Mr. H. kindly endeavoured to undeceive them , and by enquiring into the Quality of those Actions , upon which this Sin is charged in Scripture to discover its true formal Nature , that Men might not fight in the dark , and build vast and endless Controversies upon a single Word , and that too not rightly understood .

He observes that the word Schism is not used in Scripture in any sence applicable to the present Case , save only three times in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians , those places he has particularly examined . He shews that those Schismatical Corinthians met in the same place still , but contending with one another , about some lesser matters to the breach of Christian Love , and Mutual Alienation of their Affections , fell into the Sin there called Schism ; Enquiry , p. 9. concluding from hence , that the formal Nature of this Sin consists not in Separation of Communion , but in the Violation of that Love and Charity there ought to be amongst Christians ; Acknowledging nevertheless , that many Overt Actions may be , and are Schismatical , as they proceed from this Uncharitableness ; and he mentions such as these , Judging and Condemning one another about the Circumstantials of Religion ; reproaching and reviling each other ; making , approving , and executing Penal Laws , about such things ; and Separation from Communion with those we have joyn'd our selves to without cause ; that is , ( as he explains it ) without regard had to any thing amiss in the Church we separate from , or any thing better in that we joyn our selves to , which he calls Separation for Separation's sake ; This is Schism , not barely because Separation , but because animated by that Uncharitableness and Disaffection , which in Scripture is known by the Name of Schism .

The Gentleman , could not digest a Notion so far different from what he had imbib'd ; Reply , p. 2. but tells us , Mr. H's Book had not much more of Schism than of the Philosopher's Stone in it : He was loth so heavy a Charge should lye against Uncharitableness , which being a main Ingredient in his own Constitution , must be more softly and tenderly handled , he thinks it more Prudent to lay the Fault so , as he may bear the least share of it himself ; Arch-Rebel , p. 10. and therefore boldly affirms , that Diversity of Communion is the Ratio formalis of Schism ; and more than that , says he , has proved it to be so .

The Author of the Vindication justly blam'd him , for so rash and confident an Assertion , as giving the Lye to the Word of God , which Charges the Corinthians with the Guilt of Schism , when there was no such diversity of Communion ; and can there be a Schism where that is wanting , which he calls the true formal Nature of Schism ? Can a thing exist without its Essential Form ? To this , the Gentleman replies , Shall a Cut in the Arm be truly Schism , and not the separating the Arm from the Body ? If Paul condemned the Corinthians of Schism , for preferring one Minister before another , Shall that far greater Crime of separating from them , be excluded from Schism ? This Gentleman is a topping Accuser .

But we cannot Complement this Gentleman so far as to call him a Topping Defendant ; For the Question was not , Whether there may not be a Separation that is really Schismatical , Mr. H. granted that ; But whether Separation be the very Essence and formal Nature of Schism ? If so , then there can be no Schism without such Separation ; which is false , as in the Case of the Corinthians ; nor any Separation without Schism , which is equally false ; for in many cases we may be obliged in Duty to separate : His Comparison of Cutting the Arm from the Body is like it self , Lame and Defective ; for sometimes such a Scissure may be necessary to keep the Body from perishing : In short , if Separation be needless , it is sinful ; if Uncharitable , it is Schismatical ; if neither needless nor Uncharitable , it is a Duty ; And let it be observed by the way , that in this Reply , the Gentleman acknowledges the Corinthians were guilty of Schism , though they did not Separate ; when before he told us , he had proved that the Ratio formalis of Schism , consists in Separation , let him reconcile these things at his leisure .

He thinks if such Uncharitableness be Schism , it must follow , à minori ad majus , diversity of Communion is much more so ; but the reasoning is not good , for Uncharitableness can in no case be lawful , but Separation may : He himself acknowledges , that if any of their terms of Communion be sinful , our Separation is justifiable ; and yet even in that case , Uncharitableness would be a Sin .

If this Gentleman must needs let the World see his Talent in Controversie , he should have taken up the true Question , as it was laid before him , What is that which the Scripture calls Schism ? and should have proved in all those Instances , where mention is made of it , that there was not only Alienation of Affection , but diversity of Communion ; and when he had done this , it had been time enough to have boasted , that he had answered Mr. H's Enquiry , till then his Labour is impertinent , and his Triumphs ridiculous .

But instead of observing this Proper and Necessary Method , which by all the Laws of Argument he was bound to , he ranges from the Point , and Chimes upon those decantate terms , Church , Unity , Communion , Obedience , Succession , &c. and is wonderfully pleased with the melodious Sound of words he does not understand ; for though he should from these Topicks , prove the Practice of Dissenters to be sinful , yet he cannot prove it to be that Sin which in Scripture is called Schism , unless he can discover in it , that Uncharitableness , and want of Christian Affection , which is the very thing called by that Name in sacred Writ .

This would be sufficient for the Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry , without ever entring upon the Lawfulness or Fault of Nonconformity ; but since the Valiant Man has challenged us into that Field of Argument , we have gone along with him into it , and endeavoured to justifie our Practice not only from the Crime of Schism , but any other of which it has been accused , and how far we have succeeded in this Affair , is with all possible respect referred to the Censure of the Learned and Moderate of both Perswasions .

The grand Impertinencies exposed in the Gentleman's first Paper , he has endeavoured to defend in the latter ; but through the Common Misfortune of a Man that meddles with what he does not understand , he is more bewildred and confounded than before ; and indeed of all things that ever set up for a Defence of so Learned a Party as the Episcopal , I never saw any thing comparable to this , for Stile and Argument , unless it were the famous Works of Mrs. Eleanor James , to which this Gentleman's Reply bears such a marvellous resemblance , that a man would almost conclude it to be the issue of some Friendly Conference betwixt our Citizen , and that renowned Heroine .

I wonder why he should be so much disturbed , that the Vindicator has concealed his Name , especially when he did not think fit to discover his own ; for T. W. Citizen of Chester , is a Cypher so general , as remits us to conjecture , and common fame , and leaves him room to escape , if any such danger should happen , as he portends concerning his adversary ; but what great matter is it , who is meant by T. W. or what that mans name is , that has adventured to encounter him ; it is not names , but things , that we have to examine ; and yet by his little contemptible menaces , it is very apparent , that he would gladly betake himself to their former way of Confuting Dissenters , as that which was always found to be the most easie and effectual .

He Triumphs in the Effects of his former Paper , one of which was , few believed but that it was done by some Clergy-man , who had prevailed with him to Print it in his Name ; That is to say , they thought it beyond the longth of T. W. to write such a Book ; a shrewd sign , that his Neighbours have no great Opinion of his Abilities , if they thought such stuff was above him ; but as his Name is capable of giving little Reputation to another mans work , so I dare say no Clergy man in Chester will grudge him the Honour of his own .

He would not be thought , to have acted beneath himself in his Reply , and therefore he magnifies the Stature of his Adversary , and transforms the Vindicator into a Ship , and by all means , it must be one of the first Rate , that was chosen to Attack and Fire all its Guns , at his mighty Self , so happy a thing it is to have Gazetts and News Letters always at hand , where a man can never fail of being furnished , with Admirable Metaphors , but ( if we must needs speak in such Bombardick Language ) though the Vindicator was size enough , for the Service assigned him , yet there was no need of chusing a Man of War of the first Rate , to engage a disabled Frigat , Venus arta Mari. whose Mast and Tackling , had suffered miserably in some hot Sea-fights heretofore .

But 't is no part of my design , to vye with him in his Bantering Dialect , I shall therefore apply my self in good earnest , to the matter in Hand , and in the Remainder of this Preface , defend some lesser Passages in the Vindication , which this Gentleman either does not understand , or will not seem to do so , and afterwards proceed to the more material parts of the Controversie .

In his first Paper he pretends to tell us , of the Origination and first Existence of the Church , which he dates only from the time of Pentecost , mentioned Acts 2. The Vindicator thought there was Reason to find fault with that Account of the Matter , not only because it excludes the Angels , which but a few Lines before , this Gentleman had told us , were members of the Church , but especially , because it shuts out the Jewish Church , as it stood in Old Testament Times ; but he has a Salvo ready such as it is , and he that can content himself with such a one will never be at want , for 〈…〉 ●oes . The Church was never called Catholick before that 〈◊〉 ●ost , the Wall of Partition not being broken down ; But if I mistake not , he promised to shew us , when the Church had its first Existence , not when it acquired a new Title ; it 's an odd way of arguing , The Church was first called Catholick at Pentecost , therefore it had its first Existence then , a miserable Consequence , and yet as good as the Antecedent , for it is not true that the Church was called Catholick at that time , nor do we find it once so called in all the Scripture that I know of ( and the Wall of Partition was broken down at Christs Death , when the Vail of the Temple was rent in sunder ) and if in spight of all Reason the Existence of a Church must needs commence with its acquest of a new Title , he must still fix his Epocha much lower ; and yet I know not , why the Name Catholick , may not ( if men please ) be attributed to the Jewish Church , which was before its Apostacy the whole , and the true Visible Church of God upon Earth .

The Vindicator told him , nothing could be proved from the bare Name of Bishops in Scripture-times , to favour our English Prelacy , till the Power of those Bishops , the Extent of their Dioceses , the Quality of their Under-Officers , the Modes of their Worship , and Terms of Communion , be proved to be the same with ours , or liable to the same Exceptions ; To this the Gentleman replies , I cannot understand this last Sentence ( or liable to the same Exceptions , ) unless he would make the Primitive Church liable to the same Exceptions ; But I hope we are not to be blamed , for the dullness of his understanding ; The Expression is Plain and Pertinent , He knows very well what Exceptions we make , against the Power of our English Prelates , &c. Now if he can prove that the same Objections lye against the Primitive Episcopacy , he shews thereby that they are frivolous and unjust , and throws them out of doors , as militating against Scripture Bishops as well as ours ; one would have thought the meanest Citizen in Chester , might have understood this , but it will never be better , when men take upon them to be Authors , in spight of Nature and Education .

He condemns the Vindicator , as having no regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity , for speaking of Scripture Rules , before they were written , this lets us see , What Mercy we may expect from him , when we stand in need of it : We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can ; and as to this matter , a few Words will evince , that his Reflection is very unjust .

In his former Paper , Arch-Rebel , p. 2. speaking of the Progress of the Gospel , and planting the seven Asian Churches , in St. Johns time , he adds , Though there was a Multiplication of Churches , yet no Variation ; here the Vindicator enquired ; What does he mean in saying there was no Variation ? Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worshop that 's gratis dictum ? if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules , ( though we are afraid that will scarce hold yet ) we wish it had been so still . Now it seems the Vindicators Errour was , he spoke of Scripture Rules in the Apostolical Age , and they were not then written ; No ? That 's something strange , were not the Gospels and Epistles writ by Evangelists and Apostles , during the time of their Lives ? No Legend that ever I heard of , tells us of their rising from the dead , and writing to the Churches ; And if they writ their Epistles , containing Rules for Divine Worship , why may not those be called Scripture Rules : What if they were not Collected as soon as they were writ , were they not therefore both Scripture , and Authoritative ? And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time , and that this awful Sanction , If any shall add to these things , God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book , &c. Refers not only to the Apocalypse , but to the whole Canon , and stands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life , and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules , that were not written in the Time of the Apostles , I despair of ever coming to an agreement with him .

And it is certain , there is a very material difference betwixt us , about the Rule and Standard of Controversie , which must be first adjusted , before we can well proceed any further , for if we take different Measures , we shall certainly give a very different account .

Mr. H. desirous to find out the true Notion of Schism , takes for his Rule , all those places in the New Testament , where that Word is found ; This the Gentleman is offended at , and tells him , If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed , then he had found out the true Standard of this Controversie ; And the Vindicator thought , there was more Reason to be offended with him , for declining the sufficiency of the Scripture , as the standard of Faith and Practice , this he censured as an affront to Scripture , and common Sense too , for when the Authority of that Creed depends solely upon its agreement with Scripture , how senceless a thing is it , to make that a truer Standard than Scripture , whose Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it ? What defence now will the Citizen make ? As good as he can afford no doubt ; He charges the Vindicator with saying , that an Article of Faith , is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence , which is as false as any thing in the World , we appeal to the Readers Eyes , and desire no other favour , but that he Read true .

To bring himself off , he acknowledges , That the Scripture indeed is the truest touch-stone of Sin and Duty , but he adds , whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture , in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed , must needs err ; and we are assured of the Errour , by that Article it contradicts .

Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity , yet it will not serve his turn ; for then he should not have accused Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard , but have proved , that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Case , which are two different things ; a man may take a true measure , and yet mistake in measuring a thing by it , but to tell him in the former Paper , of not finding out the true standard , and to think to come off in this , by blaming his Exposition of it , is a very sorry shift , which his Ignorance , or Inadvertency has forced him upon .

And yet we must not let him go , without further Examination about this matter , for it is certain he is fallen into a most dangerous Errour , making the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds , the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture ; for so he tells us . Reply , p. 11. We come to be infallibly assured , that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture against the Divinity of Christ is False , because it contradicts that Article , I believe in Jesus the onely begotten Son of God , and that in the Nicene Creed , God of God , very God of very God , being of one Substance with the Father .

This is an Opinion , which his own Spiritual Guides , are obliged to chastize him for , being so contrary to the avowed Principles of all Protestant Churches , and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily asserted in their late Writings against the Papists , to which I refer him for his better Information , amongst others , let him consult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock , in his Preservative against Popery , where having declared that the Protestants abide by that , Part 1st . P. 49. which they see plainly proved out of Scripture , bids us put this Question , How shall we know what is the true sense of Scriptures , and proposes three ways , either by an Infallible Interpreter , or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers , or by such humane means as are used , to find out the sense of other Books ; He rejects the Pretensions of an Infallible Interpreter , and disapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Consent of the Fathers , and concludes there is no way left , but to expound it as we do other Writings , by considering the Signification , and Propriety of Words , and Phrases , the Scope and Context of the Place , the Reason of things , the Analogy between the Old and New Testament , and the like .

Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter , which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of ; He is infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ , because the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds , have so Interpreted Scripture ; but what if one should ask him , How he is sure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expositions of Scripture ? Either he must fall into the Circle , or resolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church , and Compilers of those Creeds ; and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England , and all the Reformed , in one of the Principal and most Important Points of Controversie , the Resolution of Faith .

I will not suppose him so ignorant , as to think that the Apostles were the Authors of that Creed , that goes under their Name ; Bishop Pearson , and Dr. Towerson , will tell him the contrary , and by the Confession of all Protestants , These Creeds are but summary Collections of the most principal Doctrines of Faith , put into that form by Fallible Men , and are to be received no further , and on no other account , than as they are Consonant to the Word of God , and therefore were never intended , as a Standard or Rule of Faith , or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is so ; I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ , if he had lived before these Symbols were extant , I wonder , how he is infallibly assured of the true sence of these Creeds ? I doubt , he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another , and so ad Infinitum ; but if he say , the sence of these Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity , so is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points , and is sufficient Assurance of the Truth of them , without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches .

Whether these odd Opinions , are to be imputed to his inconsiderateness , of which every Page affords us instances enough , or rather to the Happy Illuminations , of his great Rabbi , Mr. Dodwell , I will not determine ; but the latter is not improbable , if we compare it , with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes , Separation of Churches , p. 542. That the Power actually received by Ordained Ministers must not be measured by the true Sence of Scriptures , but by that wherein the Ordainers understood them , &c. Many other Effata of the like Nature , have proceeded from that great Oracle , which would scarcely have been encouraged or so much as suffered in any Reformed Church besides our own , but it was sufficient to make these things passable , that they were levelled at the Dissenters , and sent them all headlong into the Pit .

I think it may not be amiss to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice , against the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , which this Gentleman very unfairly suggests ; the Passage aimed at , is this , To say , that Bishops , Vindic. p. 18. which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church , are the Apostles Successors , in their Apostolical Power , is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government , and would give the Bishop of Rome as great Power in England , as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury ( when there is any . ) All the Malice lies in this little Parenthesis , when there is any , and here the Citizen clamours upon him , for reviling Gods High Priest , Reply , p. 18. and speaking evil of the Ruler of his People ; What Apology will the Vindicator now make ? Truely , if it was my own Case , I would desire no better , than that of St. Paul under the same Accusation , I wist not Brethren , that he was the High Priest . The late Arch-Bishop , had been deprived by Law , above half a Year before that Vindication was writ , and the Metropolitane See was vacant , a considerable time after this was Printed , and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People , to say there was none , I will not drive this too far , I hope he can give a better Reason for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him ; If he was the Ruler still , What becomes of the Authority of those that deprived him ? It had been more becoming this Gentleman , to have answered that Argument , wherein this Parenthesis had its Place , than by falling foul upon so Innocent an Expression , to expose those thoughts , which Prudence would have concealed .

I know not of any thing else in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of , but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatise ; wherein I have attempted ( at least ) to prove , that our Congregations , are not Schismatical , or Unlawful , though many of our Ministers , were not Ordained by Diocesan Bishops , though the Places we meet in be distinct from the Parish Churches , and the Mode of our Worship in some things different from theirs .