and stripped of Humility? They have formerly condemned us in the lump; 'tis well our Friends have learned to distinguish: Well, if there should chance to be such a creature [he is desired to consider his desperate condition] how? humble, considerate, of a Christian temper, and yet in a desperate condition? this is as great a Riddle as the former. In good earnest, if a man may be in a desperate condition with all these Virtues, I would desire T. W. to consider what the condition of that man is that appears to have none of all these. The Dissenter however bids me thank him for [his weak endeavours to snatch him as a firebrand out of the fire] but I am also to tell him his weak service comes too late, for it has pleased God to move the King and Parliament to do it, who have already by their gracious Indulgence plucked a great many Brands out of the fire of these men's rage and fury, in which they and their Interest were almost consumed, a blessing, which we doubt not [all the Angels congratulate to us] excepting those whose business it is to accuse the Brethren, and to raise storms and tempests in the World.  
His last Address is to the Sceptic, and [if the Sceptic be obstinate and perverse] an obstinate Sceptic is almost as great a Riddle as a humble Dissenter. It has been the way of some men to represent all men as Sceptical and Atheists, that have had larger Souls themselves, and would not join with them in unchurching the greatest part of the World for the sake of a Mitre, and a few Ceremonies; and yet many of these Sceptics have as true a veneration for the Clergy and Church, as T. W. himself; for it can hardly be imagined, that man can have any real value For an Office, whose life does openly confront the great Ends thereof.  
And now he takes leave of his Reader, and turns him to Mr. H. himself, and upon the first salutation blames him [for not choosing the true Standard whereby to discover Schism] Mr. H. choose no other but the Sacred Scriptures, which being the great Law for the Government of Men, must certainly be the truest Touchstone of Sin and Duty; and if the Schism this man would charge us with be not so, according to the Standard of Scripture, we shall not much dread the guilt or danger of it. This is a hopeful beginning of Controversy, to decline the sufficiency and propriety of Scripture as the Standard of good or evil.— But will this man assign a better? yes [the ninth Article of the Apostle's Creed, I believe the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints] But by what Standard must we discover [the true notion] of these words? Who must tell us what the Unity of the Church is, and what the Communion of Saints? Must not Scripture be our Rule? And must you not then come to Mr. H's. Standard at last? a happy Omen! when the first Paragraph contains a plain affront both to Scripture and common sense. But let us see how he goes on.  
He offers to our consideration the Origination and first Existence of the Catholic Church [which was before the day of Pentecost,] but how long before that day he does not tell us. If a man pretends to acquaint me with the Origination of the World, and tells me it was before the Babylonish Captivity, I shall count him a ridiculous trifler; but I suppose he means it was immediately before, or a little while before the day of Pentecost; and here indeed is a discovery worthy of its Author. But had God no Church then amongst the Jews? must they be excommunicated too? for what cause pray? Not for want of Ceremonies, or a Pontiff, I hope. The man told us in his Preface, the Angels in Heaven were the most glorious Members of the Church.— How must we lay these things together? Were the Angels originated at the day of Pentecost? had they their first Existence then?— or did the Members of the Body exist before the Body? let the Citizen, or any of his Cabbala solve these Riddles, and I'll promise him he shall be my great Apollo.  
That [the Apostles and Disciples were the Church] we do not question, nor the power Christ gave his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to all the World; and he well observes, that Christ's commission and charge, That in every Nation they that believe might be baptised, and so made Members of the Church: How well they have observed their Commission, who refuse to admit of Church-Members upon their profession of Faith, unless they will also comply with some significant Rites of their own that are alien to the Scripture Rules, some men may do well to consider, and whether to deny Gospel-priviledges to those that in the Judgement of Charity are Believers, be not to assume a greater power than that which this man calls [the Universal Power given to the Apostles] whereby they become guilty of the worst sort of Tyranny, because the Liberties hereby invaded are of all others the most sacred and invaluable.  
It is plain from this man's confession, that to be a Disciple or Believer would make a man a Member of the Church in Apostolical times; and we cannot but assent to that excellent saying of the now Bishop of Worcester, It is pity that which would make a man a Disciple of Christ then, should not be sufficient to make him a Member of the Church now; but we have no reason to doubt the contrary; and if such a person should be (clavae errante) shut out of the Communion of a particular Church, God would still look upon him as his own; for the pride and perverseness of men shall not make the Faith of Christ of none effect.  
That prevalency of the Gospel (which he speaks of) in Primitive times, we believe, and adore that divine Energy that appeared therein, making its way through so formidable an opposition as it every where met with; and next to the Power of God, which is to be accounted the principal cause, we cannot but ascribe this wonderful success to the sanctity of the Preachers, and the spirituality and simplicity of their Doctrine and Worship; for we find it has made but a slow progress in the World, since men, upon pretence of adoring it, have encumbered it with needless Ceremonies, and committed the management thereof to men, who (many of them) had little to recommend them to the service besides a vehement Zeal for these Religious Impertinencies.  
But, though the Apostles did propagate the Gospel far and wide, yet that they did actually [Preach it to all Nations] is a thing we never heard of before T. W. told us so; and we must have better evidence before we believe it. Whether [the seven Churches in Asia had seven Bishops presiding over them] neither more nor less, is a thing that no way affects the present Controversy, nor can any thing be concluded from thence in favour of our English Prelacy, till the Power of those Bishops, the extent of their Dioceses, the quality of their Under-Officers, the Modes of their Worship, and Terms of Communion be proved the same with ours, or liable to the same exceptions. We have no prejudice against Episcopacy, name or thing, provided it be reduced to the Primitive Standard. He must not think to run us down with a bare word. We find mention made of Presbyters in Scripture; he would think it irrational from hence to assert Scotch Presbytery to be Jure Divino; the name will signify little in the debate, till the true bounds and limits of the Office so named be stated and adjusted.  
I will not take upon me to contradict those Learned men that think the Angels there mentioned were Bishops, but to say [it is plain by the word Angel they were so] is a wonderful Argument indeed; as if Bishop and Angel were convertible terms. And so the two young men that came to rescue Lot out from the Sodomites, were Bishops, and the glorious Messengers that brought to Mary and Elizabeth the joyful tidings of our Saviour's approaching Birth, were Bishops; it's plain they were so by the name Angel the Scriptures give them, and if this hold good, there will be a great many more Bishops in Heaven than Chrysostom expected to find there.  
He tells us, though there was a multiplication or plurality of Churches in those times, by the increase of Believers, yet no variation. I am glad to hear that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches; and why does it so— but because the increase of Church-members may be so great as makes them uncapable of ordinarily meeting together to worship God, therefore a Church in the primitive sense must consist of no more than could ordinarily so meet; and that every Church had its Bishop is evident, for without the governing part it cannot be a distinct Political Society, but if the model of our Episcopal Churches be right, which are made up of some hundreds of Congregations, and Millions of Persons that cannot be known to the Bishop, or one to another; if this I say be allowable, I see not how the increase of Believers can be a sufficient cause for the multiplying of Churches.  
But what does he mean in saying, in these multiplied Churches there was no variation; was there no variety at all in any circumstance of worship? That's gratis dictum, and the contrary may be proved even in the Apostles times. Whence was that scuffle betwixt the believing Jews and Gentiles about Jewish Ceremonies? 
Acts 15.  What need was there of that Apostolical Synod, and of all those precepts against imposing upon, or condemning one another upon the account of different Sentiments? If he means there was no variation from the Scripture Rules (though we are afraid that will scarce hold, yet) we wish it had been so still.  
We have a Notion of Church Unity laid down p. 2. in which we freely concur with him, i. e. [That all Churches are one, as united into one Body, whereof Christ is Head, having the same Baptism, the same Faith, and the same Eucharist] that is the same for substance for it that they all agreed in the Primitive times in the same Circumstances, such a Unity we hold, and doubt not but in our Congregations this Unity may be found. They are made up of visible Christians, such as in the Judgement of Charity are united to Christ by Faith; we have the same Baptism with the Apostolical Churches for Substance, and come as near in circumstances as we can to the Rule, leaving out the innovations of latter and more corrupt times, we hold the same Doctrines of Faith, and the same Eucharist, and after the Apostolical Mode, as far as by their Writings appears, and thus far we are the same with them in the External Worship and Service of God, and the same with all other true Churches, as far as they are the same with the Apostolical, and differ from them no farther than upon a serious Enquiry, we find they differ from these.  
We expect T. W. should stand to this Description of Church Unity he has here given us, and if he does, we can easily make it appear he has ruined his whole Book and Cause; for if this be the true proper Unity of Churches, than there may be true Church Unity without the uniting of many particular Churches, Ministers and People into one Diocesan Church under the Jurisdiction of a Prelate and his Officers; then there may be true Church Unity without a necessary observation of the same Parochial Precincts: I do not speak against the conveniency of such a thing, but only observe that it is not the Essentiâ Unitatis, according to this Man's definition; and there may be true Church Unity without an absolute Uniformity in the same Modes and Circumstances of Worship; and consequently a Man may plead to the Jurisdiction of a Diocesan Prelate, may step over Parish Bounds, and may worship God without the Ceremonies used in England, and yet be free from the guilt of Schism, for if none of these things be Essential to the Church's Unity, they may be omitted, and that preserved entire notwithstanding.  
Touching the continuance of the Church of God upon Earth we have no Controversy with him, we believe it will be till Christ's second coming, but whereas he affirms, that the power wherewith our Saviour vested the Apostles, was not to cease or expire with them, we think a Man of Sense would have distinguished betwixt the extraordinary power which was properly Apostolical, and that ordinary Pastoral power which was eminently comprehended in the other; as to the former we do not find that it was designed to outlive their Persons, and therefore in this we know of no Successors that they have, their call to this Apostolical power was extraordinary, their Authority was Universal, their Commission extended to the whole World, and was the same in all Churches. Now to say that the Bishops which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in this Apostolical power, is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government, and would give the Bishop of Rome as great power in England as the Archbishop of Canterbury (when there is one.) Indeed as the Apostolical power did contain [eminenter] the Pastoral power, so far the Bishops or Pastors of Churches do succeed them; but this cannot be properly called an Apostolical Succession.  
I shall not dispute with him the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus, it signifies nothing till the Nature and Extent of that Office be first determined out of Scripture: Dr. Hammond tells us, all the Elders we read of in Scripture were Bishops, and that every particular Church had at least one of these, and no doubt but Ephesus and Crect had such Bishops as well as other Churches, but whether Timothy and Titus were such is not certain or material; though their frequent removes from place to place at the command of the Apostles, makes it very probable that their Office was itinerant and unfixed. But 'tis pretty to hear him say these two were ordained the Bishops of Ephesus and Crect by the Apostles, Was there any Apostle then besides Paul concerned in it? But here lies the Trick, they must needs be two Bishops, and the Apostolical Succession must begin in them, and therefore it was necessary to mention their Ordination by Apostles in the plural, because it does not agree with the nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical power, for then Timothy would have been as much Bishop of Crect as of Ephesus, and Titus as much Bishop of Ephesus as Timothy, for the Apostolical power vested by Succession in them extended as much to the one as the other, and as much to all the World as to either.  
And how (pray) could Timothy and Titus succeed the Apostles in the Sees of Ephesus and Crect, whilst the Apostles were yet living? Were they translated to a higher Seat, or suspended or degraded, for not owning the Authority of the Civil Magistrate? To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power, the Apostles yet alive, and in plenitude of power, is a very great Mystery, and something akin to the honest Vicar of Newport's quondam Prayer that King Charles the Second might outlive all his Successors.  
Whereas he says no Presbyters had power to ordain, I desire him to try how he will reconcile this with Dr. Hammond, that says these Presbyters were all Bishops, or indeed with Scripture itself, that says even Timothy received the gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. 
1 Tim. 4.14.   
But as to this delicate Notion of Apostolical Succession, he is pleased further to inform us, that for the propagation thereof, Linus by Apostolical Consecration Succeeded the Apostles in the See of Rome, here's a double blunder again— Linus Succeeded whilst the Apostles were alive, for how else could he have Apostolical Consecration, and Linus a single person Succeeds the Apostles in the plural: As before the Apostolical power of one Apostle was divided betwixt two Bishops, Timothy and Titus, so here the power of two or more Apostles is exhausted by one Bishop who is their Lineal Successor— and they still living in full enjoyment of their power; ask him not how can these things be? they must be so, for Dissenters must be Schismatics, and this is the way to prove them so, and therefore must be rational and solid, whatever absurdities our Sceptical Heads discover in it. I need not here take notice how positively he asserts the immediate Succession of Linus, when all the Learned Men in the World acknowledge great Difficulties, and uncertainty— whether Linus or Cletus were first Bishop, or whether both at once, one as Bishop of the Circumcision, the other of the Gentiles; 
As Grotius thinks.  but Ignorance is the rarest thing in the World to make a man bold, and venture at any thing. Nothing but this Faculty of Ignorance would have emboldened him to say, as p. 3. That this Line of Apostolic Succession of Bishops, hath continued in all Ages to this present time; an Assertion without the least shadow of proof; yea, contrary to the Acknowledgements of all Church-Historians. The very Papists themselves, whose Interest it is to make men believe it was so, confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See; and if the Succession be so perplexed there, it must be much more so in other Churches, whose obscurity in former Ages makes it less feasible to trace this Line of Succession.— And though Irenaeus might be able to [name all the Successors of the Apostolic Churches in his day] yet that will hardly prove that there has been no interruption since. Irenaeus is said to have been the Scholar of Polycarp, who was the Disciple of Sr. John, and he is said to have died in the year of Christ 182. It is therefore very probable he might remember the names of all that had been Bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Alexandria, since he had not much above the space of an hundred years to burden his memory with; a less man than he can tell who have been Bishops of Chester for a hundred years— but does it follow that an uninterrupted Succession for above 1600 years is equally certain?  
I might here inquire how it came to pass that this Apostolical Succession was propagated in so few Churches as the Patriarchal were; methinks there should have been as many as the Apostles were. For this man to be so very positive in these difficult and perplexed points, shows a very great Effrontery; and what may we not expect from the man that will talk at this rate? And to say, whoever exercises any Ministerial Office out of this Line of Apostolic Succession, can be no other than a Lay-Impostor, is to expose Christianity itself, and to leave the Consciences of all men in the World at an utter uncertainty whether they have a true Ministry and Ordinances or no. Wretched men! that to support the beloved Cause of Persecution, will advance a notion destructive to our common Christianity, and the Peace and Comfort of the Christian World; and rather than the Dissenters in England should not be Schismatics, will shake the foundation not only of all the Reformed, but of all the Christian Churches in the World. Certainly T. W. ought to have been well advised, before he had given it under his hand, That if there be not an uninterrupted Succession betwixt all the Bishops in England, and Apostles, they are Lay-Impostors and Schismatics; and that he and the rest of his Friends have no better evidence that the Church of England is a true Church, than they have of such a continued Succession; that they can as soon demonstrate such an unbroken Line, as that their Ministry and Sacraments are true; and that they have no better proof that Dissenters are Schismatics than they have of this, nor any better defence of all the Severities they have used against them than this, and if it should happen that in almost 1700 years there has been the least breach made upon this Line, all that they have said and done against Dissenters becomes due to themselves. Would any man in the World (that was not hired to betray the Church's Cause) have put it to such an Issue? I am sure no wise man would venture his Estate upon it: And yet this man has chosen to fix his Church, and Faith and Salvation upon no better a Foot than this.  
For in how many cases may this Line be broken, and all that Apostolic Power conveyed there be spilt and lost, if there should happen a vacancy in any of those things he calls Apostolical Churches and Sees for some years, and the succeeding 
As the Northumbrian Bishops by the Abbot of Hy.  Incumbent be a person ordained by an Abbot who was no Bishop, as is allowed in the Roman Church, through which this Authority must be conveyed to us; does not this make an Intercision in the Line of Episcopal Ordination be so indispensable? it must do so. I desire to know of this man, or (any other that encourage him to write little Books) whether this Line of Succession may be continued in a Schismatical Church, and the Apostolical Power conveyed thereby; if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church, as this Man frequently affirms in his Book, than such Schismatical Churches are no Churches, nor parts of the Universal Church, and so cannot be the Subjects of this Apostolical power, and if this power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church, than he must grant either that the Church of England has not this power, or that the Papal Churches through which this Line and Power runs are not Schismatical, and if they be not, his own Church must be so, for separating from them; for he allows Separation utterly unlawful, unless from a Schismatical Church.  
But after all, though by this continued Line of Apostolical Episcopal Succession, he would Exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea that have not those Governors he will allow to be Scripture Bishops— Supposing this same Line (he makes such a splutter about) were certain or necessary, which it is not, yet till this Man has proved the English Prelacy to be nearer akin to the Scripture Episcopacy than the Pastoral Office, which is the Episcopacy we contend for; we stand as fair for any advantage this Notion may afford as his Party does; for we reverence and maintain Ministerial Ordination, and so are in the Line still, if such a Line there be, which yet we are no way concerned to prove, because we look upon Ordination to be no more but a public Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges, and we doubt not but the Ministers that have such Qualifications themselves are the most competent Judges thereof in others; but if there should happen a case wherein such Persons could not be had; As if a company of Christians should be cast upon a remote Island, or if all the Pastors in a Country should be put to Death, or all turn Heretics, we doubt not but it would be lawful for a Man of the best Qualifications, being chosen by the rest, and approved, and set apart by the most competent Judges amongst them, to Administer in Holy Ordinances to them, and that he would be a true Minister of Jesus Christ, sufficiently Authorized to the Work, and a Lay-person no longer; but if we assent to the Whimsy of a constant Succession (as if power were conveyed like Water in a Conduit after a Physical manner, by contact passing through the Finger ends of the Prelate into the Noddle of the Person Ordained) then can no necessity make the practice aforesaid warrantable, and so the Substance must fail and perish for want of the Ceremony— which is contrary to Reason, and the Notions Men have of the Goodness of God.  
This conceit of an entire Apostolical Line, was forged upon the same Anvil with that of an uninterrupted Succession of English Monarches, from the Eldest Son of Noah, whereby a Patriarchal Right descends inseparable from the Person, Sacred and Irresistible, which has tortured the Ears of all Men of Sense and Sobriety in these late Times.  
The Lewd and Extravagant Caresses that have happened between Ambitious Princes and Aspiring Churchmen have produced such Twins as these, that lately threatened the Kingdom with a dismal Fate. No less pretences than those of Patriarchal and Apostolical Powers were sufficient for the Usurping an Absolute Empire over the Civil and Religious Rights of Men; but as we have seen the One deserted, exposed to just contempt, and renounced by the very Authors thereof, not in words only, but in actions famous and public throughout the World, so we doubt not they will to deal with the other, it being of the same extract, and calculated to serve the very same interest and design.  
His fourth page is taken up with proving that to love as Christians in Scripture Sense is to love as Members of Christ, and obliges us to preserve the Body from Rents and Schisms, which we never deny; but wonder at some Men, who notwithstanding all their talk for Peace and Unity, have so little real Love for it, as to Excommunicate and Damn all those that cannot comply with those Ceremonies which themselves acknowledge have no Moral goodness in them, and therefore can be but idle encumbrances upon the Worship of God, which (as one says of Friendship and Heraldry) is noblest when plainest, bravest when alone: Certainly such unreasonable Stiffness cannot have much in it of that love, [which is the Characteristic of Christ's Disciples;] but these Gentlemen think to excuse their aversation to us, by saying we are not Christians, we are out of the Catholic Church, this is to make one gross act of Uncharitableness to excuse for another; but we thank God they are not to be our final Judges.  
For our further Conviction we are told [The Communion of Saints is one External visible Communion of the Christian Church] which is so far from explaining the thing, that it makes it much darker. We hold Communion in Essentials with every Church of Christ upon Earth, and in Integrals with all sound Churches, and we know few Churches, that hold Communion in all accidentals, nor was such a Communion ever pretended to be necessary. This word Communion, not rightly understood, nor the sense of it carefully distinguished, has strangely misled some Men, and is at the bottom of all those clamours that have filled the Ears of our Rulers, and the whole Nation against us; and this Man seems as little to understand it as any one that ever pretended to write upon the Subject. In the fifth page we have an aggregate description of the Communion of Saints, which we shall particularly examine, and apply to the present case; the Communion of Saints consists of these things.  
1. [A firm Belief of all the Articles of Faith, contained in the Apostolical, Nicene and Athanasian Creed;] and why not in Scripture? these Creeds are but of Humane Composition, and some things in them want Explanation, however so far we are within Communion, though hereby the Greek and other Eastern Churches are shut out, which the Citizen of Chester has no Commission to do.  
2. [To partake all of the same Table] he cannot mean the same individual Table, but the same Eucharist in specie; so far we are with him still: But whether this will not exclude the Papists, who by denying the Cup to the Laity, have taken away in part the matter of the Eucharist, I shall leave to his second thoughts, who I believe will not be overforward in Unchurching them, for fear of breaking the Line by which his own Church hangs.  
3. [To join all in the same holy Prayers and Supplications, and in giving Thanks] he cannot mean that in these Duties we must necessarily use the very same words, without the least adding, substracting or changing, for than he Excommunicates all the World, but those of his own persuasion, and a great many of them too.  
4. [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 a Godly Life, Decency and Order.] We are very desirous to give due Honour and Obedience to our Spiritual Governors, who derive their Authority from Christ, which is more proper than to speak of deriving it from the Apostles, for Christ is the only Fountain of Authority, and the Streams are derived rather from the Fountain, than the Cistern; It is observable the Man's Expression is sunk from an uninterrupted Succession to a due Succession— to observe the Apostolical precepts in Government and Worship may make it up a due Succession, but there's more required to an uninterrupted one than so. Now before he can say we want this Qualification for Communion, he must prove that Diocesan Prelates are made our Rulers by a Divine Command. A single Person taking upon him to govern some thousands of Congregations, by such Rules and Officers as our English Prelacy uses, and this by the Nomination of the Civil Magistrate without the Consent of the People, or of the Ministers within the Diocese, is a Creature we neither find in Scripture, nor in Primitive Times, and therefore can be no Spiritual Governor of ours by Divine Right, let him prove this, and he does something; but till this be done, his whole Book is as insignificant as waste Paper.  
When this Man or any one for him, has made it to appear that the Authority of a Diocesan Prelate, Dean, Lay-Chancellor, etc. over all in the Diocese, is as certain and Sacred as that of Moses and Aaron; we will not dare to dispute it for fear of Corah's doom, but till this be evinced, I hope he will not take it amiss if we be not frightened out of our Wits by such misapplyed Passages, which we have often heard urged to back the Doctrines of Nonresistance, and all those Principles of Slavery some Men have been endeavouring to instil into our Minds, but as we see they have no great regard for such allegations themselves, when adhering to them would be chargeable and dangerous, so we believe they cannot hearty blame us if we despise them too.  
In the last Paragraph of the fifth page we have the Communion of Saints described over again, being willing, I suppose, to make up in the Number what is wanting in Weight, and here we are told all those particular Churches who agree with the Primitive Catholic Church in all the Articles of Faith, and in the External Visible Worship and Service of God are true Members of the Universal Church, and in the Communion of Saints: In what Bounds he will fix the Primitive Church we know not, certain it is, a Century or two made a very considerable change in the features of their Government and Worship; but if we must take our measures by those Courches that are truly Primitive, we fear not to put ourselves to the Trial, That our Congregations have this agreement in Faith none will deny; and he has not proved that we differ from them in the Essential or Integral parts of God's Worship, or in any considerable circumstance; and that this Divine Worship and Service is Visible and External this Gentleman is but too sensible, and 'tis a very great Eyesore to such as he that it is so much more Visible than formerly it has been.  
If we will take his confident and repeated assertions for demonstration, we may believe that the Church of England has from the first planting of the Gospel here, retained the Apostolical power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by an uninterrupted Succession of Arch-Bishops and Bishops in a right Line from the Apostles days to this present time; but how uncertain this is, and how inconsistent with other parts of his Book I suppose has been sufficiently manifested, I shall therefore take no farther notice of it, especially because that, till the true Bounds of Episcopal Power be fixed by Scripture Rules, it is as impertinent as uncertain.  
After he has thus delivered himself of his crude and confused apprehensions, he tells Mr. H. he has done it as cleanly as he could, and that may be true enough for ought I know, but 'tis no fault of Mr. H's, he could do it no better; his Capacity and Employment indeed may be some excuse for his blunders, but will by no means lessen the fault of his officious and confident impertinency in meddling with things he so little understands.  
We are no way concerned in the Citation of the Fathers brought in against us, till he has proved that Episcopacy than was the same thing it is now, and that the terms of Communion we scruple were ever imposed by them.  
Ignatius charges the Bishop in his time to take a personal cognizance of every Member of his Church, not excepting the very Servants: It was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's day, and they never received it [nisi ex Antistitis manu] but from the Hand of the Bishop, What could such Bishops be more than Pastors of single Congregations; but I shall forbear dipping into this Argument which has been so copiously managed by Blondel, Baxter, Owen, Clarkson, and others.  
It is observable in the passage cited out of Irenaeus, the Presbyters are said to have their Succession from the Apostles; it seems they were the Apostles Successors as well as Bishops, surely than they must have the same power; if the Bishops claim the power they have as the Apostles Successors, then must all the Successors of the Apostles have the same power; the Rule is known à quatenus ad omne. It is plain by this that Apostolical Succession in the sense of those times, was not any such fine Aerial Thread as this Man speaks of, but, Conformity to the Apostles model in Government and Worship, and those that best observe that, are in the truest sense the Apostles Successors, whether the Line has been broke by intervening Heretics and Schismatics or no.  
We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such particular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules, and impose no new or needless terms, is to act Schismatically, because such wilful Separation when no cause is given cannot be without breach of Charity with our Fellow Christians, which is the Scripture Notion of Schism, and this Mr. Henry himself grants, and calls it Separation for Separation's sake, which T.W. might have taken notice of had he designed fair dealing.  
But this is not at all proved to be our case. We earnestly desire Episcopacy may be reduced to its proper Sphere, that every particular Church may have its Bishop and Presbyters, and so power within itself to admonish, suspend and reject scandalous Persons; we desire the Rules of the Gospel may be carefully looked into, and a Model of Government and Worship taken from thence, such as may be likely to answer the great Ends of Church Societies, that nothing may be imposed but what is either expressly commanded, or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is so; then would the Worship of God appear like itself, rational, grave, and majestical, becoming reasonable Creatures to offer, and a Being of perfect Simplicity and Spirituality to receive; nor would we (as we are accused) under pretence of Spirituality, reject the natural decorum of an Action in Divine Worship, but only lay aside those Formalities that are over and above natural decency, which in civil converse are counted foppish, and daily grow out of repute betwixt Man and Man, and are not where so improper as in the Service of God.  
It is certainly a very odd Custom these Men have taken up against us, if they find in any of the Fathers the word Bishop, they presently transfer it a Diocesan Prelate; if they read of Breaking off from the Communion of the Bishop, it must be immediately applied to the practice of Dissenters in England. When alas till the Extent of Power, way of coming into Office and Charge, terms of Admission, etc. be proved to be tantamount to what they now are; bare words will conclude nothing at all.  
And yet without so much as offering to prove any thing of this, T.W. will needs persuade Mr. H. to confess himself a Schismatic, and so out of the Catholic Church, and possibility of Salvation.  
Though we need not concern ourselves to soften or extenuate the fault of Schism, no such thing being proved against us— yet it may not be amiss to take notice how this eager Man overshoots himself in these matters; he first makes all those Churches Schismatical that do not agree with the Primitive Catholic Church in Faith, Worship, and Government, without adjusting the measures of such Agreement, as if every little difference made a Schism, which would bear hard upon all the Churches at this day in the World— And when he has done this, he cuts off all these Schismatical Societies from being parts of the Catholic Church, or under a possibility of Salvation— It must needs follow from hence, that Popish Churches (to say nothing of others) must be Schismatical, for they vary notoriously from the Primitive in Faith, Government, and Worship, as I suppose this Man will grant— all those Churches therefore since this Variation, were no parts of the Catholic Church; that is, no Churches at all, and by consequence (according to him) their Bishops must be but Lay-Impostors, their Ordinations null and void, the Line of Communication broken, the Apostolical Power lost, and all England in a state of Damnation; and all this is the Effect of overgreat earnestness to prove the Dissenters Schismatics.  
We have with a great deal of Patience examined T. W's Notions of the Church, of Communion and Unity; and whether there be any thing observable in them besides Ignorance, Confusion and Contradiction, is left to the Judgement of the Reader. That which remains is to view the Remarks he has made upon Mr. H's Book.  
The Instance of Eldad and Medad, was never designed to run of all four; but thus far 'tis to the purpose, as it proves that God has not limited his People in Religious Actions so nicely to the public places, as some would pretend; and that even good Men are apt too severely to censure such actions when managed out of the usual Method, before they fully understand the reason of the thing; and that meek and humble Men like Moses, who are more concerned for the Substance, than Circumstances of Religion, would not deny the Church the advantage of those Gifts which God has bestowed upon Men, even though the exercise of them might seem to derogate from their own Grandeur; those general Inferences naturally follow from the place, and the application of them is not improper as this Man fancies; whatever the Office of this Man was to be, yet doubtless this Act of prophesying was of a Sacred rather than [a Civil nature] and though under that Oeconomy, the Priests were principally engaged in the Ceremonial part of Worship; yet in the Moral part the Prophets often bore a share; which was discovering the mind of God to the People, and pressing them to Obedience, and it is to this rather than the Priestly Office that a Gospel Minister succeeds.  
If these Men demand [we should give as signal proof of our Authority to the Bishops— as Eldad and Medad could to Moses] I hope we may expect that the Bishops should give as signal proof of their Authority as Moses could do; but if extraordinary Commission need not be pretended in the one case, we suppose there's as little need of it in the other; and we are ready to give satisfaction to all the World, of the ordinary Warrant, which consists in suitable Qualifications enquired into, and approved by such as the Scripture calls Bishops.  
Upon Mr. H's bare mentioning of the Worshippers of the Diana of their own opinion. T. W. charges him with saucy Language, but Mr. H. needs not come to this Man to learn how to speak; the reflection Mr. H. made was general, that there are such cannot be denied— and let it fall where 'tis due— but why must this of Necessity be spoke of the Bishops; such an invidious innuendo in the last Reign might have cost a Man dear, of which Mr. Baxter is a memorable Instance. But T.W. will answer for the Bishops (and they are certainly very happy in such an Advocate) that if the Punctilios of Opinion do not cause a separate Communion, they will not censure that for Schism; But what if they make these Punctilios of Opinion the terms of Communion, do they not then become the true causes of that Schism which they censure— for in this case what must we do— must we immediately lay aside our Opinions, and jump all of a sudden into the same Sentiments with them? That cannot be done till the evidence and force of Reason does it; must we then subscribe and profess our assent to what we do not believe? That T. W. himself has already condemned as downright Hypocrisy and Knavery 
page 10. parag. 4. — Must we then quite desert the public Worship of God and turn Pagans? I hope they will not say so; Then there is no other course left but to meet together ourselves, and Worship God in places distinct from the Imposers, and whatever there is culpable in this breach falls upon those that made such little Opinions terms of Communion, which might have been preserved entire without them.  
That which next falls in our way is a pleasant Instance, as this Man calls it, of an innocent difference in Opinion— but it had been much more for his Reputation to have denied himself the pleasure of it; he tells us it was Mr. H's Father's Opinion that it was best to put him to be a Lawyer's or Attorney's Clerk; this is one of the many Falsehoods, a Debauched Club have contrived against a Person who upon all accounts deserved better treatment; Mr. H. needs not be ashamed to own that he spent some considerable time in the Inns of Court, but with no design of making that his business; and the honourable Acquaintance and Respect he has gained thereby have set his Name far above all the little malicious calumnies of this Man or his Myrmidons: He has so little to do as to tell the World that he was put to a Mercer; this is a discovery of very public Concernment without doubt, for which the World is greatly obliged to him; as for his Neighbours they needed not much the Information, some of them have but too much reason to remember it; but the envious Man must needs expose himself, to introduce an idle flame which he thought might lessen Mr. H's Reputation.  
He says he has proved Diversity or Separation of Communion to be the formalis ratio of Schism: The greatest Charity that any Man can have for him, is to believe that he does not here understand what he says— for 'tis a downright giving the Lie to the Apostle Paul, who charges the Corinthians with the guilt of Schism when there was no such Separation— and can there be Schism without the ratio formalis, the proper nature of Schism; does he not know that Forma dat esse rei— could none of his Club teach him that scrap of Reason, or at least advise him to adjourn writing of Books till he has learned common sense?  
Upon the Apostle Paul's Exhortation to the Corinthians to be of one mind, Mr. H. made this Remark, that it must be understood of Fundamentals, for to be so in every little thing is morally impossible— and that where they are advised to speak the same things, it is as if he should say in your Preaching and Converse speak of those things only wherein you are agreed, which fair and rational Comment T. W. most maliciously perverts, as if Mr. H. allowed Men to speak one thing and think another; and so he runs a long and dull ramble, how well it would do; would he go to Rome and Constantinople, and set up with this Notion, of speaking only of things wherein all are agreed— But is there no difference betwixt concealing our thoughts, and speaking contrary to them? Can Mr. H. have dispensed with such do he might have subscribed to the Articles and Homilies— as Articles of Peace, not of Truth, as some others have distinguished, though most Men thought they did it as to Articles of Preferment. Is there no difference betwixt forbearing to Preach upon those lesser Controversies that might be amongst the Corinthians, and waving those Fundamental Doctrines by which we are distinguished from Papists and Mahometans: Is it not a shame so notoriously to wrest plain words, and make them speak things never intended: Does not this Man know that in the Reign of King Charles the First (his Prince of incomparable Piety) there was a strict prohibition against Preaching upon the Quinquarticular Points; and do not many of our Clergy tell us, the Articles of the Church of England are expressed in words of that Latitude, as may be subscribed by either Arminians or Calvinists; and do they not applaud the thing wonderfully, as if done out of a prudent and peaceable design; and yet the very same Sentiments in Mr. H. must be represented as downright Hypocrisy and Knavery, and thought to deserve no better a reply, than a piece of the meanest sort of Raillery, which he calls his Harangue forsooth; a man may hear twenty such Harangues [as full of Wit and Sense] at Billingsgate almost every day in the year.  
To say it is morally impossible to be of the same mind in every thing, is no bar either to Argumentation or Preaching, as he pretends, few Persons that are fit either to argue or preach, will make every little difference the matter of their Discourse; but the practice which T. M. has undertaken to vindicate, that is, forcing to declare their assent where they have had no convincing evidence, would indeed render Argumentation ridiculous. To reason Men into an Opinion does not very well consist with hectoring, fining and forcing them into it; I am sure such Practice precludes all reasoning, or any other Methods proper to work upon a rational Creature.  
He gives us Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase upon the Text, viz. That ye all teach the same Doctrines, and nourish Charity and Unity, that there be no Divisions in Churches, but that ye be Compacted and United as Members of the same Body in the same Belief and Affection: and then he triumphantly demands, Is not this quite different from your Exposition? If this Man's Judgement were but half the size of his Spleen and Confidence, he might easily see a very good Agreement betwixt these two Expositions. Dr. Hammond understands the place, as obliging to preach the same Doctrine; so does Mr. H. and to nourish Charity and prevent Division, and to be of one Faith and Affection; so does Mr. H. too: But does the Doctor any where affirm that this obliges men to be of the same Opinion in every Punctilio? (which is all Mr. H. denies) No, he has not one word to that purpose— Where then lies this mighty difference? truly in nothing but this. Mr. H. makes the thing more plain, and urges it more home than the Doctor— for since Unity and Charity ought to be nourished, and yet different Opinions will be held; This Apostolical Rule obliges mwn not to make their differing Sentiments in these smaller things the matter of their Preaching, much less Terms of Communion; for than it will be impossible to preserve the Unity and Charity pleaded for; and now let all Mankind judge whether Mr. H's Comment does any way abate the force of the Apostles Exhortation to Unity, or rather, whether it does not greatly promote the same by censuring and exposing those Practices that are destructive thereof.  
Nay, this very man in the next Paragraph, page 12. confesses that [the Apostle aimed not at all different Opinions in mere Notions and Speculations] which is the very same assertion he has treated so scurrilously in Mr. H. he says the Apostle meant only those different Opinions that break Communion; but how come different Opinions to have that effect, but by being made Conditions of Communion? and must not the fault then lie upon those that make them so? For had that been forborn, the Communion might have been preserved entire still, as has been before showed.  
He derides Mr. H. for not knowing that a perfect Conjunction in the Catholic Church and Communion of Saints, is required of all those that are to come to a World of Everlasting Perfection. And all the sober part of Mankind will deride him for so confused and gross an Assertion; for if that be true, then must none be saved, who are imperfect [in Faith] or in their [partaking of the Lords Supper] or imperfect in Prayers, and in obedience to Ecclesiastical Rulers in all things pertaining to a godly Life] 
page 5. parag. 3.  for these things make up the Communion of Saints, as he himself tells us, and then 'tis time for T. W. to look about him, for I fear the last would exclude him, though he could pretend Perfection in all the rest.  
He acknowledges the Corinthians were accused [of that which Mr. H. calls Schism] for admiring one Minister above another. But why of that which Mr. H. calls Schism? does not the Apostle himself call it so, as positively as Mr. H. but it was not convenient to own that, because he had told us, that diversity of Communion was the formalis Ratio of Schism; and if so, the Corinthians could not be charged with it; either therefore the Apostle falsely accused the Corinthians, or this man's Notion of Schism is false; and here we hold the point, and have brought it to a fair Issue; if this man has a mind to quarrel with St. Paul, he may take his course, but he may do well to consider he engages himself against the Spirit of God; and who ever contended with his Maker and prospered?  
He accuses Mr. H. of scandalising St. Paul in saying he preferred Soul Salvation before his own Credit; but I am assured St. Paul would not take this for a Scandal— for he was ever willing to sacrifice his Name and Reputation to the blessed Interest of Christ and the Gospel; I wish this man were chargeable with no grosser Scandals than these.  
It is very unfairly insinuated, That Mr. H. thinks it as great a Crime to silence him, as it would have been to have silenced the Apostles; He is far from making any such Comparison, but it will be found criminal enough to silence the least of Christ's faithful Ministers, for what is done to them he takes as done to himself; and for him to say Mr. H. is no Minister, is purely precarious, and shall be granted the first hour that he has proved it, and he cannot reasonably expect we should acknowledge it before.  
Mr. H. in his little Book has this Expression; It appears, That narrow-spiritedness which confines Religion and the Church to one way and party, whatever it is, to the condemning of others that differ from us in little things, is the bane of the Christian-Church; a Sentence to which all those will subscribe, who either understand, or wish well to the common Interest of Christianity; what fault then will T. W, find with it? He tells us Religion is the Bond of Unity; that is to say, where there is no true practical Religion, there can be no real Church Unity; Is not this the meaning? If it be, it will turn abundance of our fierce Contenders for the Ceremonies out of doors; He asks, Did you ever know a Religion without Bounds and Rules, for all of that Religion to be confined to, even to a Punctilio? Sir, we know no Religion but what's contained in the Word of God, nor any necessary Bounds and Rules but what are there laid down; and we find none there obliging to exact Uniformity in your Ceremonies; nay, on the contrary, we find Rules laid down for mutual forbearance in such things; and for denying ourselves in what we might lawfully do, when the doing of it would offend tender Consciences; and if we must suspend our own Act and Freedom for fear of such Offence, it can never be lawful for us to force our Practice upon others; and whoever do so, observe not the Rules, nor confine themselves within the Bounds Religion has fixed, but are convicted by the Word of God of schismaticating Practices, how eager soever they may be to fasten the brand upon others: If this man's way of living had not made him more conversant with L'Estrange's Observators, than with the Sacred Scriptures, he would never talk at such an odd rate concerning the Rules and Bounds of Religion, as he does.  
He inquires, whether They of our Conventicling Communion have not Rules of their own making, by which they are distinguished and confined— To give him a plain Answer, We utterly disclaim making any Terms of Communion but what Christ has made; we desire no more but a credible Profession of Faith and Holiness, in order to admission to the most solemn Ordinances; we require no Oaths, Subscriptions, Declarations of assent and consent to Canons and Homilies and Liturgies of humane Composure; and if there be any thing that distinguishes from other Parties, it is the Gospel Simplicity of our Worship, and the absence of those little Toys, others value themselves so much upon; and as protesting for Scripture Sufficiency in Matters of Doctrine distinguishes Protestant's from Papists, so in Matters of Government and Worship it distinguishes us from you; and thus by leaving the Bounds of Church Communion, as wide and large as Christ has left them, we escape the reproach and guilt of that Narrow-spiritedness which would retrench the same, and yet after all, are far from thinking all true Religion and Christianity, and Salvation confined to those of our Persuasion.  
Now comes our Citizen to cast in our Teeth all the Irregularities and Distractions of the Civil Wars; the old threadbare Cant, which has been a rare pretence for all those Brutal Excesses that have been acted upon us for these many years; wherein has been the most horrid Misrepresentation of matters of Fact that were ever advanced in the same Age wherein the things were done.  
The true causes of that War are so well known to all the World, and have of late met with so public and Authentic a vindication, that they need not my Apology. All our Historians, even those that are most devoted to the Court Interest, acknowledge there were the greatest Encroachments imaginable made upon the Liberties of the Subject from the very first appearance of that unhappy Prince in the Government, the Foundation whereof was laid in his Father's Reign. For when King James the first Ascended England's Throne, the Prelatic Party dreading lest the Puritans would have too great a share of his Favours, upon the account of his Education, and the Influence the Scottish Nobility and Ministry might have upon him, bend all their Studies to create in him a prejudice against them, and finding no Bait was so like to take with him, as the extending of his Authority, and enlarging the Prerogative, which had perhaps been too much limited by his Ancient Subjects, they flattered the Ambition and Vices of that Prince, and thereby made him entirely their own; and this was indeed the true Origine of all the misfortunes of Succeeding times— for when once the Fence is broke, and the Landmark removed, 'tis hard to fix it again, but the loosened Hind will wander endlessly. Buoyed up with expectations of an Absolute Power his Son gins a Fatal Reign, during which there was not one Parliament from his very first year to his Exit, that did not seriously remonstrate the Grievances of the Nation, and humbly Petition they might be redressed: The Levying of Tonnage and Poundage without Act of Parliament, the Illegal Imprisonment of Peers, Extravagant Dispositions of Crown Lands were the Early Complaints of his Reign— Granting Commissions to require Money under the Title of a Loan, Imprisoning Persons of Quality that refused to pay that which they had no pretence of Law to demand, and denying them the Privilege of Habeas Corpus when they moved for it, Menacing of Parliament, telling them if they would not grant him sufficient Sums of Money for his Occasion, he would take some other course— openly in Parliament threatening those Gentlemen that opposed these Violences— calling them Vipers— and sending at one clap seven worthy Gentlemen to the Tower— whereof Denzen Holles and the Great Selden were two— and this for no other Crime, but in a Parliamentary way opposing the King's Arbitrary proceed. The suspicious actions of the Marquis of Hamilton in raising Forces, discovered to my Lord Rhees Maccay to be designed for England in the Seventh year of this Reign, the whole Story (which had a very ill Aspect) all those can tell who have any Acquaintance with the History of those Times. The breaking to pieces that brave and pious design of buying up Impropriations for the maintenance of a preaching Ministry, and confiscating to the Kings use vast Sums of Money given by well-disposed Persons for that purpose; the greatest piece of Sacrilege that was ever heard of. The Declaration for Sports on the Lord's day, and Suspending and Depriving of Ministers for not reading it; the Hectoring such Judges and Justices of the Peace, as made Orders of Court against Rioting and Revelling on that Sacred Day. The Exacting of a new invented Tax called Ship Money in the Twelfth year of his Reign, and proceeded to give Judgement against the Defaulters.  
The Extravagant and Tyrannical proceeding of the Star-Chamber, the Suspending of Bishop Williams ab Officio & Beneficio— by the mischievous malice of Archbishop Laud of Blessed Memory. And to fill up the measure, the imposing the English Liturgy upon Scotland added to the many Violations of the Constitution of that Kingdom— these are the known occasions of that unhappy Breach betwixt that King and his Parliament, which I have taken a more particular notice of, not to vindicate ourselves— for the challenge has been often made to Name four Persons in that whole Parliament that were not in full and complete Communion with the Church of England as by Law Established when the War begun— but to vindicate the Nation, for it was a general and common case; and those Men have been very disingenuous and unjust to their Country who have put such false and dismal Colours upon a War to which the Nation was forced in defence of those Privileges which they had derived from their Ancestors by a Title as Sacred and Inviolable, as the greatest Monarch has unto his Crown; 'tis true indeed the Bishops were many of them great Sufferers, their Honour and Interest obliged them to stand by the King and his Courtiers, and to vindicate those Extravagancies where of they were the principal Causes and Instruments, and that was the reason of the Parliaments readiness to lay that Order wholly aside that had for the support of their own Grandeur abetted and consecrated the violation of the Laws and Liberties of England: I am no way obliged to defend all the Irregularities and Distractions that happened upon that War— when once the Sword is drawn, and Men are flushed with Blood and Victory it's impossible they should be kept within due Bounds, and not be too severe upon those who had acted the first part upon that Tragical Scene; every Body knows the Complexion of that War was at length greatly changed, and it was pursued far beyond the first design, but the blame of all belongs to those that were the first Aggressors, and made it necessary by force to withstand that Torrent of Arbitrariness that bore down all Legal Fences before it. And yet 'tis notoriously false that all the Episcopal Clergy were then Silenced and Sequestered, there were many of them connived at, and preached all along those Times; indeed there were many of them (as they are now) notoriously Debauched, and lamentably ignorant, and it will be hard to persuade us that the removing of such is any great Curse to the Nation; there was an allowance given for the maintaining of those that lost their Places, for refusing to submit to the Powers that then were; during that time, it cannot be proved, that the Presbyterians ever varied from the true Interest of the Nation— but always endeavoured to maintain the Balance betwixt an unlimited Monarchy on the one hand, and Popular fury and confusion on the other, and thousands of them lost their lives upon that Score; and at length by their Address and Interest, (under God) the Nation was prepared to receive the Banished Prince; the solemn Promises, fair Words, and great Assurances that were made them by the Church and Court Party, upon the Treaty of Restoration, are very well known; and the speedy and barefaced violation of all, is not to be paralleled in Story, in little more than two years' time, two thousand of these Ministers were turned out of their Office and Live, when Scandal or Insufficiency were never so much as pretended, only because they would not declare their Assent and Consent to three Books of Humane Composure, and all and every thing therein contained— and made uncapable of teaching Schools, and a while after Banished five Miles from the places of their former Ministry, and from Corporations, that there might be no possibility of escaping to Starve— and ever since treated with the greatest Scorn and Hatred imaginable, and made the Song of the Drunkard— some thousands of Families (as can be made to appear) crushed and almost ruined, Houses rifled, Prisons filled, and many forced to leave their Native Country; and all this acted against them by the very Men they had let into the Nation, contrary to the minds of a more wary and politic Party, who have not failed frequently to upbraid them with it; over these things we are willing to draw a Curtain, did not this Man, and such as he, force us to speak the naked truth in our own defence? It is necessary indeed that these Men should render us odious, as can be imagined, for all the World must own either we are the worst of Men, or they that have treated us so barbarously, must be so themselves. But blessed be God we have a King upon the Throne that understands and loves the true Interest of England too well, to regard such calumnies as these, which indeed our former Princes knew to be false, though to serve a wretched Interest they would sometimes seem to believe them.  
I now return with T.W. to Mr. H's Book— he would fain have Mr. H. to make this Conclusion— if having one Minister in admiration above another be Schism, how much more am I a Schismatic who am no Minister but keep up a Communion separate from the Church of God— That is to say, if Mr. H. in compliment to this Man will own his Ordination to be invalid, and his Congregation no part of the Church of God, then T. W. will prove him a Schismatic— but what if Mr. H. will not grant this, why then the Man must prove it, and that's more than he can do; I am sure he has not yet done any thing like it.  
Mr. H. and the Citizen are both agreed in this, That is Schism which breaks or slackens the Bond by which the Members are knit together— but they are not agreed what this Bond is, Mr. Henry says 'tis true Love and Charity— the Unity of the Spirit, and Bond of Peace; not an Act of Uniformity obliging to Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies.  
T. W. does not think fit to say, that an Act of Uniformity is the Bond— but says the breach of Communion breaks the Bond by which the Members are knit together— which according to his own sense is but to say the breach of Communion breaks Communion, for he makes Communion, and the Bond the same; this is to be attributed to his Ignorance in the meaning of this term Communion, which I have before taken notice of; if he mean for us to meet and Worship God in places different from theirs, and without the Ceremonies they use, does necessarily destroy Love and Charity— we must tell him, it is only with such Men as himself that are captivated to a Party— for all Men of Sense and Sobriety, can retain Christian Love and Charity for all that agree with them in Essentials and Integrals of Religion, notwithstanding lesser differences— Mr. H. says if the Bond of Unity betwixt the Members of Christ be Love and Charity, than it is not an Act of Uniformity in point of Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies; this T.W. says is a manifest contradiction— but I am persuaded no Man alive besides himself can find it out; I hope Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies is not the only or the Essential Communion of Saints; by this every Church would Damn all the rest for their different Modes of Worship— the Bond by which the Members are united, must be something common to all Christians, which the Ceremonies cannot be— therefore our not joining with them in these cannot necessarily break that Bond so long as we retain that which is Common and Essential to Christianity— that is, Faith and Charity; the breach of the former is Heresy, and of the latter Schism.  
Mr. H's Definition of Schism is this [Schism is an uncharitable Distance, Division or Alienation of Affliction, amongst those who are called Christians, and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things.] T.W. says he has condemned him out of his own Mouth— In good time— How does that appear? why, breach of Christian Communion is certainly the breach of Christian Charity; the old blunder— Sir, we hold Communion with you in all that's necessary either to the being or welfare of a Church; and by your unnecessary Trifles you break with us, and not we with you, if any breach there be.  
From the Definition of Schism, Mr. H. infers, There may be Separation of Communion where there is no Schism; for thus we all agree, there may be difference of apprehension and yet no Schism, provided it do not eat out Christian Love, but be managed amicably as betwixt the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Church of England; and adds, if this difference in Opinion be about Modes of Worship, there must be distinct Communion. Here T. W. exclaims against him, for illogical reasoning, in bringing an instance to justify Separate Communion from Schism, where there was no Separate Communion at all.  
But a little consideration would have spoiled this Triumph; Mr. H's arguing is this— If there may be different apprehensions about Doctrinal matters without breach of Charity, why may there not be different apprehensions about matters of Worship and terms of Conformity— without breach of Charity, and consequently without Schism? If I may love and honour a Man, that is not of my mind, nor expresses himself after my manner about the Divine Decrees, the Operations of Grace, and the Consistency thereof with the freedom of Man's Will, etc. why may I not likewise love and honour that Man that differs from me, about a stinted Form, the Cross in Baptism— Bowing at the Altar and Name of Jesus? are these things of greater importance than the former— Oh but says he, you break Communion about these things— for you will not join with us in them— What, must I join with things I judge unlawful? Is there that fatal necessity laid upon me that I must either be a Hypocrite or a Schismatic? And has God made it necessary to Salvation, to know that all these things are lawful— if you will not suffer me to Communicate with you, except I join with you in those things we must Worship God in another place with those that will not so impose upon us, and yet we will love as Christians still— here's no breach of Charity on our side, and if so no Schism; for if the formal nature of Schism be breach of Charity, as Mr. H. has proved, (and this Man cannot deny without giving the Lie to Scripture, as he has done) then Separate Communion may be without Schism, and the reason of the Consequence is, because Separate Communion may be without breach of Charity— T. W. says it cannot, for it is naturally and infallibly the cause of the hottest and fiercest Contentions, and highest breach of Charity. That is to say T. W. finds he must necessarily hate and revile us, and after the fiercest manner contend with us, because we pray without a stinted Form, and he prays with one— because we take no more notice of the Altar than of the Pulpit, whilst he bows towards it— because our Ministers preach in Cloaks, and his in a Surplice— And if it be so natural and necessary for him, to run out into the highest breaches of Charity against us upon this account we cannot help it, but hearty pity him; but if he'll search to the bottom, he may find that his unruly passions, and rampant pride are the natural and infallible causes of such Contentions— and these distinct Modes of Worship are but the occasions, or perhaps but the pretences thereof. We know very well there are a great many of the Conformists, that we love and honour, and can live very peaceably and quietly with them, and have very intimate converse together, and they have the like respect for us, notwithstanding those different practices which he calls Separate Communion, they earnestly desire the Ceremonies in Debate might be laid aside, because the Papists have not only spit upon them, as the Bishop of Salisbury speaks, but have made them Tools of Discord and Mischief— and if all the Members of the late Convocation had been like some few— we should have hoped the Bone of Contention would have been removed, and I know not what such Men as T. W. would then have done for a Cloak to cover their Malice— but though that Assembly failed the expectation of the King and Country— yet we are not without hopes it will come to that at last; however in the mean time we are very desirous to be peaceable, and glad we can be so— and if these men are resolved they'll have no Charity, for any but their own Party, let them wipe off the guilt of Schism as well as they can.  
We now come to his citations out of Calvin, that we ought not to separate from a Church upon the account of many blemishes, and we say so too; but if those blemishes and corruptions be made Terms of Communion, and we must testify our approbation of them, it will greatly alter the case; we know there are blemishes in the purest Societies— but when we must be obliged to admire and praise these Deformities we shall desire to be excused, and that's our Case.  
The Three Letters of Le Moyne, L' Angle and Claude have been already reflected upon by some of the Answerers of Dr. Stillingfleet— it appears by many passages therein, that they have been very much misinformed concerning our Practice, and the Grounds thereof; as if we thought none in Communion with the Church of England could be saved; that we are the only Men in the Nation that are predestinated to Salvation— and such like things for which we are greatly obliged to those that have thus represented us— but those that would be further satisfied in the disingenuity of some Men towards us, and what Arts they have used to procure the Suffrage of Foreign Divines against us, may read the three last pages of Mr. Rules Rational Account, to which I could add something myself were it not an invidious piece of work.  
When Mr. H. used these words, Whether they be Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, or by what Name or Title soever they be self-dignified or distinguished: T. W. charges him with Malice against the Clergy, as if he meant them only— whence so gross a mistake should happen, I know not, unless it be from the same cause that makes every thing look yellow to some that have been afflicted with predominancy of Choler, it's plain Mr. H's design was to censure the vanity of assuming to ourselves the Title of a Party, or valuing ourselves upon it, which certainly has done much mischief: But this must needs reflect upon the Archbishops and Bishops, which he says are Orders Instituted by the Apostles in the Church of God, and from them continued to this present Age without Interruption— and for this he refers us to 1 Cor. 12.28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers helps 
Out of some little cunning design no doubt. — Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though he puts it helps in Government— but where's the Archbishop and Diocesan Bishop— he says God has set them up, but we cannot tell where; all that he says concerning Mr. H's despising and speaking evil of Dignities proceeds from nothing but the Spleen— We reverence the Bishops as they are vested by our Laws with a Civil Power circa Sacra, and as many of them are Men of great Learning and Worth, but cannot allow them to be our Governors by a Divine appointment till we see it better proved.  
Sir, That Act of Parliament by which we enjoy our present Liberty, and which is your intolerable grievance— does not carry the Title of Indulgence, as you affirm— it has in it the very words permitted and allowed, which you ought not to have been ignorant of, and had you taken as much delight in conversing with this Act, as those by which we have been so unkindly oppressed, you would not have needed to have been told this: It's true this Act does not Authorise our Churches, nor Annex the Benefices to them— but as we need not the former, for we derive our Authority higher— so we are not at all discontented for want of the latter— you tell us it is given us for the hardness of our Hearts, we might here very well retort and say it was rather given for the hardness of your Hearts— who turned the Edge of Laws made chief against Papists, to destroy your Fellow Protestants, which was declared by one of the best of English Parliaments to be greatly serviceable to the Popish Interest, and the ready way to bring ruin upon Protestants, and a Bill brought in for the Uniting of us— how that Parliament was represented by such Men as these, and what thanks they had for running those great hazards for their countries' preservation is sufficiently known.  
The Story he brings of Barrow, Penry, and Burchet, signifies nothing, but the Malice of the Relator; the two former who were Brownists flew so high, as with this Man, to unchurch and condemn all besides their own Party, which is indeed a very ill Principle, and none ever more guilty of it than T. W. Burchet was Hanged for Killing his Keeper; would it not be thought a very ill thing for us, to charge upon the whole Episcopal Party, the Odium and Gild of all the Rogues and Felons that have died at Tyburn in their Communion? We challenge this Man, or any of his Abettors, to show any one Principle of ours, that has the least Aspect towards Treason, or any practices of that kind we have been guilty of, though under the greatest provocations— We vindicate not the Extravagancies of the Brownists, nor will the sober Men of his own Party vindicate the severe handling of Udal— Barrow, etc. as Dr. Fuller himself testifies; That Great Princess had something of the ●●re in her, and there wanted not Prelatic Breath to blow the Spark into a flame.  
Mr. Baxter's Censure of a Universal Toleration, which he would twit us with; agrees with the sense of every wise and good Man in England; but surely there's a great deal of difference betwixt tolerating all, how Erroneous soever their Tenets may be, and giving ease, to such, as only differ from you in Ceremonies, which yourselves confess might well be spared; if this Man knows no Medium betwixt tolerating the grossest Heresies, and Blasphemous Opinions, and tying all Men up to the very same Punctilio with ourselves, he shall never be a Privy Councillor.  
He falls very foul on Mr. H. for saying the Unthinking Mobile are so well taught as to know no other Churches but the public places of Worship, are easily induced to believe we leave the Church: This he says is highly reproachful, as if the Pastors of the Church seduced the people to believe that which is false— Mr. H. does not charge them with having seduced them to believe what is false, but they are indeed very many of them justly chargeable with not having sufficiently taught them what is true— for our most common Experience assures us, that there is amongst you a Debauched Ignorant Rabble, that Rant and Swear against our Hearers upon this very account, and never offer at any other reason, but that they leave the Church— for you to deny that there are such a Crew, is to trample upon our Senses, and persuade us we can neither hear nor see. How many of the Privy Council, Judges and Magistrates believe us to be Schismatics we know not, but we do not think any of them grounds the charge merely upon our leaving the Churches, which was all Mr. H. spoke of here— when you have proved that the presence of God is as much confined to your Churches as it was to Jerusalem, your instance may be worth something— but when our Saviour tells us, that Distinction was to be immediately laid aside, 'twas very impertinent to urge it now—  
I do not know whether Mr. Dodwel may have hired you to cry his Books; but he knows very well where to find his Answer, though you do not. Mr. Baxter has saved us that Labour, in more Treatises than one.  
He complains we rob their Parish Churches; I suppose these men look upon all within the parochial Precincts to be their own Goods and Chattels; but this cannot be pretended to be by Divine right, and therefore the Transgression thereof cannot be the true Nature of Schism; whilst men have Preachers thrust upon them without their Election or Consent, (which is perfectly contrary to Primitive Custom) no wonder if they leave them and go to others they are better satisfied in.  
Mr. H. very candidly endeavours to extenuate the difference betwixt Protestants— who all believe the same Christian Faith, and join in the same abhorrence of Papal Delusions; to which the man replies, by this a man may be an Arrian, a Socinian, or Atheist, and yet free from Schism— what! do these believe the same Christian Faith with us— I could almost blush for this man's gross disingenuity.  
He's now become such a perfect Humourist he cannot forbear Quarrelling with us for not reading the Prayers made for the Wednesday Fast, and asks us what account we can give to God and the Government for such Omission.  
Sir, You may know if you please, that the Kings command to read those Prayers does not extend to us, we are not mentioned nor designed therein; and where there's no Law, there's no Transgression; We have reason to think the Government does not in the least question but that we are as hearty in our Prayers on this occasion, as T. W. who was somewhat with the latest in testifying his Allegiance thereunto.  
'Tis a gross Calumny that we impute our Prayers to the immediate Dictates of the Spirit of God— much less the Levitieses and Impertinencies of them— we do believe there is a gift of Prayer that is to be attained by the use of ordinary means, and nevertheless is from God, who is the Fountain of every good and perfect Gift— and this is fully and excellently vindicated by that truly Pious and Worthy Bishop Dr. Wilkins— The words you put in the Margin as charged upon Mr. H. are very false, as many Persons of as untainted Reputation as yourself can testify. You might have spared your Commendation of the Liturgy, we grant there are many good Petitions therein, but we know no reason to limit ourselves unto it, as if a man without the Gift of Miracles could not speak Sense in a Prayer, but by a prescribed form of words; but it were Presumption to attempt it when Miracles are ceased, as our great Adversaries to conceited Prayers pretend; which (by the way) is little less than Lampoon upon the common sense of English men.  
I have now waited upon the Citizen through all those Passages of his Book, which even he himself can think material; and upon the whole I make little question, but every sober unprejudiced Reader will join with me in these Reflections.  
I. That Mr. M. H. has given us the true Scriptural Notion of Schism; that is [An uncharitable Alienation of Affection amongst professed Christians, occasioned by their different Apprehensions about little things.] This was the very thing which St. Paul reproves as Schism in the Corinthians, and no doubt he knew very well what he said, and was acted by too good a Spirit, to become a false Accuser of the Brethren. To this T. W. has given no manner of Answer— but instead of that, peremptorily asserts that the formal Nature of Schism is diversity of Communion, which both contradicts Scripture, and leaves the matter still in Confusion and Darkness; for since wherever there is a diversity— there must be two parties divers, this definition may make both or either of them Schismatical— but does not determine, which, till all the Circumstances of the case be considered— which makes it evident that the form of Schism lies not in the distinction of Communion itself, but in the true Causes of it: which upon due search will be found to be one of these two, either Uncharitableness or Unwilling mistake; to lay so dreadful a charge as this of Schism is accounted upon an involuntary mistake seems very hard, and not agreeable with the Nature of the Gospel that makes so large allowances for this kind of weakness; and has commanded us all to do so: It must therefore necessarily fall upon the former, which having more of the perverseness of the Will in it, and being much more contrary to the Nature of Christianity, and to the Unity of the Spirit, appears by all marks to be the real Criminal after which the Hue and Cry was sent.  
II. That the design of Mr. H's Books appears to be honest and peaceable; it is no way calculated to serve a Party or Interest, but to promote Catholic Love and Concord amongst Christians, this is the professed end, and natural tendency of his Hypothesis, which has so favourable an Aspect upon all sorts of Christians, that every honest Man must necessarily wish it were true, and be glad to see it well made out; for he's no Christian that can take pleasure in thinking all Parties besides his own are out of the Catholic Church, and Road to Salvation; or that can be sorry to find that the Catholic Church comprehends a great many more than he formerly thought it did.  
It has been an unhappy Error, and which too many on both sides have entertained, That either the whole party of Dissenters must be Schismatics, or the whole Body of Conformists must be so. This mistake has animated even sober Men to charge each other with Schism in their own defence, thinking they had no way to clear themselves but by accusing the other; and I am persuaded this is one way by which some Men keep up prejudices in the minds of many worthy moderate Gentlemen against our Congregations, as if coming to hear amongst us, must necessarily argue the Parochial Congregations Schismatical— and on the other hand some straitlaced Dissenters, think if they should at any time occasionally hear in a public Congregation; they presently thereby condemn their own, which are great mistakes, as plainly appears by Mr. H's Arguing— for Schism is a personal fault, and cannot be charged upon a whole Party, unless every Person therein discover that Uncharitable Alienation of Affection from others which the Scripture calls Schism.  
Indeed it will be very difficult to acquit those Persons from the guilt of Schism, that were the promoters of those Impositions, from whence our Divisions proceed; for since they themselves acknowledge the questioned terms of Communion to be unnecessary— the insisting so obstinately upon them, cannot in reason be thought to proceed from any other Spring but that of Uncharitableness, and the more pernicious, they Judge our Dissenting to be, the more Uncharitable they, that would rather we should turn Schismatics and be Damned, than a few Ceremonies should be laid aside, which they will own might be omitted, without hazarding the loss of one Soul. But as for the Passive Conformists, whose part has been only to comply with these Impositions, and have not justified or abetted either the making of them, or the violent prosecution of Penal Laws upon them; (and several such we know there are) these are no way chargeable with Schismatical Practices; on the other hand those fierce Dissenters cannot be cleared from Schism, that uncharitably condemn all Conformists in the lump, and look upon none of their Congregations as true Churches— if any to excuse them say this censure of theirs may proceed from a mistake, we answer 'tis such a mistake as is occasioned by their animosity and prejudice, which will not give them leave to Weigh the thing impartially, and therefore is Schismatical; for want of Charity is at the bottom, and distorts their Judgements to pass so severe a sentence.  
By this it appears that Mr. H's Book was writ with a Catholic Spirit and Desgn, because it favours neither side— but censures— or justifies Persons of both sides, according to their Charitable or Uncharitable Tempers and Actions.  
III. That T. W's Hypothesis and Notions of Schism are very Erroneous and confused— I confess 'tis pretty difficult to gather his meaning in this case, and I have reason to think he does not himself understand it; he looks upon Schism to be the reverse to Unity, which rightly understood is very true; but then he gives us so many and variant descriptions of this Unity, some too large, and others too narrow, that no Man knows where to have him— He never distinguishes of Unity in Essentials, Integrals, and Accidentals— betwixt Internal and External Unity, betwixt the Unity of the Universal Church— of a National Church, of a Diocesan Church, and of a Particular Church; but having got hold of a Word like a Man in a delirium, runs away with it, till he has lost himself and his Readers too; I have with all possible seriousness often considered, upon what Foot these Men will fix their charge of Schism they so confidently advance against us, and by what I can gather from their Writings it must be upon some of these.  
1. Our withdrawing ourselves from the Government of the Bishops— without paying Suit and Service to their Ecclesiastical Courts— but till it be proved from Scripture, that they have the pretended Jurisdiction over us, this cannot be Schism. In Commissioned Offices, Extent of Power changes the Species, and if it do not so— we may have one Bishop in a Nation, nay one over all the World.  
2. Our want of true Ministers with Episcopal Ordination— but this likewise depends upon the proof of the former; if Pastors of single Congregations be Bishops in Scripture sense, then is our Ordination valid and regular too. I mention not the pretended Line of an uninterrupted Succession, because that has been sufficiently discussed before; and indeed the sober part of Conformists look upon it as an idle Whimsy, and will by no means so far destroy the certainty of their own Ordination and Ministry as to put it upon that Issue.  
3. Our Omission of the appointed Rites and Ceremonies; but till it be proved that these are requisite to Church-Unity— or that the Convocation that appointed them had any power over us Jure Divino to require our Submission, we cannot be guilty of Schism by the Omission of them— the Canons of our English Convocations pretend to no power, till Confirmed by Act of Parliament, and 'tis not the breach of a Civil Law that makes us formally Schismatics, for than could there have been no such thing as Schism in the Primitive Churches, where the Civil Authority was wanting; not to mention that the Civil Power has left us now to our Liberty.  
4. Our Transgression of Parish-Bounds; but this cannot be formally Schism, for such Districts, are but prudential things and are Dispensed with by themselves in many cases, as by going to hear in other Parishes, which is frequently done in all parts of England without any such censure— also by setting up Chapels within Parochial Precincts, whereby Congregations are gathered out of many Parishes, and this if not allowed, is very generally practised and connived at; for my part I think in ordinary cases it is most regular and convenient that there should be such Bounds fixed and observed; but this being but prudential, will not bind in extraordinary cases; as for instance, where the Parishes are so vastly great, that not a Tenth part of the Parishioners can have room in the Parish Church. Where the Minister is notoriously and intolerably scandalous or ignorant; for though in doubtful cases, it is fit this should be left to the decision of the Ministry— yet there may happen some cases so plain and evident as to decide themselves. Likewise where approved Pastors are violently and injuriously thrust out, and others imposed contrary to our consent, by those that had no power so to do— Also where we cannot partake of all Ordinances without complying, with sinful Terms, this will not only warrant but necessitate our joining elsewhere— In all these cases we are not bound by the prudential order of Parish Bounds, and before they can prove us culpable, they must demonstrate that none of these cases are ours; and yet after all, if they should do so, since this is but a matter of Order, and not of Essential Unity— they could but convict us of an Irregularity, not that Damning Schism these Men speak of.  
But we cannot but admire to hear some Learned Men descend so much below themselves as they do, when they say our Meetings are Schismatical, for we have no true Ministers; and why so: Why, Because we have only Presbyterian Ordination; And when we urge that this Unchurches the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, they answer, No, though Presbyterian Ordination may be valid amongst them— yet it is not so with us, because our Ministers are Ordained in a Schism— thus the Invalidity of our Ordination must prove the Schism, and in requital of its Kindness, the Schism must prove our Ordination invalid, and so we are got into the Circle, and by treading such rounds, contract that giddiness which makes us fall foul upon one another.  
My last Reflection is, That as T. W's Hypothesis is false and confused, so the Temper, Management, and Design of his Book appears to be equally vicious— this is too evident in not reciting whole passages, but leaving out what was necessary to complete the ARgument— his notorious perverting the plain sense of Mr. H's words— invidious insinuations, scurrilous reflections, and downright falsehoods, which you find taken notice of in this Reply. And as I am assured a great many sober Churchmen have observed, and resented such unfair dealing in his Book; so I believe none of them will blame me if I have treated him a little more roughly than a Man of his consistency can well bear; If our Brethren of that Persuasion will either suffer us to live easily amongst them; or take such Methods for our Conviction as are proper to work upon Rational Creatures we will thank them, and shall endeavour not to be behind hand with them in Civilities— but if they be resolved to turn lose upon us Men of Brutal Lusts and Lives, that will venture to fly at any thing; and if we must be Hated, Anathematised, and (when the time comes) Persecuted, because we are not Converted by such Men and Books as these, there is no remedy; we leave our Cause with a Righteous God, and all the sober part of Mankind.  
We come now to the Conclusion, wherein T. W. with all Meekness and Christian Charity [i. e. with all he has] would persuade Mr. H. he is in a desperate Condition, has no Title to the Promises, nor any place in the Catholic Church; It is lamentable to think what depraved Apprehensions, these Men have of God and Religion, and Heaven, that would exclude all from thence that differ from them in a Thread, or a Shoe-latchet: The great Design of our Redeemer was to rescue Men from the Slavery of Sensual and Sinful Affections, and bring them into a state of Obedience, and Conformity to God; to teach them to deny Ungodliness and Fleshly Lusts, and to Live Soberly, and Righteously, and Godly in this evil World; 
Tit. 2.12, 13.  and those that do so may comfortably look for the Blessed Hope and Glorious Appearance of our Lord and Saviour: They have a Right to all Church Privileges here, and to Heaven after all— but we have a sort of Men amongst us that threaten all with Damnation that are not of their length in every thing— as if when they can torment us no longer upon Earth, the Eternal God would quit his own fixed Rules of Rewarding and Punishing Men according to their real Holiness or Iniquity, and become the Executioner of those unjust and furious Sentences they have here denounced against us; but we thank God, Christ has the Keys of Hell and of Death, and will not open and shut at their command: And though an immoderate Zeal for a few Ceremonies, serves some Men at present for a Sanctuary, whither they retreat when pursued by an accusing Conscience, yet a little time will convince us all, that without Holiness no Man shall see God— and since that time is at hand, 'tis fit in these lesser things we should let our Moderation be known unto all Men.  
FINIS.