A REPLY By T. W. Citizen of Chester, To a VINDICATION of Mr. M. H's Brief Enquiry into the true Nature of Schism, from the Exceptions of T. W. etc. By a Person who conceals his Name.  
THE Prince of Peace Blessed for ever, laid this Command upon his Disciples, Mark 9 v. 50. Have Peace one with another; and that this Command might have the deeper impression in their minds, he left it as his Legacy, Joh. 14 v. 27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; how numerous soever they might in all Succeeding Ages come to be, this was to be the Badge and Character by which his Disciples were to be known to the world, and to one another: now whosoever he b● that in any Case violates this Command, and sets at naught this Legacy, is no longer a Disciple of the Holy Jesus the Prince of Peace, unless he repent and return.  
Yet notwithstanding all this, there has scarce any Age since the Church of Christ had a being, been free from some or other, who have pretended to be the Disciples of Christ in an extraordinary manner, and yet have had no regard to this holy Command, nor any value or esteem for this Sacred Legacy.  
For they are most notoriously Guilty of breaking this Law, and contemning this Legacy, who revile and oppose that Government of the Church which was instituted by our Blessed Saviour; founded in his Apostles, and conveyed by them to their Successors, and so has continued in a right Succession to this present time; of this sort our Dissenters in England are, and some or ot●●r of them, are frequently putting out Pamphlets wherein they endeavour to acquit themselves of this great Crime by Justifying their Separation from the Government of the Church.  
To this purpose Mr. M. H—ry Printed a Pamphlet the last year, which he called, a brief Enquiry into the true Nature of Schism; there was not much more of the Nature of Schism, than of the Philosopher's Stone in it; however the not Answering it gave it the more Credit, and swelled his Disciples with Triumph, so as some of them boasted in my hearing, that it could not be answered by any Clergyman; this made me uneasy, and considering how unsuitable it was to any Clergyman to concern himself with it, and withal considering, that this might be an Argument to proselyte the weak and more unstable people. I under took it in hopes that the Catholic truths laid down (though by so mean and weak a hand) might put a stop to their boasting, and it had these effects: First, few believed but that it was done by some Clergyman who prevailed with me, to print it in my name. And secondly, that Mr. M H—ry for all the fullness of Gifts his Disciples boasted to be in him, thought as I may reasonably (from his calling in aid) suppose it was above his Talon to meddle with.  
Now lest the neglect of a Reply should be fatal to them, and stagger their blind Proselytes in Chester, and parts adjacent; they sought and found out a man of great Size to attack me, a chosen Vessel, one of the First rate, who has fired all his Guns at me, and shot a great deal of Venom, and little else, which I hope in this following Paper shall make to appear.  
This great man conceals his Name, and perhaps not without good reason. In the front of his Book he tells us, That man must be a great stranger in England, who knows not what unhappy Flames have been kindled among us about matters of Church Government and W●rship; 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 〈◊〉, to convince the world where the fault of our Division lies.  
That the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolic Institution and Ordination is evident, 
〈◊〉 Government of the Church by Episcopacy is of divine Institution.  for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete by Apostolical Ordination and Institution, is very clear in St. Paul's Epistles to them both. That the seven City's in Asia which received the Christian Faith, had each City a Bishop, in evident by the Title St. John gives an his Letters to them, contained in the Second and Third Chapters in the Revelations.  
And that after the Apostles time, wherever the Christian Faith was received in the early Ages of Christianity, this Government was set over them, and that then all Christians owned and submitted to this Government, is sufficiently proved by the concurrent Testimonies of all the Fathers in those Primitive times, and from those times this Government received no interruption, nor was at any time controverted or questioned, except by Aerius, Ischyras, and one or two more, (who were condemned for Schismatics) till the last Age, and then by this sort of Men, by setting up a new mistaken Notion of Parochial and Congregational Episcopacy with Lay Elders, to share in the Government of the Church, never heard of before.  
To Church Government disputed, he adds Worship, (by which I suppose he means the Worship of God) which chief consists, of the unfeigned belief of the Articles of Faith delivered by the Apostles; the Offering up Prayers, Intercessions, 
The Worship of God in the Church of England, as ●ure as in any other Church whatsoever.  Thanksgiving and Praises unto God Almighty, according to his Will declared in the Holy Scripture; presented in the name of his Son, Christ Jesus, with all Reveence and Humility and Gestures expressing the same, the word of God read and duly and truly preached; the holy Sacraments Babtism and the Eucharist rightly and duly administered.  
Now all this is done with as much Reverence and ●ravity, Simplicity and Gospel purity in the Church of England as in any Church whatsoever; owned to be so, and highly honoured and esteemed for it, among all the Reformed Churches, except those men of Violence, your Brethren of the Kirk of Scotland, with whom we have nothing to do, only to pray for them.  
They of Rome indeed, 
Dissenters kindled, the flames of Division.  were the only men who first opposed the reformed Worship of our Church; purified and cleansed from their Innovations and Corruptions as it stands established both by Canon and Statute Laws; and these Dissenters have pursued Their Game, and in this made themselves Their Partners by continuing and increasing those Flames to this day, not without hopes to complete what the Papist so much endeavoured, and still with these men earnestly desire, viz. the overturning and suppressing of this reformed Worship. So the Flames were kindled by the Papists first, and then by these men, by their Disputing and Arraigning the Established Worship.  
The Church Government and Worship being thus stated, it easily appears, that the Dissenters in England are they who kindled the unhappy flames (this Gent. talks of) among us. Now let us see how they may ●e extinguished, where the fault lies? and who are the Enemies that will not contribute their utmost to quench them?  
Men who are not mad, will go far for Water to quench those Flame; which else would destroy their dwellings, 
They will not contribute to quench them.  but these men need go no farther but do their duty and the flames are out. To disobey the Orders of our Governors, is to transgress a plain Law of God. If these men have any thing imposed on them by our Governors that is sinful let them show it, and their Plea must be allowed, but they are forced to confess the Terms of Obedience imposed, are but indifferent things, mere trifles; Now for a man to disobey his Governors and have no other plea but this, it is too mean to excuse him from the transgression of a known Law. Obey them that have the Rule over you is the command of the holy Apostle. 
Heb. 13.17.  Nor can indiffernt things, or what they acknowledge, mere trifles, be a pretence sufficient to bind the Conscience, against an express Law of God, for as if the blessed Apostle had foreseen these men's Plea; he Commands Obedience to our Governors for Conscience sake, Rom. 13.5. I hope by what is said, it will be allowed by all impartial men, and sound Christians, that I may conclude without breach of Charity, that the Dissenters in England, are they who kindle the unhappy Flames about Church Government and Worship, and that they are the great Enemies that will not contribute the least (not so much as do their Duty) to quench them; and that (notwithstanding all the Writing he talks of) the fault of all our Divisions lies at their door.  
He goes on; 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.  
By this Rhetoric I suppose is meant the Opposition and Disputes made by these men against the established Church of England; that by these means, these men not only endangered, but for some years involved both Church and State in Ruin and Desolation; had I brought no arguments, yet by sad experience is sufficiently proved.  
He says, Great endeavours have been used to fasten the Gild upon such as impose unnecessary and suspected Terms of Communion, and it has been is fur●●ly retorted upon those who comply not with those Terms.  
Here the Terms of Communion are Unnecessary and Suspected (only;) but who are to ●e Judges of what things are necessary, or what Unnecessary, they that bear Rule over us, or they that own Subjection? Government always implies Subjection; and how can bare suspicion discharge a man from the dury of Obedience? This is certain, that if a Father command his Son to do something which is in itself not Unlawful, and if the Son tell his Father it is Unnecessary, and that he Suspects it to be so, and if only for that Reason will not obey, that Son is a Transgressor against the fifth Commandment; and it's as certain that this is truly applicable to these men; all their Expositors affirm, that Obedience to their lawful Rulers & Pastors, is required by that Commandment. But because the whole Controversy which these Dissenters, have against our Church mainly depends on these two particulars mentioned by this Gent. viz. Church Government and Worship, it will be very necessary to lay down some irrefragable Instances to prove what was the Practice of the Church, in respect of its Government in the times next after the Apostles; 
Episcopacy the Government of the Church in the times next after the Apostles.  and this I do because by referring thereto, I shall answer many passages which follow in this Gentleman's Book.  
I begin with the Canon of the Apostles, which I find thus Translated by a person of great worth, both for Learning and Veracity: Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop, for he hath the people of the Lord entrusted to him, and there shall one day be required of him an account of their Souls. Here the Bishop has the Power of Governing the Presbyters and Deacons. Of what Authority these Canons are, Justellus has made evident, in his account of the Code of the Universal Church.  
Clemens Romanus who was an Adjutor of the Apostles, and as Linus Succeeden St. Peter, and Cletus Lanus, so he Succeeded Cletus in the Bishopric of Rome, where all others in Holy Orders were called Presbyters, except Deacons only; who speaking of the Apostles in his Ep. ad Corinth. p. 57 saith, That they foreseeing that there would be Contentions and Emulations about the Name or Dignity of Bishop, or Episcopacy, they set down a List or continuation of Successors, that when any died, such a certain person should Succeed him.  
Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Martyr, who saw Jesus and lived in the Apostles age, whose Authority many of later times, Enemies to Episcopacy, have opposed yet never could suppress the plainness of it. In his Epistle to the Smyrneans, he saith, But avoid Divisions as the beginning of evils, and be all of you observant of the Bishop, as Jesus Christ was observant of the Father; and observe the Presbyters as the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons as the Command of God. Let no man presume to do any thing in the Church without the Bishop. And let that Eucharist only be accounted firm, which is either performed by the Bishop himself, or by his Licence. And a little further; He who honoureth the Bishop honoureth God; but he who doth any thing without the Bishop's approbation, performs a Service to Satan, etc.  
In his Epistle to the Ephesians: Therefore (pursuant to something before) it becomes you every way to glorify Jesus Christ who glorifies you, that being perfected and knit up in the same Subjection, and being of one mind, and of one judgement, you may all speak the same things, and being Subject to the Bishop, (which Onesimus then was) 〈…〉 Presbyters, may be Sanctified in all things. Again in the same Epistle, As Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 who is our into uparable life did follow the judgement of the Father; and the Bishops who are designed to the ends of the Earth, follow the judgement of Jesus Christ; therefore it is a comely thing for you to concur in the ●●●●ment of the Bishop, as also you do; for your Presbyters most worthy of Praise and of God, is so adapted to the Bishop, as strings are fitted to the ●●rp, insomuch that Jesus Christ is Celebrated through your unanimity and agreement in Love. And in the same Ep. Therefore let us endeavour to be in subjection to the Bishops, that we may be God's Subjects.  
In his Epistle to the 〈◊〉; For I was accounted worthy to see Dam●s your Divite ●●●●op and the worthy Presbyters Bassu● and Apollia●s, and S●ti●n the Deacon, my Fellow-servant, whom I would enjoy, because 〈…〉 subject to the Bishop as to the Grace of God, and to the Presbyters as to the Law of Jesus Christ. A little further he saith; For some in ●eed there are, who own the Bishop in name, but do all things without him: such men appear to me, to ●e men of no good Conference, because they hold Meetings not established by Commandment, etc.  
I could heap up many more Instances, but that would be tedious; I will therefore conclude with the Council of I aodicea, Can. 55. which I find by an eminent Doctor in our Church, thus Translated. The Presbyters must do nothing without the Consent of the Bishop.  
That the Authority I have brought to prove, that the ancient Government of the Christian Church was by Bishops and (that it was an Order Superior and had power of Jurisdiction over the Presbyters and Deacons) should be undeniably and firmly received and Submitted to, by all Christians, I offer these Reasons.  
1 First, It was this same Authority which gathered all the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, and declared them to be the word of God, the dictates of the Holy Ghost, and all Christians have so received them and do hold them to be Canonical and use them and reverence them as such to this very day.  
2 It was by the same Authority, that the first day of the week was Declared to be the Lords Day (there being no Precept Commanding it in Scripture) and all Christians have yielded Obedience to it, and do set apart that Day to Celebrate the Worship of God in a most Solemn manner as if Commanded by Holy Scripture.  
3 And lastly, this Authority of the Ancient Fathers and first General Councils, which affirm the Government of the Church to be Episcopacy, is one great means by which the Pious and Learned Divines of our Church (if this Gent. will give me leave to call 'em so) have clearly evinced and discovered the Innovations and Corruptions imposed by the Church of Rome on all in her Communion, to be fictitious and no way agreeing with the practice of the Primitive Church.  
Now if upon the Authority of the Primitive Fathers and Councils, Obedience was universally given to acknowledge and receive the New Testament as the Word of God; and the Lords day celebrated as if commanded by Divine Precept, which is infallibly true; Is it reasonable now, to dispute their Writings and Decrees, their practice and usage, concerning the nature of the Government of the Church, which they were fully assured was established by the Apostles themselves?  
And now I return to wait upon this unknown Gentleman. In his 2. p. he says, Some have fancied the severe Execution of Penal Laws, by Fines, Imprisonment, Exile, etc. would have put an end to that Separation, etc. but Experience hath convinced them of a quite contrary effect.  
This Gent. will carry all before him if credited; I could certainly procure a Certificate under some hundreds of Hands of very Honest and Good men in Chester, that the Penal Laws when executed there, had brought all the Presbyterians, except a very small inconsiderable number to Conformity; ay, and one of the oldest and stoutest of them, acknowledged to the Rector of the Parish he lived in, that he, viz. the Rector had so throughly satisfied him, that he did not partake at the Eucharist out of fear of the Law, but for the satisfaction of his Conscience, and that he would continue to do so; but no sooner came the Indulgence out, but this old Puritan, and pretended Convert, set the Church at defiance, and with many more of that Tribe returned to their Separation; and thus it was said to be in most part of England; it's certain, that had not that Indulgence come out in King Charles the Second time, which was procured by the Duke of York for some special Service designed by him for the Romish Church, there had been but a few in Conventicles, except Anabaptists and Quakers, who are incorri●a●le and above all others hardened, almost beyond hope; and yet this Gent. so confidently affirms, that the Penal I a●s by experience had a quite contrary Espect, which is much more bold than true. In his 2 pag. he says further, Others have persuaded themselves when ever such enforcements were laid ●●●e, the controverted Ceremonies would of course fall into Contempt, for being (by acknowledgement) things purely indifferent, etc. 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 er●in they have not been altogether disappointed, for they hear of five or six of the Clergy, and those not of the me ●●est sort, that have ch●sen to quit their preferments 〈…〉 ease of their Consciences, etc.  
To he 〈…〉 (he says) some had, I shall again oppose matter of Fact; the 〈…〉 times of scarpa son which 〈◊〉 ●ed more than Twelve years, all which 〈…〉 ●af●rc●●●a●s were laid and, and the external props were 〈◊〉; and yet even ●●en, the far greater 〈◊〉 of the best people 〈…〉 persevere in their Affection and Communion with the Church of 〈◊〉, man are the great care taken by the then Rulers; the 〈…〉 Parliament (as then called) required, that no person should have a 〈…〉 Book found in Custody, upon pain of being Indicted and F●●●d at the pleasure of the then Judges, who were their implacable Enemies (here the Enforcements were thought necessary on the other fide) and the vast numbers of these who retained Communion with the Church, (notwithstanding the Enforcements to the contrary) appeared with hearts full of Joy and Gratitude upon the Restauration.  
As for the Five or Six of the Cler●●, who he says are gone from us and are none of the meanist, I know not who he means; had they been Eminent men we should have heard of 'em; this is trifling, or I can tell him of Dr. Dillingh●m Vice Chancellor, Dr. Connant Rector of Exeter College, Vice Chancellor and Regis Protessor of Divinity, and many more (though he perhaps is ashamed to name our Diserters) of th'other party, who Conformed notwithstanding the Indulgence.  
In p. 3. he saith, That since neither Disputing 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, etc.  
The Apostles Rule is, 1 Cor. 1 10. Now I beseech you Brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 〈◊〉 all speak the same things, and that there be no Divisions among you: different M●des of Worship are here forbidden, and an exact Uniformity in the Church of Corinth required, and I hope that this Gent. will not deny that this Rule is in force in the Church of 〈◊〉 lan●; and if this Gent. would press this Doctrine, he needs not puzzle men with any farther En●●●ry how they may be induced to live quiet and peaceable lives. And I presume here to tell him, that against such who will not live quiet and peaceable lives, there are Penal Laws still in force. And this answers his next Paragraph, where he gives his Brother Mr. H—ry high Encomiums for his very modest and ingenious attempt, in his Book of the Nature of Schism, notwithstanding which, it doth appear that the Wars and Fightings irretated by them against the Church proceed from their Lusts, which would be at an end, where they entirely subject to Reason and Virtue, as the Gospel requires.  
In p. 4. this Gent. would induce us to believe, that he is well skilled in some strange Art, for he says, that I am a furious Zealot and a Debauchee, and that he knows by the Complexion of my Book. This Gent. may take the Liberty to censure me for a furious Zealot, because I have in my former paper affirmed the Dissenters in England to be Schismatics; I do with the poor Publican cry, God be merciful to me a Sinner; but there's not an jota in that paper which in the least tends to Debauchery. In p. 5. he's very angry that I give the Titles of Pious and Learned to our Episcopal Clergy, etc. and he says, that I call the Dissenters Fools and Schismaties, and is at a great Expense of Rhetoric upon me for these.  
I cannot mention our Episcopal Clergy without Reverence; they are the Stewards of the manifold Mysteries of God, and Ministers of Reconciliation; and though my calling them by those Titles contributes not a mite to their worth, yet it was my duty to give the Titles due to them, especially in a paper I intended to Publish. I said (indeed) the Folly and Schism of our Dissenters has been clearly evinced, etc. It is an ordinary way in speaking, to join the word Folly with a Crime, and so by Folly and Schism I intended no more than the Folly of Schism, one act of Folly denominates not a Fool; but if this Gent. will misconstrue and pervert my Words, and thereby proclaim himself and his fellow Dissenters Fools as well as Schismatics it is out of my Power to help; indeed these are not worth a man's notice, only to show, that this Gentleman's temper is too peevish for the Gospel, who at such little things so causlessly takes an occasion to cavil.  
The next thing he quarrels at, is in p. 6. That I muster against them the great names of Hooker, Bramhal, Sanderson, and divers others, and wonders why Parker, Dryden, and L'Strange with their Learned and Elaborate Writings should not come in for a share of honour with them.  
Sir, Hooker and the others I named; for Piety and Learning are honoured all the world over, and your detraction and all the Art you have, cannot lessen 'em. But Sr. as for Parker, Dryden, and L'Strange, who you named to share with them in that Honour, there can be no reason; They stand fairest for your Calendar; I had been a Criminal should I have robbed you of 'em, for they joined hands with you in your Addresses to King James the 2d. to Congratulate and Applaud his Excellent Government, in granting Liberty of Conscience; and they readily consented with you to the taking oft the Penal Laws and Test, and in allowing the Dispensing Power.  
Here I think a proper place to answer what you say, in the beginning of your 6. p. where you 〈◊〉 france some words of mine, and say, They have been 〈◊〉 Terms, to do the ●●rk of a common ●oe, in ruining those that were more early aw●●e of the advances of Popish Designs than some of their Neighbours, etc.  
Sr. by this word neighbours. I apprehend (and that truly) that you mean they of the Church of England, Why! they were the men who in time of extremity and danger, opposed the advances of Popery, and with Si●e●●i●y and Courage stood in the Gap; and this they did in two respects, First by resusing to take off the Penal Laws and the Test, and disowning the Dispensing Power. The Penal Laws, which by God's good Providence, were raised as a Fence to preserve us from Popery being about to be laid waist, and Liberty of Conscience without exception already granted, (an 
‖ Witness your Addresses.  Artifice by which most if not all your Party were gulled ●●d cheated into a compliance with the times) The Archbishop of C●●terbury, with six more Bishops, induced from a deep sense they had of a Design then visible, to bring in Popery, from a holy Zeal, and a deep sense they had of their Duty, to preserve the Church from the sad effects of that Design, presented their Petition to the King, declaring their readiness to have tender Consciences considered, so it might be done in a Parliamentary way; but for their Noncompliance with the Dispenceing power, and those other things, wherein you so readily complied, by which you very much promoted the advances of Popery; they were all made Prisoners in the Tower, which suffering of theirs, God blessed with a very happy event. And Secondly they of the Church of England put a stop to the advances of Potery, by their Industrious and Learned Writings against Papists; a Popish Pamphlet from the Savoy or Wild-house, in those days could scarce be dry, ●●t some or other Learned Divine of our Church, stopped its Carrier with such answers as silenced and shamed them; strengthened the weak and stag●e●u●●, recalled many, and gave joy and satisfaction to all the Members of the Church in ●en●●al.  
My Author says in p. 6. But if we thought sit to imitate his P●de●●●y, (meaning my ●●ming Hooker, etc.) we could t●ll him of Reynals', C●itwright, ●●●ndel, Ames, Daille, Owen, Baxter, etc. (ay, and John a Leyd●n too)  
This Gent. condemns me of Pedentry, yet his Gravity imitates me in the next breath even in that. The first he names, is Reynalds, he (alas) was s●●sible of their Schism, shook and's with 'em and died an eminent member of our Church. Cartwright was contemporary with Mr. Hooker, and let all Sober minded men Judge if the Ecclesiastical Polity Writ by Mr. Hooker, has not outweighed by far, not only Cartwright, but all other Dissenters who have written any thing of the Rites and Ceremonies and Government of the Church; So has Dr. Hammond, Dr. Stillingfleet and many others against Owen, Baxter and the rest of that Gang. I must beg his pardon that I can have no good opinion of 
‖ Owen and Baxter.  such who have spent their time and study to break the Order, Peace and Unity of the Church.  
His first Paragraph contains the whole Controversy; I therefore thought it necessary to give that a full answer: So I have endeavoured to all his reflections that followed hitherto, but all he says to the remainder of my Preface, is either such mere Droll or Cavil and so foreign to the Controversy, that it is not worth paper to answer: I therefore now consider what he says to my Answer.  
In his 9 pa. He says, I blame Mr H—ry for not choosing the true Standard whereby to discorder Schism; He says Mr. H—ry chose 〈◊〉 other but the Sacred Scripture, which ●●ing the great Law for the Government of men, and must certa ●●●be the truest Touch stone of Sin and Duty, etc. He says further; 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 IXth Article of the Apostles Creed, I Believe the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints) etc. and concludes, a happy Omen, when the first Paragraph contains a plain affront both to Scripture and common Sense.  
Sr. the holy Scriptures is the great Law for the Government of men, and is certainly the truest Touch stone of Sin and Duty. But Sr. whoever he be, 
Scripture ought not to be Interpreted contrary to an Article of Faith.  that expounds H●●y Scripture in contradiction or not consonant to an Article of Faith, his exposition cannot be true, and I am assured so, by that Article of Faith it contradicts or agrees not with. As for example; the Socinians have with so much cunning and plausibility expounded even those texts of Scripture which are express for the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour, in favour of their Heresy, that they have staggared and perverted many persons of considerable understanding; but when the Article of Faith is considered, viz. And I Believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God & God of God, very God of very God, being of one Substance with the Father, etc. every Christian is infalliably assured that the Exposition of the Sacred Scripture made by the S●inians are false, because it is in contradiction to an Article of Faith. So when I saw Mr. H—ry had expounded the holy Apostl's Precept I beseech you Brothers etc. 1 Cor. 1.10. that there be no Divisions among you etc. and other Texts of Scripture, in favour of your Separate Communion to acquit that from the guilt of Schism, I was firmly assured that his Expositions were false, because they clashed and agreed not with that IXth Article of Faith I Believe the Haly Catholic Church the Communion of Saints; a Separate Communion being altogether inconsistent with that Article of Faith: I therefore recomended that Article of Faith as a better and more easy way for him to find out the true nature of Schism, than his so unskilful expounding Scripture, which the Apostle saith 2 Pet. 1 20 is not of any Pri●a●e Interpretation. Sr. I know not who, nor what you are, but I must tell you, that to affirm that an Article of Faith is a plain affront to Scripture is the nearest to the language of an Heretic that I have met with.  
In p. 10 he saith, I ●ffer to their Consideration, the Origination or first Existence of the Catholic Church, and that I said it was before the day of Pentecost; but he says, how long before that day I tell 'em not, and then he takes an occasion to let us know that he has read of the Babilonish Captivity.  
I did set down the Text, Acts 1.15. The number of the Names together were about an hundred and twenty, which was sufficient to denote the time, and he owns that he knows my meaning; but to exercise his abundant wit, he says, here is a Discovery worthy of its Author; no body can think that I mentioned it as the Discoverer, but as necessarily previous to what followed. But (he says) had God no Churche● then among the Jews? must they be Excommunicated too? for what cause pray? (and then reproachfully answers) Not for want of Ceremonies, or a Pontiff I hope. Then he says, 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 other of his Cabal● solve these Riddles, and he shall be my great Apollo.  
That God had a Church from the beginning of the World, 
Church not called Catholic before the day of Pentecost. Psal. 2.8. Eph. 2.14.  that the Angels in Heaven were from their Existence Members of it, being Created for that end; an● that ●he Church of the Jews was Gods peculiar Church, are all infallibly true; but until the Promise was fulfilled. Desire of me, and I shall give thee the ●●eathen for thine Inheritance, and the utmost parts of the Earth for thy Possession: Until the middle Wall of the Partition was broken down (which was not 'til the Church was changed from Judaisme to Christianity) the Title Catholic, was never, nor could properly be attributed to the Church; now unless this Gent. will show, that the Church was called Catholic before the Day of Pentecost I mentioned, all these Riddles and Philosophical questions are of no more worth and value, than his great promise to make me his great Apollo.  
In p. 11. he questions not, that the Apostles and Disciples were the Church nor the power Christ gave the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to all the World; and says that I well observe Christ's Commission and Charge, that in every Natian they that believed might be Baptised and made Members of the Church? (but says he) 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 Scripture Rules, etc. and then in his 12 p. he says, its 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, etc.  
It is true that Faith is the necessary Qualification of a man's admission to Baptism, and that persons are thereby made visible Members of the Church, 
Members of the Church to observe the Peace & Unity in the Church.  but this is but the Initiation or beginning of Christianity; Obedience to Spiritual Rulers and Governors, being in this always supposed and employed; to Faith and Baptism must be added a strict Observation of the Order, Peace and Unity of that holy Society into which they are admitted by those Qualifications above mentioned; and this is most strictly enjoined by the Holy Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and God of Order in the words mentioned in the beginning of this paper, and divers other Texts in Scripture. As for calling them Rites and Ceremonies of their own, that are alien to Scripture Rules, what ever tends to Order and the Beauty of Uniformity in the Church, is in the Power and Wisdom of the Apostles Successors, the Bishops, to impose, though not expressed in Scripture; there are no express terms in Scripture for Infant Baptism, nor for Women to partake at the Eucharist, yet allowed and required by the Authority of the Church, and submitted unto from the Primitive times by all Christians, except Anabaptists, who deny the former. And this fully answers his following Paragraph, which he closeth with much bitterness and venom against our Clergy, and serves only to show what Spirit he is of.  
In p. 13. he saith, But though the Apostles did propagate the Gospel far and wi●ie, yet that they did actually preach it to all Nations, is a thing we never beard of before T. W. told us so; and we must have better Evidence before we believe it.  
This is a mere Cavil, but he thinks he has sufficiently showed my nakedness; 
The Gospel preace to all Nations.  I did not use the word Actually: I said that according to our Saviors Command the Apostles did Preach the Gospel to all Nations; I could tell him out of very good Authoritys, the vast Countries in the Roman Empire in which St. Paul did actually preach the Gospel and that St. James did so in the Regions of Palestine; St. Mark in Alexandria, and the Countries far about it, St. John in Asia, St. Andrew in Achaja, St Thomas in India and of the other Apostles Propagating the Gospel in other Countries, ay, and Ordained Bishops and Presbyters in 'em too; But the Scripture saith, There were dweling at Jerusalem Jews, 
Acts 2 5.  devout men out of every Nation under Heaven; to these the Apostles preached the gospel, so in this respect, what I said is true; I had no great reason to fear that I had committed an unpardonable Crime; and if upon the Evidence given in Scripture he will not believe it he is at his liberty.  
He goes on; Wither the Seven Churches in Asia had Seven Bishops Presiding over them, neither more nor less is a thing that no way affects our present Controversy, nor can any thing be concluded from thence in favour of our English Prelacy; till the Power of these Bishops, the extent of their Dioceses, the Quality of their under Officers, etc. be proved the same with ours, viz. or liable to the same exceptions, etc. I understand not this last Sentence, or liable to the same exceptions, unless he would make the Primitive Church liable to the same exceptions.  
That there were seven Bishops is unquestionable, unless he will not give Credit to St. John's Testimony; that the extent of their Dioceses may in some measure be right estimated, it will be necessary to consider, what this Asia doth signify, which Dr. Hammond describes thus: Asia here doth not signify the fourth part in the Division of the World, but in another Notion, known to Geographers; the Lydian or proconsular Asia, thus the word is used, Acts 19.26. where St. Paul is said to persuade much People not only at Ephesus, but almost through all Asia; now in this Asia, as there were many Cities, so there were some Metropoles, Chief or Mother Cities, to each of which, the lesser adjacent were subordinate. Of this sort the first was Ephesus, saith Ulpian, l. Observe D. de Off. Procons. Such again was Thiatira, saith Ptolemy, l. Geog. 1st. Cap. 2. Such was Phyladelphia, of the Province of the Lydians. Of the same Rank are Laodicea, Sardis, Smyrna, and Par●amus, affirmed by Pliny (Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29.) as Cities wherein the Roman Proconsul's residing, kept Courts for all the adjoining Cities to resort to; by which it appears that all the Seven Cities here named, were Metropoles, and accordingly under these Seven, all other Christian Churches were contained. And it is evident in Ignatius' time (which was not long after) that Magnesia, and Trallies, upon the Banks of Meander, (saith Stephanus Bizantius) being consequently included in this Asia, were Episcopal Churches, or Cities, Damas' being Bishop of one and Polybius of the other, and so subordinate to the Metropolitan of Ephesus. After this the Doctor Translates out of E●●ebius; part of which I here insert, (viz) Who can recount the multitudes of Assemblies in every City? Who can describe the Confluxes to the Oratories, and the spacious Churches which they built from the foundations, not contenting themselves with the ancient Edifices? To these I will add but two more instances viz. Jerusalem and Rome: That the Seven Churches in Asia, 
Each City in the Primitive times but one Bishop.  and the Churches in Jerusalem and Rome had each of them but one Bishop, is the voice of all the Christian world, except the small number of your mistaken persuasion; and that each of these great and populous Cities contained very many Congregations nothing can be more evident; and further, that it was impossible that all the many Congregations in each City could be Administered unto, by one Bishop without the assistance of Presbyters: And now lay all this together, 
English Prelacy the same with the Primitive.  and see if in favour of our English Prelacy every one is not forced to conclude, That the Prelacy or Diocesan Bishops in England is an exact parallel to the Churches above mentioned? Primitive Churches; & that nothing but Obstinacy, Pride & Interest can bind or hold my Adversary and his Brothers any longer in that fond and groundless Opinion of Congregational or Parochial Episcopacy.  
As for the Power wherewith our Prelates are invested, it is from Heaven; the Son of God to whom all Power in Heaven and Earth was committed, 
Episcopacy of Divine Institution and perpetual. Mat. 16. v. 19 Joh. 20. v. 23. Ibid. v. 21. Mat. 28. v. 20.  first promised it to St. Peter, and I will ●ive thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; afterwards he gave it actually to all the Apostles; whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained: this is called the power of the Keys of binding and losing; the power of Ordaining and Governing is given in these words; as my Father sent me, even so sen● I you. And that this Power was to continue by Succession until the second coming of our Lord, is manifest in these words; and lo I am with you always even to the end of the World. And accordingly this Power has descended by Succession from the Apostles to this present Age. Now here is Episcopacy both name and thing (as you call it) according to the Primitive Standard proved, which you seem to desire; and now be not offended nor angry that you are (as you term it) run down, which is, that your Erroneous Opinion, contrary to all Antiquity is so plainly discovered, not (as you say) by a bare word only, but by most firm and undeniable Testimony.  
The under Officers you mention, are owned to be no other than of Prudential Institution for dispatch of business, but are established by Law, to whom therefore your Obedience is due.  
I wonder you mention your Scotch Presbytery; it can be for no other purpose than as a Rod shaken at us to beware of you, 
Scotch Presbytery a Caution to us  for they have sufficiently explained what is meant by Comprehention, to wit the expultion of Episcopacy, and have assured us that our Bishops and Clergy, will meet with the same barbarous usage here, if ever it come into your Power.  
In p. 14. he modestly says, he will not take upon him to contradict those Learned men, who think the Angels (mentioned in the Revel. by St. John) were Bishops; he having granted this, is all my desire, and therefore all his witty Animadversions which follow, are not worth my answering. It would be but needless Repetition to say any thing to his following Paragraph in his 14. p. having fully answered it before.  
In his p. 15. he says, What do I mean in saying in these Multiplied Churches there was no Variation; and then very disingenuously changes my word, for a word very different in signification, and asks, Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worship? and says, the contrary may be proved even in the Apostles times, and instances that which he calls a Scuffle, Acts 15. betwixt the believing Jews and Gentiles, about Jewish Ceremonies.  
Here were no such different Circumstances as to divide their Communion, therein there was no Variation, their Unity was preserved; the Jewish Ceremonies, which the Converted Jews would have imposed on the Christian Gentiles were no Circumstances in the Christian Worship; the Council at Jerasalem thought therefore necessary to forbid those Impositions; now in this very Case the necessity of Apostolic Jurisdiction doth appear, that by a decisive and definitive Sentence of Ecclesiastical Authority, it may not be in the power of private Christians to impose their different Sentiments upon one another, and that there may be no Variation nor breach of Unity in the public Worship of God. So that this Instance is not at all for his purpose. He says if I mean, there was no variation from Scripture Rules (though we are afraid that will scarce hold, yet) we wish it had been so still.  
By Scripture Rules here, he certainly means the New Testament; if this Gent. had any regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity, he would never have talked of Scripture (that is New T●●●ment) Rules before they were written.  
He says, We have a Notion of Unity loyed down (in my p. 2.) in which we freely concur with him; these are my words (for he has not transcribed them fairly) They are all one with that Church first mentioned at Jerusalem, and (which he omits) all one with one another; being all United into one Spiritual Society or Body, under one Head Christ Jesus, etc. (and which he has omitted too) and are in all things the sune with that first Church, United in one Baptism, and one Faith, and all partakers at the same Eucharist, etc.  
That, (says he) is the same for substance, for in 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. And so he runs on in his 16. p. and endeavours to persuade all men (just like the Donatists) that these Dissenters are more truly Catholic than we.  
That the Power delegated by our blessed Saviour to his Apostles was to be conferred upon their Successors, is certainly employed in the promise, 
Mat. 28.20.  Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world. 
The Church of England truly Apostolical.  That the Church of England was Planted, either by some of the Apostles or some of their Successors and that the Succession of Bishops has continued in this Church from that first propagation; by as strong proofs as human Authority is capable of, viz. by Records and Histories may appear; and consequently that the Church of England is as truly an Apostolic and Catholic Church as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and those other Churches which were of the first Planting.  
Her Orders than are to be equally obeved, Her Unity and Peace as strictly mantained and whatsoever amounted to Schism in any of them must be so in her: your Uniting then in a Communion Separate from this Church, bears no similitude with Primitive Unity, being contrary to their Practice. And being that in your Congregations the Divine Authority is wanting, there can be no such Unity found among you, as Primitive Unity.  
He Says the Eucharist was the same for Substance in the Primitive Congregations, and that they all agreed in the same Circumstances; It is very true, for no difference would be allowed; Christians then, durst not entertain so wicked and uncharitable a thought, as that of setting up a Separate Congregation as you do; They devoted themselves to the Command of their master, to have Peace one with another. 
Mark 9.50. Heb. 13.17.  They for Conscience sake observed the Command of the Apostle, Obey them that have the Rule over you; If you would tread in their steps, you would as Relgiously observe the Unity and Peace of the Established Church wherein you live in all Circumstances as they did.  
All his next Paragraph Pa. 17. is the same, in different Phrases; He says, the description I have given of Church Unity ruins my whole Book and Cause (an hasty Sentence) for says he, if this be the true proper Unity of Churches, than there may be true Church-Vnity without the Uniting of many particular Churches, Ministers and People into one Diocesan Church under the Jurisdiction of a Prelate and his Officers etc. Then he is not much against the conveniency of Parochial-Precincts, but says according to my Definition, it is not De essentia Vnitatis.  
It is plain, all that he drives at here is that there may be true Church Unity without Episcopacy, I have answered this before by showing, that all Presbyters with their Particular Congregations, that is Ministers and People now resolved into Parochial Churches, within the Dioceses of the Respective Cities, were United under the Jurisdiction of the Respective Bishop of each City; So that the Uniting of many particular Churches, Ministers & People into one Diocesan Church, under the jurisdiction of a Prelate, is true Church Unity as used in Primitive times, by which it appears, that this Gent. Doctrine, viz. 
1 Cor. 11.16.  that there may be true Church Unity without Episcopacy, is a mere Innovation, there being no such custom in the Churches of God as the Apostle speaks.  
As for their Officers they have the Sanction of our Laws to Authorise them; an Authority far greater than can be showed for Lay Elders; Officers subserviant to the Minister of every Congregation, and though generally ignorant, and many of them cannot write their Names, yet are made judges of their fellow christian's sufficiency in faith; a novelty created by Calvin, and how reasonable let the impartial judge. He says, so a man may plead to the jurisdiction of a Diocessan Prelate, may step over Parish bounds, etc.  
So did Korah and his Congregation against Moses and Aaron, 
Nam. 16.2. & 10.  their Controversy being the very same with yours against the Church; they were for levelling the Priesthood, so are you; they were for setting up a new modelled Congregation, so are you; God shown his displeasure against their Pride and Disobedience, by a most terrible destruction; and the Apostle saith, 
Rom. 15.4.  Whatsoever things were written aforetimes, were written for our Learning.  
In the end of p. 17. and in 18. he lays to my charge, that I distinguished not betwixt the extraordinary power which was properly Apostolical, and that ordinary Pastoral Power which was eminently comprehended in the other.  
The Authority and Government of the Church must have expired with the Apostles, had not this Power been conveyed by their Delegation to their Successors, by virtue whereof the ordinary Pastoral power, viz. Power to Preach the Gospel, Administer Sacraments, Absolve Penitents, etc. was and is conferred upon the Presbyters: the extraordinary and Apostolic Power of Ordaining and Governing, of Binding and Losing, being entirely reserved in the Bishop, the Apostles Successors; and this too, of the ordinary Pasteral power is (to use his own words) eminently comprehended in the Diocesan Bishops, as it was in the Apostles. Other distinction than this, cannot be truly made as I suppose. Then he maliciously mentions the Archbishop of Canter●ury; what Christian temper or good manners he shows therein, let the Reader judge? For it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy People. The Nature and Extent of the Episcopal Office being fuily stated, answers what he saith in the bottom of his 18 p. He says, Dr. Hammond tells us that all the Elders we read of in the Scripture, were Bishops, and that every particular Church had one of these.  
This Gent. has this quality, he never mentions the place where the thing may be sound in any Author he quotes, which is not fair. Dr. Hammond says indeed; That the Bishops in every City were the Successors of the Apostles. 
Dissert. 3 c. 3.  In his Anot. on Acts c. 11. b. and in his Tracts of the Power of the Keys; Asian Bishops called Angels; and Bishop and Elder terms equivalent, (which were written in Vindication of his Dissertations, from the exceptions of the Assembly of Divines (as they were called) wherein he has, by Scripture, the Primitive Fathers and undeniable Arguments evinced (to the silenceing of the Assemblers) that the word Bishop in Scripture did always signify a Prelate or a Diocesan Bishop; and that the word Elder had the same signification; so that if this Gent. will be concluded by the Author he has cited, his pretensions to Parochial and Congregational Bishops are at an end.  
P. 19 he says, 'tis pretty to hear him say, these two (that is Timothy and Titus) were ordained Bishops by the Apostles; was there any Apostle concerned besides Paul in it? Here lies the trick, etc.  
Whether they were Ordained by St. Paul alone, or with others conjunct, it was all one, being I was only to prove, that their being Ordained Bishops was by Apostolic power, which being done though by St. Paul alone is sufficient. Nothing but prejudice and ill nature could see any thing of a Trick in this.  
Then he puts the Question; and how (pray) could Timothy and Titus succeed the Apostles in the See of Ephesus and Crete, whilst the Apostles were living? And then he is pleased in his 20 p. to Droll and scoff at 'em, and then says, to be the Apostles Successors, the Apostles yet alive, and in plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery, (so is all the Gospel) than he closes, making himself merry with the ignorance of a Vicar of Newport (who, by the way is said to have been a Nonconformist) which in a matter so momentous, carries too much levity for a Minister of the Gospel.  
I said in my p. 3. this Apostolical Succession was begun in Timothy and Titus, etc. They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical power, if the Apostle moved by the Holy Ghost had not whilst living, conferred it on them; could the Apostle have Ordained them after he was dead? The Apostle by Ordaining them in his life time, secured the Succession to them, and the Government too in the Apostles absence, even whilst he was living; so that it was not improperly said, that this Apostolic power was begun in Timothy and Titus, they being the first mentioned in Scripture, who were invested with Episcopal power of Jurisdiction, by Apostolical Ordination; that this Succession of Bishops is (as he scossingly calls it) a very great Mystery is very true, the Bishops being by virtue of this Succession, as truly the Representatives of Christ Jesus, as Ambassadors are of Kings.  
In p. 20. he says I affirmed that no Presbyters had power to Ordain, He desires me to try, how I will reconcile this with Dr. Hammond, who says these Presbyters were all Bishops; 
1 Tim. 4.14.  or with Scripture itself, that says even Timothy received the Gift, by the laying on the Hands of the Presbytery.  
I have tried, and find it easily reconciled with Dr. Hammond, for his Judgement is, that those Presbyters who joined in that Ordination were Apostles, which you may see in his Paraphrase on the  Scripture, and he refers to Note on Acts chap. 11. f. for his reasons. 
Mere Presbyters a ●umea power to Ordain, first found in the Church of Rome.  The first clear Instance of mere Presbyters assuming the power to Ordain, is to be found in the Church of Rome, as the learned Primate Bramhal tells us, p. 164. and in p. 431. he saith, We may justly ascribe the reviveing of the Aerian Heresy to the Dispensations of the Court of Rome, who Licenced Ordinary Priests to Ordain and Confirm, etc.  
In p. 20. he further saith, for propagation of Apostolical Succession, etc. I inform 'em, that Linus by Apostolical Consecration Succeeded the Apostles in the See of Rome; here is a double blunder again, Linus succeeded whilst the Apostles were alive. How else could he have Apostolical Consecration, etc.  
The best way to determine this, is to observe the Rule which in great Wisdom our Law hath appointed for Jurors, to bring in their Verdict according to their best Evidence: The best Evidence in this Case, are the writings of the Fathers who lived in the next Age, among whom, Irenaeus is accounted the most exact Notary of the Succession of Bishops to the Apostolic Sees; 
L. 3. C. 3.  he affirms, that Linus was made Bishop by the Apostles, and that he Succeeded St. Peter in the See of Rome, and that next after him Cletus (by some called Anon Cletus) Succeeded in that See: and with him 
‖ Lib. 1. adv. Her. Sect. 6.  Epiphanius agrees; and with these divers others; now this is so far from being a blunder, that it is a clear Manifestation of the great care the Apostles had of providing for the Succession in their life time, which no man can object against, much less profanely Ridicule (as my Adversary does) who will consider that otherwise the Succession must have failed, and been extinct if neglected whilst the Apostles lived.  
In the 21 p. at the bottom, he saith, That my affirming, that this line of Apostolic Succession of Bishops, hath continued in all Ages to this present time; 
Succession of Bishops from the Apostles without interruption to this Age.  is (saith he) an assertion without the least shadow of proof; yea contrary to the acknowledgement of all Church Historians.  
If this Gent, had mentioned where any Church Historian of Credit, is of his Opinion, and shown when any interruption happened, he had done something for the support of his opinion. But let him examine from this present age, to the days of Lucius King of the Northumber's, (who is credibly said to be the first King that Embraced the Christian Faith in this Isle) and if he can assign one Breach of this Succession, he out does his predecessors, but if not, he stands guilty of bringing a false Accusation against all truly Catholic Churches. For not only the Church of England, but all other Established Catholic Churches do assert the Succession of their Bishops, to descend from the Apostles: And it is in every Diocese as sacredly Recorded as the Succession of Rings and Emperors to their Thrones.  
But in p. 22, he says, The very Papists themselves, confess that there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See. My Adversary would rebuke such boldness in me; I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession; and I believe they may challenge him to name any of them, or show any Books of theirs, wherein he can find such a Confession as he allegeth. In the days of Valentinian, there was great strife about the Claim of that See; yet none was put into possession who had not Episcopal Consecration, in which respect the Episcopal Succession was preserved; so that the insuperable difficulties, are but his bare Allegation.  
But pray how can there be a Priest without this Line of Apostolic Succession? Can a man receive Priestly, i. e. Spiritual Power, by laying on of the hands of them who have not Power to confer it; it is St. Paul's question, Rom. 10.14, 15. how shall they hear without a Preacher, and how shall they Preach except they be sent, etc. which is a strong affirmation, that no man ought to preach without Divine Mission. The great Bishop of our Souls was sent of God, the Apostles received their Mission from him, and no man can say he is sent, (that is) can truly be a Minister of the Gospel, who hath not Apostolical Mission, and no man hath power to send, who hath not received it by Succession from the Apostles: and this Succession must be by an uninterrupted Line from the Apostles, or it ceases to be Divine; so that the absolute necessity of an uninterrupted Line is a sufficient reason to prove it. And now I may affirm, that great Catholic truth (it remaining firm and unshaken) set down in my former paper, p. 3. (viz.) who ever he be that is out of this Line of Apostolic Succession, and Exercises any Ministerial Office, without the Commission of Episcopal Ordination, can be no more or other, than a Lay Impostor and a Schismatic, and that without exposing Christianity itself (as he says p. 23. I do) or without leaving the Consciences of all the men in the World, at an utter uncertainty; whether they have a true Ministry. or true Ordinances or no; for there is no other way wherein a true Ministry and consequently true Ordinances can be found, and this is so far from Leaving men's Consciences at an uncertainty, that it is the only foundation of certainty and assurance of a true Ministry, and consequently true Ordinances, and from whence we receive real comfort in the Participation; for other Foundation, saith Saint Paul, can no man lay, than that is already laid, which is Jesus Christ; (1 Corinthians, 3. vers. 11.) Jesus Christ hath founded his Church upon the Holy Apostles, and so as not to be demolished, or expire with their lives, but to continue firm in their Successors to the end of the World; to deny this is both to distrust the power and providence of God, and to make void the promise of our Lord, made, Mat. 28.20.  
But this my Adversary does; for (says he in p. 24.) in how many Cases may this Line be broken, and all the Apostolic power conveyed there, be spilt and lost, etc. Is not this man's Faith too weak in the power of God, and in the promise of his Son? Which is, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, Mat. 16.18. that is his Church; and shall the devices of men out do the Gates of Hell? shall the fancy of this man and his Brethren overthrow that against which, God hath promised the powers of Hell shall not prevail? And because these men infatuated by Error, despise this Church, whose Foundation was laid by the blessed Jesus, and hath the power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to her, must she be made a Prey and a Sacrifice to the blind Ignorance, Pride and Lusts of these men's minds, to make way for the Whimsy and Invention of man; not known or heard of in the Church of Fourteen hundred years? Must the power of Preaching the Gospel, Absolving Penitents, Consecrating the Holy Sacraments, etc. be lost and made void by being translated into profane hands, to be Officiated by those who are not sent of God? All which, are the unavoidable consequences of this man's Doctrine. For he says p. 24. Where this Line is broken all this Apostolic power is spilt and lost.  
The Abbot of Hylas was objected by a Popish Writer to prove our Church Schismatical, and it is now brought by this Dissenter against the Apostolic Succession, which in his p. 25. he names in the Margin. The most Reverend Primate Bramball, in answer to the Papist, writes a just Vindication of the Church of England, etc. In p. 131, and 135, of his works, you have an account at large, where he clears the Northumbrian Bishops from Receiving Consecration of the Abbot of High, and shows, that they had their Consecration from the Bishop of Derry, (then called Derry-magh) under whose Visitation this Abbot lived: The Primate tells us, the Records were to be seen at Derry before the Irish Rebellion; and this story you have much to the same purpose, in the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph's Historical account of Church Government, etc. Chap. 5. so that this Dissenter has no more advantage with the Popish Writer against our Church, by casting this Imputation out of this Story, to break the Succession, than the Papist had to prove us Schismatics; nor is any intercision hereby proved which my Adversary pretends.  
In the same p. 25. he desires to know of me, or any who encourages me to write little Books, Whether this Line of Succession may be continued in a Schismatical Church; and the Apostolical Power conveyed thereby? (says he) if by Schism men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church, than such Schismatical Churches are no Churches, etc.  
What occasion I gave him for this question, you may see in my 3d. Page; after I affirmed the Apostolical Succession of Bishops, and inferred from thence, that who ever Exercised any Ministerial Office out of this Line of Succession, and had not Episcopal Ordination, 
No true Ordination out of the line of Succession.  could be no other than a Lay Impostor and a Schismatic; then I inferred further, and consequently all Societies of Christians who withdraw themselves from the Government of their Bishops; who are the Apostles Successors, and from Communicating with those Presbyters lawfully set over them by Episcopal Ordination and Institution: and frame themselves into any other sort of Government, are guilty of Schism; such Societies are Schismatics, and cut themselves off from the Catholic Church, but can in no sort properly be called Churches, and therefore I understand not his Logic in this, (viz.) If by Schism, Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church, therefore Schismatical Churches are no Churches. 
‖ The Donatists were such  Churches they are, though Schismatical; whilst they retain the Apostolical Succession, they retain also the power and Authority of Ordination, Preaching the Gospel, and Administering the Sacraments, and so retain the name of a Church. 
* Dissenters no right to the Succession.  But what are our Dissenters concerned herein? They disclaim the Succession, and deny any power or Virtue to be derived from it, and therefore have no Commission to preach the Gospel, or Administer Sacraments, etc. and consequently no right to the name of a Church; but by the word Societies they would have Churches understood, that thereby their Unlawful Assemblies might pass under that Title.  
I must here put one question to these Dissenters; many of the Clergy of the Romish Church have embraced Communion with the Reformed Churches; I desire to know whether Re-ordination in this case was ever required? the answer must be in the Negative, their Ordination being derived from the Apostles Successors; in vain then is this Gentleman's attempt to Un-church the Church of England (as in his p. 25.) for that our Bishops have derived their Consecration from the Church of Rome, it being the Judgement of all Reformed Divines, that formal Schism cannot invalidate the power of Regular and formal Ordination.  
In p. 26. he says I would Exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea that have not those Governors, etc. by those Governors, I suppose he means Diocesan Bishops.  
To this I answer; That many very Learned and Pious persons among them, have declared their longing desires for the Episcopacy, but living in Popish Dominions, cannot have any but those of the Romish Communion. Others there be, that approve of it, yet live in Republic Governments, and they will by no means admit of Episcopacy in that Regiment; invincible necessity is upon these, and therefore in Charity cannot be charged with Schism, being in their desires Catholic; but as for those who with you, and your Brethren in England, deny its Authority, and obstinately refuse Subjection to it, they with you are notorious Schismatics, and can in no wise be excused.  
As for that fanciful supposition of a Company of Christians cast upon a remote Island (which he talks of in p. 26.) or if all the Pastors in a Country should be put to death, etc. He cannot bring one instance of either, and if it should so happen, all the Laymen and mere Presbyters in the World cannot make one Evangelical Priest; cannot empower them to Preach the Gospel, not Consecrate Sacraments, etc. but what can be expected from Invincible necessity? They have a God to pray to, whose mercies are infinite, who will fulfil the desires of them that fear him, and will hear their cry, Psal. 114. v. 19  
In his 27 p. he saith, But if we assent to the Whimsy of a constant Succession, as if power were conveyed like water in a Conduit, after a Phisical manner, by contact passing through the Finger's ends of the Prelate, into the noddle of the person Ordained, etc.  
A Whimsy I take it, signifies some Fantastic Device, or the Creature of an unstable, or unsettled brain; which being applied or imputed to Prelates, who bear the Authority of Christ, deriving it Originally from him, can be no less (I think) than Blasphemy, for our blessed Saviour saith to his Apostles, and in them to their Successors; He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me; Luke 18. v. 16. no man that has not arrived to the height of wickedness, and given himself over to a reprobate mind, would thus revile the Ambassadors of God; he can be no better than a filthy Dreamer, who thus despiseth Dominion, and speaks evil of Dignities. Judas, v. 8. How wantonly does this man sport himself in holy things? and by vilifieing and contemning the Evangelical holy Priesthood make void, and a kicshaw (as much as in him lieth) of our holy Religion, exposing and prostituting it to the contempt and scorn of Infidels and Atheists.  
What he mentions in p. 28. viz. The Lewd Extravagant Caresses that have happened between the ambitious Princes, and astiring Churchmen concerns us not, for he cannot name any such aspiring Churchmen that have been in England since the Reformation, and though he could, the order being of Divine Institution cannot be dissolved for any man's miscarriage; if by this he means any thing of the Church of Rome, we abjure her Jurisdiction over us. Dr. Sancroft Archbishop of Canterbury, with six other Bishops, in their Address to K. James, declared against the Usurping of any absolute Empire, over the Civil and Religious Rights of men, and this was done so publicly, that it is more than probable, the fame of it is gone through the World, so that this Insinuation of his, is a mere malicious calumny.  
In my p. 4. I proved that to love as Christians in Scripture sense, is to love as members of Christ, and that this obliges Christians to preserve the Body (i. e. the Church) from Rents and Schisms, which (says he) we never deny. He implicitly confesseth that they ought to preserve the Church from Rents and Schisms, and yet shamefully denys it in practice every day. I have so fully spoken of this before that I need say no more in this place.  
And here again are the Ceremonies objected, which though I have proved to be no sufficient ground for their Separation, yet for further satisfaction I will here Recommend the Reasons given by the Convocation, why the Ceremonies were retained; They are affixed before the Book of Common Prayer, and are important enough, to satisfy the Conscience of any sober Conscientious Christian.  
In p. 29. he says, for our further Conviction we are told (the Communion of Saints is one External visible Communion in the Christian Church) which is so far from explaining the thing, that it makes it much darker; what I said above, had reference to the Christian Church when it was first called Catholic. And was not the Communion of the Church than One? and ought it not to be so still? and was not the Union External and Visible? but I did a little after explain by showing wherein this Communion doth more particularly consist: In my p. 5. (viz.) in the same Articles of Faith; 
The Communion of Saints in Faith.  I named the Apostles, Nicene and Atharasian Creeds, which have been received and used in the Catholic Church, from the times they were first published, and appointed by the Authority of the Church; the Creeds are Compendiums and brief Comprehensions of the Objects of our Christian Faith, and do contain all things necessary to be believed; every Article being a principle of the Christian Religion, which every Christian is bound to profess, and is the Test to distinguish between Heretics and sound Christians; and now this profession and agreement of Christians in these Articles of Faith, may be truly called the Communion of Saints in point of Faith. But my Adversary is not very fond of these Creeds; and why not in Scripture (says he) Why! every one who truly believes the Scripture, believes the Articles of Faith, and every one who believe the Articles believe the Scripture. He says, They are but Human composition. They were Composed by those to whom the Care and Authority of the Church was committed, and every Article for the benefit of all, even the meanest Christians, being form and Collected out of Sacred Scripture, are of Divine Authority.  
He says, I shut out the Greek and other Eastern Churches. This is but his own Conception, for they agree with us in all Articles of Faith; they do not indeed express the Article of the Holy Ghost in the very same words, but they acknowledge that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father by the Son, which differs not in sense, and they Worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, so that in Articles of Faith we and they hold Communion. Well! I perceive though my Adversary relishes not, and speaks with but indifferent Respect of the Creeds, yet he says, however he is so far in Communion with us, so in this, he will be no Schismatic; or rather no Heretic. 
The Communion 〈◊〉 Saints 〈◊〉 the Eucharist.   
Another particular (which I mentioned) required in this Communion, is partaking all at the same Table; (which though it be not individually yet Spiritually it is the same; and being every where called the Lords Table, could be no otherwise meant; but that this Gent. will be very witty, and take exceptions at every thing. The Apostle calls it the Lords Table. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, 
1 Cer. 10.21. v. 16. v. 17.  is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? We being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread. All true Christians partaking at the Lords Table are one Body in the Apostles Sense; the bread not only signifying the Body of Christ, but the Unity of the partakers also; and this is the Communion of Saints at the Lords Table. Here, says he, we are with him still. I wonder at his confidence; he would say sure, h●re we ought to be with them, for they are not with us. By comparing our Church with the Primitive Churches, I have proved her to be a Church truly Catholic; her Jurisdiction as truly Apostolical as they were; from whence it follows (as I have said) that her Orders are to be equally obeyed; her Unity and Peace as strictly maintained, and what soever was Schism in any of them must be so in her.  
To refuse Communicating with any of them at the Lords Table, and to have set up another Table in opposition to any of them, must in this Gentleman's judgement have been criminous Schism; then of necessity it holds true against our Dissenters; they refuse Communion with that Church which most certainly holds true Communion with the Universal Catholic Church, and consequently with the Son of God, who is the Head thereof, and the Principle and proper Object of all Christian Communion: Our Dissenters have set up a separate Table in opposition thereto, robbed her of her Members, and broke her Unity; all this being notoriously the breach of Christian Charity, is in this Gent. and Mr. Hery's Sense too, Schism; which Mr. Hery calls an Arch-Rebel, (but not so properly) as an Infamous Rebellion in Christ's Kingdom; and thus they are Schismatics in Separating from the Communion of Saints at the Lords Table. What he talks here, of deriving our Succession from the Church of Rome, is already answered.  
A third particular required in this Communion, I affirmed to be, 
Communion of Saints in the same Prayers.  the joining all in the same holy Prayers and Supplications, Intercessions and giving of thanks, according to St. Paul's express Command.  
To this he says, I cannot mean, that in those Duties we must necessaryly use the very same words, etc. for then I exclude all the World but them of my own persuasion, and a great many of them too.  
I exhort therefore (saith St. Paul) that first of all, Supplications, Prayers, 
1. Tim. 2. v 1.2.  Intercessions, and giving of Thanks be made for all min; for Kings and all that are in Authority, etc. Here is a sufficient ground from Holy Scripture, for Liturgies, or Forms of Prayers in the public Worship and Service of God; and St. Paul gives his reason for it in his Ep. to the Romans; that we might with one mind and one mouth, Glorify God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Rom. 15. v. 6.  According to this command, Forms of Prayers or Liturgies were Composed early in the Catholic Churches, and have been used ever since, that there might be an Unity in their Supplications and Prayers, and in their Thanksgivings and Praises, that nothing should be omitted, nor any thing more in our Petitions expressed, but what our holy Religion requires, & that there should be no rudeness, or undecency in words (in which respects, conceived and Extempore prayers are very liable to be faulty) and in these, they were all obliged to join where ever they came together for the public Worship and Service of God: Herein they had Communion with God the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, who was in the midst of them, 
Mat. 28. v. 20.  and in whose name they were presented, and with one another; Uniting all in the same Prayers; here is the Communion of Saints in holy Prayers. It is true, that the Respective Provincial or Diocesan Churches had not every one their set Forms of Prayers or Liturgies in the very same words; every Bishop having power to Compose a Form for that Church of which he was Overseer: Yet they were the same for substance, so that every Christian was obliged to Communicate not only with the Bishop, or his Presbyters under whose Jurisdiction he lived, but all Catholics coming to remote Churches did, as bound by the Rules of Catholic Unity, Communicate with their Fellow-Christians to what Church soever they came.  
That in this the Church of England (as in the former particulars) holds Communion with the Primitive Catholic Church will appear, 
Pream Quinto & Sexto Ed. 6ti. cap. primi.  if we consider that the CONVOCATION in the Reign of Edward the Sixth, by whom our Liturgy was Reformed; with one consent agreed upon one Set Form of Prayer, Administration of Sacraments etc. to be used in the English tongue in every Diocese through out the Realm; In the Reforming and Composure whereof, they had before their eyes, the Word of God and the Primitive Church for their imitation: the Glory of God, the Comfort and Edification of the People for their End: and all their Supplications and Prayers therein, are directed to God Almighty, presented in the name of the blessed Jesus; and all we supplicate for in them, is for no other, than what is allowed of, and required in our holy Religion, and is a reasonable Service.  
To this I will add two things more, viz. Mr. Calvin's Letter to the then Protector of England, which is to this purpose. For so much as concerns the Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites, I much approve that they be determined, so that it may not be Lawful for the Ministers in their Administrations to vary from it; and he gives his Reasons. That it may be a help to the weakness of some; That it may be a Testimony of the Church's Consent, and that it may stop the desultorious levity of those who are for new things,  
The other is what their Learned Mr. Baxter saith, 
Disp. of Liturgy Prop. 10  viz. The constant disuse of Forms, is apt to breed a giddiness in Religion, and may make men Hypocrites, who shall delude themselves with conceits, that they delight in God, when it is but in these Novelties and Variety of Expression that they are delighted, and therefore he adviseth Forms to fix Christians, and make them sound. Thus these two great Guides of theirs.  
It being clear that there is a Communion of Saints in Prayers as in other Offices of Divine Worship; the refusing to Commnuicate therein, is a Breach of Unity, and of the Communion of Saints. Nor can I stand charged (as my Adversary affirms) with Excluding all those from the Communion of Saints who use not the Liturgy of our Church; every National Catholic Church having equal Authority to enjoin its own Liturgy, in which every Member therein is bound to Communicate by the very nature of Unity required in the Gospel.  
St. John declares, 
Revel. 5.9. etc.  that the Four and Twenty Elders in his vision sung a new Son●, and sets down the Form of words wherein the Angels, the Beasts, and the Elders, all with a load Voice glorified the Lamb, etc. Now what ever else this may signify, it certainly Represents the Uniformity of Divine Service above; and it is to be considered, that the Church on Earth is the Type of that glorious part of the Catholic Church Triumphant in Heaven; and though the perfection of that Unity which is above, cannot be attained unto in this imperfect State which is below, yet that which is above is proposed for our imitation, and showeth the great delight the Glorious Trinity the One God hath in the Unity, of his Service. The nearer we on Earth Resemble that Unity which is above, the more perfect we are. The Church of England, in Imitation of the Church above, enjoins Unity in Her Prayers, Intercessions, etc. and in all the Worship and Service of God; but in contradiction to this, our Dissenters can by no means endure it.  
A Fourth particular (mentioned by me) required in the Communion of Saints, is; 
Communion of Saints in subjection to Governors.  To be Subject and Odedient to our Spiritual Rulers, and Governors (who have derived their Authority from the Apostles by a due Succession) in all things pertaining to Godly Life, Decency and Order.  
To this he says in p. 31. and 32. 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 Stream; 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 is more in an Uninterrupted one than so; now before he can say we want this Qualification for Communion, he must prove that Diocesan Bishops are made our Spiritual Rulers by a Divine Command.  
For any man living to affirm that he has Received Authority to be a Minister of the Gospel from Christ Jesus immediately, is contrary to the current of the Gospel and the voice of all Antiquity since the Apostles: Who but the Apostles can this be attributed unto? St. Paul, though after the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost upon the other Apostles, had indeed a Commission from Christ Jesus immediately, yet it was conferred in an extraordinary manner, by a voice from Heaven that it might appear to be no cheat, (Acts 13.3.) and he entered not upon his Office without the Imposition of the hands of the Church. No spiritual Power is received from Christ Jesus, by any man immediately; it is conferred no other way, but from Christ to his Apostles, and by a Succession from them to our days, the Original and Foundation thereof being Christ Jesus. If any man will pretend to an immediate Authority, and prove it not by some Miracle or Revelation, he can pass for no other than a mere Enthusiast and an Impostor. This Doctrine of his, is the false bottom upon which many Heresies, strange and pernicious Opinions have been built, and is the Parent of our Schisms, and Separations; if a man by this Suggestion can but gull the weak people, into a belief of such a Commission to be immediately from Christ, How do they follow and admire him? Withdraw their Obedience from their lawful Governors and Pastors, break the bonds of Charity, and all the Rules of Peace and Order? and all this only to be the Disciples of such a man. All the Honour and Obedience these men give, is not to Spiritual Governors who are so by the Institution of our Lord. Jesus, to whom alone the promise of the Assistance and Operation of the blessed Spirit is given, to Guide and Govern the Flock of Christ; but to them who enter not by the door, but climb up some other way, i. e. those, who are set up by their own Authority. That in many particulars these Dissenters differ from the Church of England, wherein she agrees with the Primitive Churches, doth by this time fully appear.  
My using the words, d●e Succession here, doth not (as he pretends) sink the sense of an Uninterrupted Succession; for that cannot be called a due Succession, which is not an Uninterrupted Succession. So this is but a mere ●ingle.  
I have before sufficiently proved the Government of the Church by Diocesan Episcopacy, to be the Institution of our Blessed Saviour, and that our Diocesan Bishops in the Church of England are invested with this Divine Authority by an uninterrupted Succession, and so are made our Spiritual Rulers by the same Divine Authority. Now these Dissenters having this Divine Authority among 'em; it follows by my Adversary's acknowledgement, that the Dissenters in England want this Qualisication for Communion, by which Communion must be understood the Communion of Saints.  
In the same p. he says, A single person taking upon him to Govern some Thousands of Congregations, by such Rulers and Officers as our English Prelacy uses, and this by the Nomination of the Civil Magistrate without the consent of the people, or the Ministers within the Diocese, is a Creature we find not in Scripture, nor in Primitive times, and therefore can be no Spiritual Governors of ours by Divine Right, etc.  
That the Jurisdiction of English Prelates is of Divine Right being proved, this Creature (as he scoffingly calls it) which he says, they can neither find in Scripture, nor in Primitive times, is evidently found in both, and no other Creature, that is no other Government of the Church can be found in either; so that his objections against Congregations being numerous in a particular Diocese comes to nothing.  
Their Rulers and Officers are mentioned before. But it is worth Observation to see, how the Regular Accession of a Bishop to his Diocese, is maliciously called by him, a single Person taking it upon himself, as if it were mere Usurpation.  
But that which he seems to be much Scandalised at, is their Nomination by the Civil Magistrate without the consent of the people, or the Ministers of the Diocese. If it would not swell my papers too much, I could give him very many Instances to prove that for many Ages the Nomination of Bishops hath been in the Right of Christian Emperors and Christian Kings; and that it hath been so, very Anciently in England, and there's great reason it should be so, for they were the Founders of Bishoprics; who else then can of Right lay claim to the Patronage of presenting to them? what confusion would be the result? how endless the Feuds and Animositys in every Diocese, were their Elections Tumultuary and Popular? By the Presbyters of the Diocese they are Elected, the Dean and Chapter in every Diocese being their Representatives, and this is to prevent Animosities and Divisions among the Clergy, in the Election of Bishops; and the Clergy or any other Person as well without, as within the Diocese have liberty to put in any Allegation they have against him, and the Crime, if proved Judicially, invalidates the Election and all proceed therein. So that all their Quarrel in this, is only against the Ancient Right of the Crown, and the wisdom of the Clergy in preventing strife and contention.  
That Diocesan Bishops are our Spiritual Rulers by Divine Authority being proved, answers all he says in his 32 and ends in his 33 P. His words are these, When this man or any one for him, has made it appear that the Authority of a Diocesan Prelat, Dean, Lay Chancellor etc. over all in the Diocese is as Sacred as that of Moses and Aaron, we will not dare to dispute it for sear of Corah's doom etc. I hope he will not take it amiss if we be not frighted out of our wits by such misapplyed passages etc.  
The Dean, Lay Chancellor etc. are Prudential Officers and have not a Divine but a Legal, though humane Authority; But the Authority of a Diocesan Prelate, conferred by, and derived from the Son of God must be as Sacred as that of Moses and Aaron, for the Apostle St. Paul in his Epist. to the Hebrews puts a far higher value and esteem upon the Evangelical than the Aaronical Priesthood; then certainly, to set up Congregations in defiance and combination against Evangelical Priesihood, viz. Diocesan Prelacy, is a Crime of as deep a Die as that of Corah and his Congregation. Now though I have more Charity than to have these men frighted out of their wits, yet I hearty wish, that they may be frighted into a sense of their guilt and into a fear of disputing, the Crime being of the same Complexion with that of Corah; for althô God doth not now usually avenge himself, against such proud and obstinate Offenders as he did to Corah by the immediate execution of his Judgements, yet he hath reserved a Day, wherein his wrath against all despisers of his Authority and all other unrighteousnesses of obstinate and impenitent Sinners, will be revealed.  
He says Such misapplyed pasages (viz. as that of Corah) they have often heard urged to back the Do●rin of Nonresistance and all those Principles of Slavery some men have be: endeavering to instil into our minds etc.  
Be the consequences what ever they may happen to be, the Doctrine of Nonresistance was the Doctrine of the Holy Apostles; These are the words of St. Paul, Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God: the Powers that be are Ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God: and they that resist receive to themselves Damnation. Rom 13.12. These Precepts of the Apostle are to continue eternally and are unalterable & irreversible by any human Authority whatsoever; To the observation whereof and obedience whereunto, all Christians are infallibly obliged. Now though this Gent. may be above my advice, yet it will be his wisdom not to preach any Doctrine contrary to this Divine Precept; not only because it is contradicted by the Court of Rome, but because the Government will punish it as Seditious  
He says in Pa. 33. In what Bounds he will six the Primitive Church we know not; certain it is a Century or Two made a considerable change in the seatures of the Government and Worship etc.  
Let him and all his Fellow-Dissenters lay their heads together, and if they will be so kind to themselves, as to search the Histories of the Church, and the writings of the Father's concerning the Government and Worship in the Church, and show if they can, any change in the Government and worship in the three first Ceuturies, which until they perform my assertion stands firm. As for the change of Government which he so confidently affirms barely upon his own Authority and Fancy, is notoriously false, for what the Government was then, it has continued to be in all Catholic Churches to this day, so as that therein, there hath been no change at all.  
But says he in Pa. 34. If we must take our measures by these Churches that are truly Primitive, we fear not to put ourselves to the Trial etc. Well! though we have no Security that upon this Trial they will stand to the Verdict, yet let it be Tried.  
He says, That our Congregations have this Agreement in Faith none will deny. 
Dissenters agree not with the Primitive Church.  It is not the Agreement they have in their Congregations with one another that can make them Catholics, but Agreement with the Primitive Catholic Church,  
In the truly Primitive Church, all true Christians did make a formal Profession of Faith, by distinctly repeating the Creeds with an audible voice, as we do in our Churches at this day, which practice seems to be intimated in St. Paul's Injunction to Timothy; Hold fast the Form of sound Words which thou hast heard of me, etc. 
2 Tim. 1. v. 13.  What ever the Faith of these Separate Congregations may be, is unknown to us; the formal profession of Faith which was constantly used by the Primitive Christians, as the badge of Christianity, being in the Congregations of our Dissenters laid aside. Now that they in this respect agree with the truly Primitive Church must be denied.  
He says, I have not proved that they differ from the Catholic Church in the Essentials or integral parts of God's Worship, or in any considerable Circumstance.  
2. In the truly Primitive Churches they held strict Communion with their Bishops, who were the Apostles Successors, and the Presbyters set over them by Episcopal Ordination and Institution, not only in Essential, but in all Circumstances in the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church also; as in the having all things Common, to this they yielded Conformity: The Love Feasts, and the Holy-kiss, mere Ceremonies, no Essentials of Worship, yet enjoined by the Apostles as significative of the ardent Love and Christian Charity, which Christians had for one another, and continued for some time after the Apostles days, till through Corruption grown to be Scandal, and then, though Instituted by the Apostles, were abolished by the Authority of the Church.  
Now our Dissenters denying all Communion with our Bishops who are the Apostles Successors, and the Presbyters set over us by Episcopal Ordination and Institution; this, together with their Usurping the Priestly Office without Episcopal Ordination, sufficiently demonstrates that our Dissenters differ from the Primitive Catholie Church, in Essential, and considerable Circumstances, without any further trial.  
In p. 34. he further saith, And that this Divine Worship and Service is Visible and External, this Gent. is but too sensible, and 'tis a very great Eyesore to such as he, that it is so much more visible than formerly it hath been. That it is visible is true, but that it is Separate and out of the visible Catholic Church is as true.  
He is pleased to call it Divine Worship and Service which it cannot be I suppose but only in respect of the Object; when they have a lawful Spiritual Authority, that is Episcopal Ordination and Institution without which there can be no true Ministry (which I have proved) and consequently no true Ordinances, it may be called Divine Worship and Service, but till then, let they who are best able to judge, say what kind of Worship and Service it is 〈◊〉 S● lenatius will resolve him in his Ep to the S●●rn. 
He saith 〈…〉.   
That its being more viable than formerly is a great ●ye ●●re to such a● I am is a mistake. I have known it more visible than now it is; when all the Churches in the Kingdom were Usurped into the possession of the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, etc. (those were evil days) to see the Noble debased, the base and the vile made Rulers over us, Religion the pretence of Rebellion; the Church buried in Disgrace and Calumny, called the Scariet Whore, etc. He was admired for the H●li●● man, the greatest Saint, who was most improved in the Art of Rev●●ing and Speaking evil of Dignities; the quitting Communion with a truly Catno●●c Church; the taking of a Rebellious Covenant (see his p. 54.) or human Composure, with significant Ceremonies; submitting to Lay Elders a Novelty not formerly known in the Christian Church; these, with many other Miseries and Calamities endured in those days, were great 〈…〉 to me and such as I am. But we have learned by the Doctrine which our Church Teacheth, Acquiescence and Submission to the Legislative Power; (a Lesson which out Dissenters could never yet put in practice) T●●y have granted you a Toleration, and we are so far from envying it, that we Acquiess and submit, so as to me and such as I am, it is no otherwise an ●●e●o●e, than in Christian Charity to pity your mistakes, and hearty wish, that in your practice you would be more conformable to the Gospel of Peace, and that there be Peace in the end.  
In his last Parag. p. 34. he says my asserting the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, etc. is inconsistent with other parts of my lo●k, and (sav●) he supposeth he hath sufficiently made it man●●●, and in p. 35. he calls my affirmations in my former paper, Crude and Co●●●● apprehension; he is so kind, as to plead my capacity to excuse me for my Blunders, (as he calls 'em) but says it will by no means lesse● the fault: my O●●●ious and Confident interregency, in meddleing with things I so little understand.  
This is but Condemning me by the lump, and being past his skill to show such ●●●●sistency in my Book, it is false, and those which he calls my Blunders, I have proved to be undeniable Truths; all the ill is, that what ever these men speak or write, be it ever so repreachful or false, their Disciples believe and swallow it for truth: But with Impartial men, Railing will never pass for Conviction, nor morose & uncharitable Censures for true Judgement; nor can the Imperious Language he so liberally bestows upon me, add one mite to their Cause, nor one mite lessen that esteem (how undeserved soever) I have among many good men; but I have learned to forgive him, should be offend Seventy times seven.  
Having made the Episcopacy Established in the Church of England, appear to be an exact parallel with the Catholic Churches in the Primitive times, what I mentioned of the Fathers, (in my p. 7.) holds good against my Adversary by his own Allowance, as you may see in his p. 35. at the bottom, his words are these. We are no way concerned i● the Citation of the Father's ●ro●●ht in against us, till he has proved that Episcopacy then, was the same thing it is m●●, and that the Terms of Communion we scruple were ever impesed 〈◊〉 them. The former part, that the Episcopacy in our Church is the same as it was then, is proved.  
That the having all things common, the Love-feasts and the Holy-kiss, mere Ceremonies; no Essentials in Religion, yet were Terms of Communion in the Apostles time, being very plain: That the Ceremonies appointed by our Church, though they are not specifically the same (which this man seems to insist upon) yet being in Nature the same with those above mentioned. and being enjoined by the same power and Authority derivatively, which the Apostles had; this Gent. or any other ought no more to scruple the Terms of Communion imposed by our Church, than the Primitive Christians did scruple the Terms of Commanion imposed●● the Apostles.  
In the bottom of his 35 p. he says, Ignatius charges the Bishop to take Cognisance of every Member of his Church, not excepting the very Servants, and that it was the Custom then, in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's day, and that they never received it but from the Hand of the Bishop. Hence he concludes that such Bishops must be the Pastors of single Congrezations; and adds, that this Argument has been copiously managed by Blundel, Baxter, Owen, Clarkson, and others.  
This Gent. as in all other Quotations, leaves me to find this; I have met with the passage in St. Ignatius' Ep. to Polycarp Bishop of the Smyrmans; where he saith, Converse with all, man by man as God shall ena●●e thee; he saith further, Let nothing be done without thy Sentence, etc. A little farther he saith, Let Congregations be gathered more frequently, and take the names of all Persons: Let neither Men nor Maid Servants be despised by thee. And in the same Ep. he saith; Be mindful of the Bishop, that God may be mindful of you. I could give my Life for those persons who are Subject to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons.  
Let the Reader consider all the parts together and then Judge, how reasonably Congregational Bishops can be hence inferred?  
1. It is evident that Polycarp was not Bishop of one Single Congregation only; by these words, call the Congregations together etc. in the Plural Number.  
2. His Jurisdiction and Authority over the Congregations, is manifest in these words, Let nothing be done without thy Sentence.  
3. The Subjection 〈◊〉 to the Bishop from these Congragations, contained in this Exhortation to them; Be mindful of the Bishop that God may be mindful of you.  
4. The Distinction of the three Sacred Orders in the Church (about which these men have made such a bustle in the world) are plainly set down and overthrows all their pretensions to Congregational Bishops, for saith he, I could give my life for these persons who are Subject to the Bishop, Pres yters and Deacons. Here is a plurality of Congregations and a plurality of Presbyters and Deacons and but one Bishop. From his not reading, or concealing the most material parts in this Ep. wherein lie the true Sentiments of St. Ignatius, how Triumphantly does he conclude for Congregational Bishops; whereas the whole is altogether against it. Then he glories in the copious management of this Argument, by Blundel, Baxter, Owen, Clarkson, and others: Alas, all these have been judiciously Answered by Bramhal, Hammond, Morris, Stillingfleet, Dodwell, etc.  
In his 36. p. saith he; It is observable in the passage cited out of Irenaeus, the Presbyters are said to have their Succession from the Apostles; and infers from thence, that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors as well as Bishops, and must conseqently have the same power.  
How frequently in the writings of the Fathers, and in Scripture, are Bishops called Presbyters, as that word signifies Seniority or Dignity? and are not they sometimes called Deacons too? but as it would be very absurd to infer from hence an Equality of Bishops and Deacons, so would it be unreasonable to conclude concerning Bishop and Presbyter.  
That our Author is mistaken in St. Irenaeus' sense of the word Presbyter, appears by the words immediately subjoined, which are these; Qui cum Episcopatus Successione Charisma veritatis certum, Secundum placitum Patris acceser●nt. 
L. 4. C. 43.  Who (that is the Presbyters above mentioned) with the Succession of Episcopacy, have received the Infallible Gift of Truth according to the Will of the Father. It is plain that no other can be here meant, but those of the highest Order in the Church; Bishops.  
My Author p. 37. accuseth me, that I designed not fair dealing with Mr. H-ry; it was a great omission in me, I therefore take his (though very sharp) Rebuke very kindly. Mr. H-ry in his 19 p. Parag. 6. very Orthodoxly saith: Separation from Communion with those that we have joined ourselves to, without a Cause; give me leave to call it Separation for Separation sake, without any regard had to any think amiss in the Church we Separate from, or any thing better in that we join ourselves to; is Schism. Then he proves the truth of this Proposition, from his own description of Schism; and then concludes, When we quite cast off Communion with our Brethren out of Ambition, Animosity to their persons, affectation of Novelty and Singularity and the like. Now our Author, lest this truth so plainly set down by Mr. H-ry, should carry too sharp an edge upon 'em; in p. 37. brings in his Insinuation (as he in vain supposeth) to guard them from the stroke they must naturally receive from the applying of it to them: For (says he) 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 and needless Terms, is to act Schismatically, because such wilful Separation cannot be without the breach of Charity. The difficulties which my Author (which indeed are none at all) would put, lies in Churches framed according to Scripture Rules, etc. It is Schism in Mr. H-ry's Judgement to Separate from a Church without any regard had to any thing amiss, Let it be Examined if in our Church there be any thing amiss?  
Are not all the Arcicles of saving Faith truly taught? 
No just cause of Separation.  the Holy Sacraments duly Administered, the Moral precepts, and all the Rules of the Christian Religion plainly and constantly recommended unto us, and pressed upon us for our Excercise in the whole Course of our lives, in the Sermons of our Clergy in all our Churches? are not all things pertaining to a Godly Life and Salvation by our Church fully exhibited to us, so as that no man can miscarry but by his own fault? Here, then sure can be nothing am●ss. Can these men maintain and justify then, the truth of their Doctrine, and separate themselves from us without pronounceing themselves Schismatics? either their Doctrine is not true, or these men are Schismatics in practice by their own showing. All the false and shiftless pretence they have is, that the Church of England is not framed according to Scripture Rules, and imposeth new and needless terms, and therefore Separation from such a Church is no Schism.  
That our Church is truly Apostolical, and as truly framed as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and all other Primitive Churches according to Scripture Rules; according to Christ Jesus' own Institution, is fully proved in these papers. So that, that Objection is clearly Answered, and is indeed vain and frivolous.  
Now let his other as vain and frivolous Objection be considered; viz. the Imposing new and needless Terms, by which is, I suppose, meant Geremonies; I must here crave leave to mention what I have before; viz. the Love-●cast, the Holy. kiss had no intrinsic virtue in them, were no Essentials of Religion (see his p. 2.) mere Ceremonies; and as this Gent. calls our Ceremonies, without any native worth, or strength, yet were made Terms of Communion in the Apostles days, and continued for some time after. The Ceremonies in our Church are of the same Nature; only have so much worth and strength, that they beat the pleasant fruit of Decency and Order; they are falsely called New, being Customs of great Antiquity in the Church, and being enjoined by the same power derivatively which the Apostles had, (by my Aduersarys good leave) cease to be needless: It necessarily follows, that all persons within the Jurisdiction of the English Church, have the same Obligation to submit to her Terms of Communion, as the Christians had to submit to the Terms o. Communion with the Apostles: Seeing then, that there's nothing amiss in our Church i. e. not any thing that can give any just occasion to separate from her Communion: Seeing too, that She is a Church framed according to Scripture Rules, and that her Terms of Communion are neither New nor Needless; the Conclusion necessarily follows, that whoever they be within her Jurisdiction, that Separate from her Communion, do Separate for Separation sake, and have no other Motives thereunto, than those in ●at● Vices of the mind, mentioned by Mr. Hery, viz Ambition Animosity, etc. to close this; These men are Notorious Schismatics from their own Principles, & thereby give themselves the Title of Archrebels in Christ's Kingdom.  
I will t●● this Question upon the Dissenters, and Examine what account they can give or their being a Church framed according to Scripture Rules, and whether all they impose as Terms of Communion be by express Rules in Scripture?  
That Church cannot be framed according to Scripture Rules where the Priestly Office is exercised without the Divine Mission; my Author may as tr●●l ● affirm in respect of his natural Generation, that be is an immediate Son of Adam, as what be in his 31 p. affirms of Ordination, viz. that their Spiritual Governor's i.e. their Pastors derive their Authority from Christ, which by the words subjoined, must be immediately from Christ, for he says, it is mere proper than to speak of deriving it from the Apoplex, etc. No Commission was ever known to come immediately from Heaven without some extraordinary Testimony to evince the Truth of it. The immediate Mission which these men pretend to, requires an extraordinary Testimony, or no man in his right Wits can believe or assent to its Authority, or esteem it for any thing but mere Delusion, or Usurpation.  
The Cretian Church must be allowed to be framed according to Scripture ●●les (I keep to this Gentleman's term) in that Church, St. Paul appointed Titus to Ordain Elders in every City; none in the Scriptural Churches (as this Gent Phrases it) was to enter upon the Pastoral, or Priestly Office, without Episcopal Ordination. Our blessed Saviour saith, J●●. 10.1. Verily I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the Sheep sold, but climbeth some other way, the same is a these and a Robber: Not entering in at the Door signifies, entering without that Authority which the Author of our Religion hath Ordained in his Church; without this Mission, (i. e. Episcopal Ordination) no man hath Authority to Preach the Gospel, administer Sacraments, or exercise any thing appropriate to the Priestly Office; unless these men can manifest that they have this Mission, they are so far from being a Scriptural Church, that our blessed Saviour pronounceth them to be Thiefs and Robbers. By this account of the Frame of their Church (supposing, but not granting it to be a Church) it appears to have no Foundation of a Scriptural Church, but on the contrary is Condemned in the H●ly Scripture.  
Let it now be examined whether All they impose as Terms of Communion, be by express Rules in Scripture?  
1. First, Then I desire they'll inform us, where did our blessed Saviour, or his Apostles appoint the first day of the Week for Celebration of the Public Worship?  
2. What precept have they in Scripture for choosing a Text as is now used to Preach upon, or the erection of a Pulpit?  
3. What Divine Command have your Brethren for the Form of Public Penance, the Stool of Repentance, imposed by the Kirk of Scotland and the Presbyterians in England? These are I suppose, Terms of Communion with you; I am not disputing against the Practice of these things, but hence it appears how unreasonable and false, that Principle you so much contend for is, to wit; that nothing is to be done about the Worship and Service of God, without Rules and express Command in the Holy Scripture. But I farther demand of you,  
4. What Divine Warrant, or where in Scripture did your Predecessors find those three significant Ceremonies, imposed without the Regal Authority, at the taking the Solemn League and Covenant, which you at this day justify? First the Takers must be uncovered. 2ly, they must stand up. 3ly, The right hand must be lifted up bare; all these Ceremonies in this Religious Solemnity, signifying the Submission and Assent of the parties to that Rebellious Covenant, were Instituted by the Presbyterians.  
In his 37 p. he says, 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, etc. Here's our Government and Worship supposed to be inconsistent with the Rules of the Gospel; thence a necessity of Reformation; and who can deny so fair an Offer? The Model these good men will set up, shall be a Model for Church Government and Worship (not like our unscriptural Church, but) taken from the Rules of the Gospel. But here it's demanded.  
5. What Rule or Command is there in all the Sacred Scriptures, for private and Unauthorised persons, such as these men are, under pretence of Reformation, to supplant a Catholic Church, truly Reform in Government and Worship, to primitive purity (as I have showed) and established by all the Authority that can be had on Earth from God or Man? Conceited men! Think ye that those Pious Martyrs who Reformed our Church inspected not the Rules of the Gospel as carefully and conscientiously as you? and are not the ●reat ends of Church Society answered, (viz.) the Christian Faith truly professed and maintained; the Holy Sacraments duly administered, and such an Unity and Christian Charity observed and practised according to the Rules of the Gospel in our Church, as exactly and amply as in any Church on this side Heaven?  
His next words in p. 38. are, That nothing may be imposed but what is either expressly commanded; or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is so, etc. This is Answered before.  
He saith farther; Then would the Worship and Service of God appear like itself, Rational, Grave and Majestical, becoming reasonable Creatures, etc.  
Here are all men to be persuaded, that the Worship and Service in their Conventicles is eminently more Rational, Grave and Majestic than in our Churches. The truth of this will best appear from their practice.  
None of their Addresses to K. James the second were presented, till the Composure and Form thereof, was deliberated and well weighed by more than One, by the whole Classis of a County: The Preacher saith, Eccles. 5.2. Be not rash with thy Mouth, and let not thine Heart be hasty to utter any thing before God, etc. But they, in their Conventicles, Address the Majesty of Heaven, they rush upon and approach his presence, with the rash and Sudden thoughts of one single person, with a Prayer newly Coined, but whether Sterling; true, according to Standard, being never tried, is uncertain, for the people know it not, nor the Orator, till it be out; they showed more Fear and Reverence to an earthly King, than they daily do to God Almighty. Is this Rational? Is this Grave?  
In their Conventicles, at the reading the Holy Scriptures, among which the Psalms, consisting of the highest strains of Devotion, they Sat or Loll, and are covered; is this Grave and Majestic?  
When the Minister (as they call him) offer up his (rash and unconsidered) Prayers to God, the People are in confused, and irreverend postures, as if there were some unconcerned and trivial thing in hand; is this Grave and Majestical?  
He who Administers in their Divine Worship (as they call it) has no other Habit than what is due to, and becomes a Tradesman, or any other Layic in the Congregation (and indeed therein they are very modest; the Minister for the most part having no more claim to Priestly Garments than his Auditors) is this Grave and Majestic?  
The truth is, these men are so humoursome, that what is Rational they condemn as Senseless; what is Grave and Majestical, they condemn for Superstition; and on the contrary, what is Rude, Irreverend and Foppish, they esteem as Rational, Grave and Majestical.  
By this time it is very evident, that the Dissenters in England do Separate from a Church, wherein there is (to use Mr. H-ry's words) not any thing amiss; i. e. not any thing that can give any just occasion to Separate from her; and that the Communion (for I cannot call it a Church) or Society they join themselves to, is so far from being better, that in many Respects which I have mentioned, it is so much worse, that its an absurdity to compare them.  
The Inference then, drawn by Mr. H-ry from his own Proposition is clearly against them, 
Mr. H-ry p. 19  that their Separation from our Church is clearly for Separation sake, and is necessarily an Uncharitable Alienation of Affection, and is consequently Schismatical.  
Having also considered my Author's Notion of Schism; to wit, 
p. 37.  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. Having showed, that our Church is truly framed according to Scripture Rules, and that she imposeth neither New nor needless Terms; this Inference of his, is necessarily against them too, viz. That the wilful withdrawing of these men from such a particular Church as our Church is, is to act Schismatically, etc. If any thing would prevail upon the Obstinacy of these men, here is conviction from their own Reasoning.  
〈…〉 fair dealing with Mr. H-ry at this time, will make an Attone●●●● 〈…〉 ●●●mer Omission, and allay my Adversaries bitter thoughts against me.  
In my 〈◊〉 paper, p. 7. I instanced the Authoritys of jenatius, Iren●us, ●●●●ian, and A 〈…〉, who were all Bishops and Mattyrs, and agree, T●●● for 〈◊〉 to disobey then Bishops and Presbyters appointed & set ever them; and to Separate 〈◊〉 them, o● to set up distinct Conventicles, is 〈…〉. Is not by this understood di●●r●ty or Separation of Com●●●● 〈…〉 is not this properly Schism? Yet for this my assirmation, he does in his 45 p. peremptorily charge me (and consequently those Pious Ma●yrs) with giving St. Paul the Lye. It St. Paul condemned the Corinthians for admiring, and barely pre●●●●ing one Minister before another, of Schism; shall that far greater and blacker Crime, the forsaking, and Separating from them, (●o which the 〈◊〉 were not then arrived) be excluded from Schism? Shall a cut in the Arm be truly called Schism or Schissure; and shall not the lopping off, and Separating the Arm from the Body, (which is the Dissenters Case) be accounted so? Wherein do I give St. Paul the lie? This Gent. is a topping Accuser.  
The rest of his Book contains chief, Bitter Invectives, and Scurrilous Reflections; at his bitter reviling of me, I wonder not; But stand amazed at his hardyness, and indeed horrid and gross Impiety, with so much Venom and Malice, to take into Royal Sepulchers, and render our Four Protestant Monarches Infamous; see his p. 61. (of K. Charles the 2d he saith) not to be paralleled in Story.  
I Q. Elizabeth's Reign, our Church was again Reformed; all the Innovations and Superstitions, which by a long series of time, the Church of Rome had introduced into the Church, and Consecrated with the Title of the Did Religion, abolished; the inestimable Blessing of the truly Ancient Catho●e Religion, revived and established; this Religious Queen, and all those pious Prelates, to whom under God, the praise of all that Glorious work was due, escape no● his malice, but in one breath blackens and defames them all; these are his words in p. 75. That great Princess had s●●●thing of the Sire in her, and there wanted not Prelatic breath to blow the Spark into a Flame.  
The Universal Fame this Great Princess had for Wisdom and Piety; the Turbu●en Humour, and Insolent behaviour of the Dissenters towards Her, you have an account of, in Bish. Barnet's Abridgement, etc. the 4th Book, p. 381. Now notwithstanding, that this man saith in his 2d p. that Penal Laws had a quite contrary effect; and in his 3d p. that they have not hitherto brought Protestants to an exact Uniformity; this Queen in the year 1592., made Penal Laws, which being Vigorously Executed, contrary to his maxims, had the good effects and proper ends for which they were made; suppressed the Ringleaders, and put an end to their Conventicles, and brought so many of them to Conformity, that during Her reign afterwards, she had no more disturbances from them; and this I suppose to be the chief incentive of this Malcontents displeasure against this Great and Matchless Princess.  
In his 56 p. concerning K. James the first, he saith: For when King 〈…〉 England's Throne, the Prelatic Party dreading least the Pa●●tans 〈…〉 great a share in his Favours, upon the account of his Ed●●tion, 〈…〉 the Scottish Nobility and Ministry might have upon hi●, 〈…〉 Studies to create a prejudice against them; and f●●ing no 〈…〉 take with him, as the extending of his Authority, and enlarging 〈◊〉 Prerogative, etc. They Flattered the Ambition and Vices of that Prince, and there●● made him entirely their own.  
To show how false this Affirmation is, I will here set down the Opinion which that Learned and Judicious Prince, had of the Scottish Puritans, from a long experience; Published and declared in Print at Edinborough, some years before his Accession to the Throne of England. He calls the Presbyterian Government, animagined Dem●cracy; and saith, 
ΒΑΖΙΛΙΚΟΝ Δ ΩΡΟΝ  That they fed themselves with the hope to become Tribuni Plebis; and so in a popular Government, by leading the people by the Nose, to bear the sway of all the Rule, etc. And a little farther: 
p. 39 p. 41. p. 42.  Take heed therefore my Son, to such Puritans, very pests in the Church and Common-weal; whom no deserts can oblige, neither Oaths not Promises bind; breathing nothing but Sedition and Calumnies; aspiring without Measure, railing without Reason, etc. And a little farther, after comparing them to Hi● land, or Border-Thieves for ingratitude, Lying and Perjuries, he saith; And suffer not the Principals of them to brook your Land, if you like to sit at ●●st: except ye would keep them for trying your Patience, as Secrates did an evil Wife.  
Now had this man the least grain of Shame or Modesty, common to Human Nature, he would never have exposed himself to so plain and known a contradiction: That the English Prelates slattered him into an ill Opinion 〈◊〉 the Plu●i●ans, is so far from being true, that it was founded upon his 〈◊〉. Experience, and Published long before he had any converse with the ●●glish Prelates. And that he should accuse that King of Ambition and Vices, who was so eminently Famous for Piety and Virtue, is horridly wicked. Here is great Reason for this man to conceal his name.  
Against K. Charles the first, he masters up a Roll of all the heinous Crime the can Imagine, which I could answer particularly, but for his Vindication from this man's malicious Calumny; it is sufficient to refer the Reader to the Rolls and Acts of Parliament (of which he mentions not a word) and all other Transactions which passed in his time, not yet out of memory. What did that Pa●li●ment 〈…〉 ask, which He did not grant, except the Tower of 〈◊〉 and the M●●●●a? which because he thought it too 〈◊〉 to Separate from the Monarchy, they Seized by Violence: Never was a King to food 〈…〉 a Parliament (witness His passing the Bill for not Di●●●●ving them without their co●●ert) and never were there such ungrateful returns; He ●e●i●ed 〈…〉 the Peace & Tranquillity of the Nation, and they were for ●●●●ying it into Convulsions and Rebellion: He was for preserving and maintaining the Church, in all Her Ancient just Established Rights, and they for destroying both Her and Him. They indeed contrived and gave him Op●●●●●ies, to his Eternal Fame, to show how eminently the Grace of God was in him; never did any Prince, since the Prince of Peace, show more Catistian Courage, Patience, Meckness, and Hamili●●, even to the Admiration and Astonishment of His most Barbarous and Cruel Enemies. Now whilst this man contracts the guilt of the Murder of this Royal Martyr, by justifying all those irregular and Horrid proceed of the Presbyterians which brought it about, I do hearty with all good men keep the Anniversary Fast and pray with our Church, that His memory may be ever blessed among us: and that this Land may be freed from the Vengeance of his blood etc. Here is Sufficient reason for this man to conceal his name.  
The Violation of Promises, which in that 61. pa. he charges upon the Church and Court party upon the Restauration, can be nothing else but Fiction and Forgery, to prove which, greater Evidence cannot be for any thing, than the Acts of that Parliament which K Charles the 2d immediately called; upon whom, without Reserve he relied, not only to reform and forgive all the Irregularities, but to renew the very Foundations, and to Re-establish the Government of Church and State; both which, were O●●rturned and laid in Rubbish, by an Unnatural Rebellion, fo●●●●d and carried on, by the Presbyterians and their Adherents, (Witness their Illustrious Solemn League and Covenant) and accor●●●●l all things were by that Parliament Re-established and confirmed, to the satisfaction o● the Nation in General; and this was the Consummation of that Treaty at B●ed●. Where now is the Violation of Promises? The androgeus' ●●eflections of this man, Loaden with so much Malice, against our Four Protestant Monarches; is rather the Character of a Jesuit, than of any other Society, it is so like them. This man Conceals his Name, and let it be so; for the Name of the Wicked shall rot, Prov. 10. I will close this with the complaint of the Royal Prophet; What shall be done unto thee O thou false tongue. Psal. 10.7.  
But Blessed be God, says he in pa. 62. We have a King upon the Throne, that understands, and loves the tru● Interest of England, etc. It is well He is 〈◊〉 the Throne, and God gr●nt him long to be so; But who can account 〈◊〉 men's praises to a King on the Throne, for any thing but Flattery and Hypocrisy, that knows five years are not yet expired, since these men universally ●●ater's King Jame●, with ●●osan●●●●'s far beyond this, in their ●an●gyties to him, when on the Throne. But would you know the true Interest o● En●●●nd? Learn of him who infallibly understood it, He saith, That a Kingdom divided against it se●f cannot stand. Mar. 3 24. Unity in Religion being the Surest ●●●work, and the most approved preservative of a Kingdom from dividing, is certainly the truest Interest of England; ●he Dissenters then, who create Divisions, making Parties and Factions about matters not essential to Religion, according to our blessed Saviour's Maxim, neither understand nor love the true Interest of England.  
In his 66. p. he saith, We hold Communion with you in all that's necessary, either to the Being or Welfare of a Church, and by your unnecessary Trifles, 〈◊〉 break with us, and not we with you, if any breach there be. To which ● answer.  
To the Being of a Church, it is necessary that the Government be of Di●ine Institution, which I have showed to be Episcopacy; And that the Members be United in a peaceable Subjection to the Government, is absolutely necessary to the Being and Welfare of a Church; for without this, not ●●ly the Peace, which is the Welfare, but the very Being of a Church, must be Dissolved and Swallowed up in Division and Confusion. Now ●our setting up a Government Distinct and Opposite to the Ancient Government, Established in the Church, than which the blessed Saints and Martyr's of old knew no other, and under pretence of Unnecessary Trifles, (as ●ou call 'em) to withdraw all Obedience and Subjection, which is plainly destructive, not only to the Welfare, but the very Being of a Church, and ●et so confidently to affirm, you hold Communion with us in all that's necessary thereunto, is to impose upon our very Senses; and to believe it, ●ere to degenerate into Senseless Brutes.  
But alas! should the Church condescend to gratify your Humour, strip ●●e Priest of his Habit, the Emblem of Innocency, the Colour o● the Robes 〈◊〉 St. John's Vision, and in which all the Messengers from Heaven appear●●? Should she for your sake, abandon the Sign of the Cross, so anciently used in all Catholic Churches? Should she yield to rob her Members of their Ancient Right; by Cancelling and Oblitterating the Liturgy, which for Matter and Order how useful and necessary for Public Devotion, let itself Testify? And instead thereof allow Extemporary Prayers, which, what crude and indigested matter for the most part they are, we have heard and know; and which cannot possibly without the Stamp of Authority (which they are not capable of) or be made appear to be the dictates of the Spirit, though programed before Ten thousand people, bear the Title of Public or Common P●ayers. Should the prohibit Kneeling, and enjoin us like Crowns and B●●●●s, to 〈…〉 we Celebrate the Commemoration of the Death and P●●●ion of our bless●● Redeg●er in the Eucharist? Should she forbid bowing i● my De●●tion, at the saving name of J●●us, & paying Co●●●●al Ad●●●tion to God 〈◊〉, which the very light of Nature teacheth? And should she 〈…〉 which you a ●●●●ingly call Prifles? Alas! She must betray●●er Tr●●● 〈◊〉 level the Priesthood she must Surrender and part with the Government established by Divine Institution, or you will never be fatis●yed: this is evident in the whole strain of your Book, and is the avowed and Darling Principle of all Dissenters, of what persuasion soever; were their Divisions more numerous than the points in the Compass, yet they will all agree and Centre in this, viz. the Expulsion of Diocesan Bishops from the Government of the Church: not considering that they contend and strive against the Ordinance of God, the Care and Charge of all the Churches, being entrusted and committed to them; and who through all Ages from the Apostles, as faithful Overseers of the Church of God, have handed down, and delivered to us, the Holy Scriptures, the Articles of Faith, ●he holy Sacraments, and all that's Sacred, and conducive to Holiness, Unity and Charity here, and to that future happy Estate of perfect Holiness and Unity Eternal hereafter. Ungrateful men! is their Extirpation and Destruction a meet reward for conveying to us such inestimable Blessings? Are ye the meek Servants of the meek and Holy Jesus, who m●rme● and Rebel against them that bear his Authority? Can ye be the Disciples of Christ, who abjure and declare against his Ambassadors? Or can ye be e●●●●ed the Subjects of the Prince of Peace, who sow the Seeds of Contention, and are the Authors of Separation, of Division and Confusion in the Church of God? No, no, He hath formded our Religion in Charity and 〈◊〉, in Peace and Obedience; and 〈◊〉 one can be his Disciple, who is a viol●●●● of C●●●●tian Charity, making no Conscience (under pretence of Con●●●ence) to disturb the Peace, and dissolve the Unity of the Church, not only by disobeying the Governors thereof, in those things which our Saviour having lest indifferent, hath left in their Power to impose and Command; but by despising them, and endeavouring their utter Extirpation. As the Tree is known by its Fruit, so are you by your Works; If any have been Guilty of Schism ever since the Ascension, or can be till the Second Advent of our Lord, our Dissenters are manifestly so. And as the Confute of the Church, judicially pronounced against Scandalous, Lend, and disorderly persons, excludes them from the Congregation of Christ's Flock, which St. Paul calls, deliv ring up unto Satan. So these Dissenters, 
1 Cor. 5. v. 5. 1 Tim. 1. v. 20.  by despising and renouncing the Government of the Church, by withdrawing and Separating themselves from Communion with her, involve and hurry themselves wilfully, into the same State and Condition with those, who by judicial Sentence are put out of the Congregation of Christ's Flock; how deplorable soever it is to be so, this is the true state of the C●se of all who as our Dissenters, are guilty of Criminous Schism, they exclude themselves from the Catholic Church.  
The Holy Scriptures abound with Remedies against this, but I will presume to mind them only of these, prescribed by St. Paul. The first is; Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low Estate; be not Wise in your own conceits. Now not to submit in things Indifferent, 
Rom. 12. v. 16.  which being Commanded by our Lawful Governors, are made a Duty, is very contrary to this Command of condescending to men of low Estate. And they must be Wise in their own Conceits, who occasion the breach of Charity and Unity, by preferring and obstinately contending for their own private Opinions, against the deliberate and United Councils and Decrees of their Superiors, in those things wherein the Essentials of Religion are not the least concerned. The next is, Fellow Peace with all men, and Holiness, 
Heb. 12. v. 14.  without which, no man shall see the Lord; Holiness is but pretence, and if I may call it so, mere Pageantry in Religion, in those who do not follow Peace with all men, much more in them who will not be at Peace with their Lawful Spiritual Governors; for he who hath not Peace as well as Holiness, shall never see God. And now more full of Charitable desires, than hope of the Conviction of these men to Christian Peace and Unity, with a Resolution never to give them any more trouble of this kind; as I began with our Saviour's Command, and Blessed Legacy of Peace, so I conclude with St. Paul's Exhortation; Be of one mind, live in Peace, 
1 Cor. 13 v. 11.  and the God of Peace shall be with you.  
FINIS.