Having thus finished what I designed, as sufficient to shew you the true Notion of Schism, and your mistake in the Nature of it; I proceed to make some Remarks upon your Brief Enquiry, &c.

THe Scope of all you say, till your Instance of Eldad and Medad, a­mounts to no more, but that Schism is an Arch-Rebel, &c. a de­formed Brat, &c. a Crime so black, no body will plead Guilty to the Indict­ment. And then comes another Law term, Hue and Cry, &c. 'tis an hanious Crime, but 'tis very difficult and scarce possible to find it, it cannot be described.

All I need say to this, is, the difficulty is removed; I have plainly shew'd you how to describe it, and so to make a true Judgment, who are Guilty, whether they plead Guilty, or not Guilty.

The Instance of Eldad and Medad, is nothing to the purpose of Schism, for, they were not (if I mistake not) to administer in Holy things; not a­ny thing of the Priest-hood, but that Spirit of Prophecy which they re­ceived, was to qualifie them for the ease of Moses in the Civil Govern­ment; and a Crime in the State is Sedition, not Schism. Yet they did not assume that without Divine Authority: and when you can make as signal a proof that your Authority is Divine, we will no more blame you for Exercising in your Stable, then Moses did them, for Prophe­sying in the Camp.

In Page 8. you say, I cannot believe that the greatest Worshipers of the Diana of their own Opinions, will be so sottish as to brand those for Schisma­ticks, who in every punctilio of Opinion are not exactly of the same Stan­dard with themselves.

Wh [...]m you mean by the greatest Worshipers of the Diana of their own Opinions, I take not upon me to tell? but if by that saucy Language, you mean the Bishops and the other inferior Clergy of the English Church? I can answer for them, that if the punctilios of Opinions you mean, do not cause a Seperate Communion? they will never censure that for Schism.

[...]t is not Opinions differing in little things (as you call 'em) but the er­ronious and sinful Opinions, that tend to Seperation from a truly Ca­tholick Church, that they of our Church (to use your words) brand with Schism; men may differ in Opinion in speculative things, [Page 10] and be Innocent, but Opinions that break the Communion of Saints, are Schism.

Pardon me if I give you a pleasant Instance; your Father's Opinion was, that it was best to put you to be a Lawyers, or an Attorney's Clerk (as I have heard) my Uncle who was (in loco parentis) my Guardian, his Opinion was, that it was best to put me an Aprentice to a Mercer; here were different Opinions or Apprehensions, but no Schism.

In your Ninth Page, you put a fair Question, enough to make the World believe you to be a man of great sincerity; viz. Whether a diver­sity or sep [...]ration of [...]ommunion, be the fo [...]malis ratio of Schism. I affirm and have prov'd it is: but you answer it with great partiality, making a most unnatural Exposition of the Apostles words that can be; 1 Cor. 1 10. Page 10. I beseech you Brethren, that there be no divisions among you. (which you rightly say, is in the Margin Schisms) and pretend upon Enquiry to find what the Schism is, by the next following Exhortation of the Apostle; That ye all speak the same thin [...]s, (which you expound) viz. In the Funda­mental Doctrines of Christianity, for in little things it can never be made a duty to be of the same Opinion, since it is m [...]r [...]lly impossible. And you name Estius, but do not make him vouch for your Exposition; if his Ex­position agrees with yours (which I rather think it does not) it cannot be the Apostles meaning: for you say, Observe, he does not oblige us to think the same things, i. e. In your preaching and conver [...]e, speak of th [...]se things only wherein you are agreed; and f [...]r those things where [...]n you differ, do not fall out and fight about them, but love one another notwithstanding.

To this I Answer.

St. Paul is mightily obliged to you for this Exposition; you say, he doth not oblige us to think the same things: but though your thoughts [...]e diverse, yet speak the same things; what is this? but that men may think one thing and speak another; (this does not agree with the sincerity of Saint Paul) for this is down right Hypocrisie and Knavery; I can make nothing else o [...]'t.

But you think to make it Orthodox by an i. e. In your preaching and converse, speak those things only wherein you are agreed, &c.

This Doctrine were it known, would reconcile the World; this would merit a Dispensation at Rome, you may be admitted there upon these terms; if in your Preaching and Converse you will speak of nothing but [Page 11] wherein you are all agreed. The Pope, they say, is commonly an old [...]ivil Gentleman, and this new Doctrine of yours, tending so much to Peace, and to the stoping of the mouths of Hereticks, who are apt to [...]peak of things wherein they are not all agreed; would move him to think of some preferment for you. But if they at Rome should prove so inhu­manely morose and sullen, as to make your Journey thither unfortunate, [...]his Doctrine cannot fail of entertainment at Constantinople; the Mer­chants who trade thither, will assure you, that the Mahomitans are ve­ry obliging to all those, who preach and say nothing in converse, but wherein all are agreed; and you being withal a great abhorrer of Popish delusions, they will nemine contradicente, heartily agree with you there­in; and you being a Minister too, as you say in your Enquiry, page 27. And as such abliged to preach, and to trade with that Talent you have re­ceived (or you say) there will be an uncomfortable account shortly; especially (say you) if we look abroad, and consider how the apparent necessities of pre­cious Souls, calls for our utmost diligence.

Sir, there are abroad at Constantinople abundance of precious Souls, who want your diligence: Now you, who say nothing in your preaching and converse, but wherein all are agreed, will oblige 'em to hear you, and so you will gain an oppertunity to preach your great Gospel Truths to 'em, among whom there's nothing so much wanting; one Voyage of you, and all your Brethren with your Talents thither, could not fail of great improvement; that place totally wanting you, and we having not nere so great occasion, or necessity for you here; it would look like a real sence of your Duty, if you would Imbark thither, to take care of the ma­ny precious Souls there, who are like to miscary for want of you: And pray consider, our Church-men are so invincibly lazy, they'l never un­dertake it; and if some of them should have the Courage? alas, they are so dull, it would be to no purpose: You are much more qualify'd for it, who by Inspiration hold forth with such life and vigour, so much more powerful, that the success could not fail in you; and beside all this, there is no reason to fear, that one Soul here would perish by your ab­sence. This Doctine of yours, justly deserves this Harangue.

But does not this Exposition of yours, barr all reasoning and lessen the use and power of preaching, one main end and design whereof, is to con­vince men of error, and so to Unite their minds and affections, by Unit­ing [Page 12] their Judgments and Understanding; you say not one word of Union and Communion, which is most strictly enjoyned in every Sentence in the Exhortation; That there be no Divisions or Schisms, which by the other Sentences, the Apostle tells 'em how to prevent, (viz.) that you all speak the same things, that ye be perfectly joyn'd together in the same mind, and in the same judgment; now it's impossible for people that speak the same things, and are perfectly joyn'd together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, to have any Divisions or Schisms. That learned and pious Doctor in our Church, Doctor Hammond, Familiar in Fathers and Councils, hath this Paraphrase upon this Text: That, therefore which I first exhort you to, and that with all earnestness as possible (as the prime addit on of these gifts, and graces that are among you) is this, that ye all teach the same Doctrine, and nourish Charity and Ʋnity; that there be no di­visions in the Churches, but that ye be compacted, and Ʋnited as Members of the same Body, in the same belief and affection. Is not this quite different from your Exposition? you take off the force and efficacy of the Apostle's Exhortation to Unity, purposly to excuse your Schism; is any thing more demonstrative in the World, than that your practice is quite con­trary to this Exhortation; who have set up a Communion separate from the Church of God, establish'd in this Kingdom, both by Divine and Ci­vil Sanction.

You are unlucky in your Exposition, very wide from the mark; and it can never fare otherwise with you, while you live in Schism; it being the Nature of Schism to hurry men into a thousand errors.

Again in the former Paragraph, That ye all speak the same things, viz. In the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, for (say you) in little things it can never be made a duty to be of the same Opinion, since it is morally im­possible. I must here say again what I have said; that different Opinions in meer Notions and Speculations, or any differing Opinions that break not Communion, are not here meant; for so men may differ and not be guilty of Schism: But if you mean by morally impossible, that it is im­possible for Christians to be perfectly joyned together in the same mind, and in the same Judgment (as the Apostles exhorts) so, as to maintain U­nity, and prevent Schism in the Church; either the Apostles Exhortation is to no p [...]pose and effect, or your insinuation very vain. You go on, that ye be perfectly joyned together with the same mind, and in the same [Page 13] [...]udgment (which say you) must be understood of a serious endeavour af­ [...]r it, for otherwise a perfect conjunction must be reserved for a world of [...]verlasting perfection.

Sir, are you so self dignify'd (to use your own words) as to be a Teach­ [...]r of Saints, and know not, that a perfect Conjunction in the Catholick Church, and Communion of Saints, is required of all those who are to [...]e to the world of everlasting perfection?

Your 11, 12, and 13 pages, are filled with an Enquiry of the Corin­ [...]hians miscari [...]ge; you say, that Clemens Roman [...]s, in his famous Epistle to [...]e [...]rinthians, sti [...]l calls Schisms contentions, which I believe is true. For [...]chism is the Mother of Contention.

You find that the Corinthians were divided in their Opinions, about [...]heir Ministers, one cries I am of Pa [...]l, as more Edifying; another cries am of Apollos, and another I am of C [...]phas; this you say, did not make [...]he Schism; for say you, Why might not each go where he might be most edi­ [...]d? but you say the Schism was, in that they Sacrificed Christian Love and [...]harity; and after you say a great deal to little purpose. For,

Its very plain, the Corinthians were accused of that you call Schism, [...]are [...]y for preferring, or admiring one Minister above another, though [...]dification was the pretence, and not for breach of Communion, for with [...]hichsoever they Communicated, it was one and the same Communion; [...]r Saint Paul and Christ were not divided, nor were either of the other [...]ivided from Christ, their Communion was the same, though their Cures [...]ere several; so that there was no reason (as you impertinently say) to si­ [...]ence any of them, for in them there was no Schism, nor any blame. [...]ut say you, the w [...]y of Curing this Schism was not to silence Apollos and [...]ephas, that they might all be of Paul, and here you make St. Paul some [...]art of amends for your former Scandalous Exposition, in saying, that he [...]refered Souls S [...]lvation before his own Credit.

How impertinently do you say, the way to Cure this Schism was not to [...]lence Apollos, &c. As if to silence you, that your followers may come [...]o Church, were as illegal as to have silenced them: Sir there is a vast [...]ifference between you, and they, who are Pastors and Ministers of Christ; [...]ey are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God, and the Ministers of Re­ [...]onciliation, and are made so by Apostolical Power; of them our Blessed [...]aviour saith (St. John 10. v. 2) thus, He that entreth in by the door, is the [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 14] Shepherd of the Sheep; but such as you, who climb up some other way, our Saviour (in the 1 v.) calls a Thief and a Robber.

Had Apollos and Cephas been as disorderly and Schismatical as you? St. Paul would in all probability have exercised his Apostolical Power, and have silenced them as the Cure; and it is more than probable, that the Schism which you maintain, would receive a Cure, were you, and all such silenced and supprest.

In your Recipe for the Cure of Schism, one Ingredient is; That they walk all the same way, though they trace different paths, (your falacy and equivocation in this is very visible) for here is nothing like a different path, it is all one way, and one path; they were all United in the same Com­munion: But you cunningly insinuate this, merely to delude the igno­rant and undiscerning, by perswading them, that your Conventicle is the same way with the Church; only (as you call it) a different path: which is no other than Schismatical meeting. So your cure of Schism is to con­tinue in Schism. You are a rare Spiritual Phisitian.

And then to bring up the rear, you have this rare Inference, viz. It ap­pears that narrow Spiritedness (which is a very improper expression) which confines Religion and the Church, to our way and party whatever it is, to th [...] condemning of others that differ from us in little things, is the bain of th [...] Christian Church. And to make this as true as the Gospel, you set down a Latin Proverb; hinc illae lachrymae.

Sir, Religion is the bond of Unity; did you ever know Religion with out Bounds, and Rules for all of that Religion to be confined to, even to a Punctilio, and is it narrow Spiritedness to observe those Rules, and t [...] be confin'd within the Bounds of Religion? is it a Schismaticating Principle to make a true Judgement of Schism (which you call an Arch-Rebe [...] in Christs Kingdom) and censure them who are Guilty of it?

Have not all they of your Conventiling Communion Rules given them (though of your own parties making) by which they are confin'd to yours, and distinguishable from all other different Communions? If you or any other of the Presbyterian Communion come to London, or any other par [...] of this Kingdom; do not you hold exactly the same way of Worship a [...] you have here? (sure you cannot deny this) and is not this to confin [...] your Sect to your own way and Communion? Why then do you reproachfully call this narrow Spiritedness in others, and practice it your selves.

You say, condemning of others that differ in little things, is the great Schismaticating principle which hath been so much the bane of the Christian Church: hinc illae lacrymae.

It must rather be the setting up of your Seperate Communions, that hath been so much the bane of this Christian Church. I am sure it was the Puritanical Faction, who in their Conventicles blew up the Trumpet of Sedition and Rebellion, and overturned the Government of both Church and State; and through pretended Sanctity and Gospel Zeal, perpetrated the most hellish Actions that ever were since Adam. Then was Violence under the colour of Zeal; the Note and Badge of Sanctity, Loyalty to a Prince of incomparable piety, and faithfulness to the most pure Christian Church, was damn'd for malignancy: I am sure you are of the same Tribe; these were the men, by whom the Church was not on­ly rent in Pieces, but for a time (which was as long as they were in Power) rooted out; here we may truly say hinc illae lacrymae, Mr. H. I lived in the time when through Blood and Rebellion, your Party gave Laws and Rules to all; then, all that were of our Church were not Censured for little things, but Branded for Reprobates; Excluded from Mercy, all the Clergy, not only Silenced, but Sequestred, and many Imprisoned and starved; it was not much worse with Christians under Nero and Dioclesian, and all this for not Conforming to your Novel Discipline; yet the gentle Penalties of the Royal Laws, which were made for Peace and Unity, are cry'd up by you and your Party, for such a Persecution as never was. Alas Sir, for all your pretended Meekness and Charity now, you that retain the same principles, would certainly repeat the same miseries, had you the same power, which God of his Infinite mercy for ever prevent; Amen,

Now I return, and try whether from your Instance in the Corinthians, you could not have found a far more genuin conclusion, and more agree­ing with the Apostles meaning.

If but the having one Minister of Christ, though rightly ordained in admiration above another, to the begetting Contention, incur the Guilt of Schism, and is no way to be Tollerated in the Church of God?

How much more am I a Schismatick, who am not only, not rightly ordained, but keep up a Communion seperate from the Church of God, [Page 16] in the Kingdom where I live, the Argument will hold a Minori ad Majus If contentions about admiring one Minister above another, be Schism then sure to maintain a Separate Communion, which makes Contention much hotter, fiercer and more numerous, must much more be Schism▪

In Page 15. you say, That's Schism, which breaks or slackens the bon [...] by which the Membe [...]s are knit together. In this you are Orthodox, but you keep not to it; for you say,

Now that bond is not an Act of Ʋniformity in point of Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies, but true Love and Charity in point of Af­fection.

The breach of Communion, be it for want of Uniformity in the same Modes and Ceremonies, or what you will, (that is not sinful) does cer­tainly (to use your own words) Break and Slacken the Bond by which the Members are knit together; for to divide in point of Communion, is to dis-unite and unknit the Members; and consequently the Bond, be it (as you say) Love and Charity, or the Unity of the Spirit, or what you please, is broken; and this you most truly say is Schism; and yet you say, that the Bond is not an Act of Ʋniformity, &c. in point of Communi­on; which is a manifest contradiction.

Now all these erroneous and miserably mistaken Expositions of Scrip­ture, and inferences equally false, are the Foundation upon which you erect your Description of Schism: and which at present you ap­prehend, is the true Scriptural Notion of Schism; which that all who read these papers may judge of, I here Insert.

‘Schism is an Uncharitable Distance, Division, or Alienation of Af­fection, among those who are called Christians, and agree in the Funda­mentals, of Religion, occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things.’

You agree with our Church in all that you call Fundamentals, and your Distance and Division you acknowledge, is for little things, that it is an Uncharitable Distance, and Division is undeniable; for the breach of Christian Communion, is certainly the breach of Christian Charity: here you are Condemned out of your own mouth.

But how far different your Description is from the Primitive Catho­lick Notion of Schism, sufficiently appears to you, by what I have shew­ed before.

You mention not Seperating, or withdrawing from the Communion of the Church; which is most Infamous and Notorious Schism, and con­fine it only to breach of Charity, which (though always a great fault) yet in many cases amounts not to Schism.

I now take notice of your Fourth Inference, page 23.

If this be Schism, then there may be Separation of Communion, where there is no Schism, (say you) for thus we all agree, that there may be dif­ference of apprehension, and yet no Schism, provided it do not eat out Christi­an Love; but be managed amicably, as betwixt the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Church of England.

What strange kind of Reasoning is this?

If breach of Charity be Schism? then separate Communion may be with­out Schism; and to prove this, you instance in the difference between the Arminians and Calvinists in the Church of England, who differed in Opini­ons; the former Asserting the Freedom or Liberty of the Will, the other Election and Reprobation; here was no separation of the Communion, or denial of any Article of the Church; (for both sign'd the Articles) nor from Communion one with another? both parties submitting to the Uniformi­ty required; so you bring an instance to justifie seperate Communion from Schism, where there was no seperate Communion at all; see how illogical your reasoning is?

If breach of Charity be Schism, then there may be separate Communion with­out Schism. Would any man of Sence, but you, have made such a Con­clusion from such premisses; would not the Argument have run truer thus?

If breach of Charity be Schism, then separate Communion is much more Schism.

But breach of Charity is Schism.

Therefore, &c. I am forced here to say what I have said before, that it is most manifest, that a separate Communion, unless from a Schismatical Church, is in it self the agravation and extremity of Schism, and is na­turally and infallibly the cause of the highest breaches of Charity, and of the hottest and fiercest contentions, which you own to be Schism.

But suppose there were some thing in our Constitutions that needed a­mendment or alteration, yet every defect and supposed Corruption in a Church, is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant e­nough to tear it in pieces. Hear Mr. Calvins Opinion, he saith, where ever the Word of God is duely Preached, and Reverent­ly [Page 18] attended to, and the true use of the Sacraments kept up; there is an appearance of a true Church, whose Authority no man may dispise, or reject its admonitions, or resist its Councils; or set at nought its Disci­pline, much less separate from it, and Violate its Unity so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments, though other­wise it be over-run with many blemishes and corruptions. Inst. l. 4. Sect. 10, 11; & 12. You see how Mr. Calvin is against you, from whom the Original of your way had its date.

I here make it my hearty request to you, that you will read the Letters of the Reformed Divines of Foreign Countries, to the Bishop of London, viz.

That, of Monsieur le Moyne, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, concern­ing the Nature of our Differences, and the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England,

That, of Monsieur de Langle, a Preacher of the Reformed Church-meeting, at Charenton near Paris. And also,

That of Monsieur Claude, all of the same Subject; you have them all at the end of Dr. Stillingfleet's Ʋnreasonableness of Separation. They all conclude you under Schism.

In Page the 20th. towards the end, you have these words, (I need not mention the occasion having dispatched that before) Whether they be Epis­copal, Presbyterian, Independent, or by what Name or Title soever they be self-dignified or distinguished; you cannot forbear not only Uncharitable­ness, but Hatred and Malice against the Clergy; and consequently the whole Church, you Condemn Bitterness, and Uncharitableness, as Schism in all other; and where can it be found more apparently than in you, in these words? By what Name or Title soever they be self-dignified or distin­guished; these are not Applicable to your Party, less to the Anabaptists; then they must be spoken of the Arch [...]Bishops and Bishops of our Church, whom the King always nominates, and they are accordingly truly Conse­crated to be so; Orders instituted by the Apostles in the Church of Christ, and from them continued to this present age, without interruption 1 Cor. 12, 28. And God hath set some in the Church; first Apostles, secondarily Prophets; thirdly Teachers, &c. helps in Government, &c. God hath set them up, and you revile them, as men setting up, and dignifieing themselves, is this your Charity; what more Diabolical Spirit can there be in any Sect [Page 19] [...]mong men, than thus to dispise and set at nought, those who are digni­fied by Divine Right and Authority, to Rule and Govern in the Church of God? you make it a Schismaticating Principle to censure you of Un­charitableness, and Bitterness, who have even in this, rank'd your self a­mong those whom the Apostle St. Jude (in his Epistle verse 28.) calls filthy Dreamers, who speak evil of Dignities. Yet say you.

But to come a little closer, the Meetings of the Dissenters (though now blessed be God permitted, and allowed by the Law of the Land, yet) are commonly Charged with being Schismatical; the great Out-cry is, that we leave the Church; and the Ʋnthinking Mobile, who are so well taught, as to know no other Churches, but the Publick places of Worship, are easily induced to be­lieve it; as if it were Schism to Worship God any where else, let the Wor­ship there be what it will, (you go on) those who will allow themselves the Liberty of an Ʋnprejudiced thought, cannot but see the difference so small, that as long as we believe the same Christian Faith, and agree in the same Protestant abhorrence of Papal Delusions; we may easily be looked upon, as one and the same Church, as well as two several Parish Churches may, es­pecially being Ʋnited under the Care and Protection of one Protestant King, and Members of the same Protestant Common-Wealth.

Sir, Indulgence (which carries the Title of the Act) always imploys a defect, if not a Crime; you say, you are permitted and allowed, though the Act is no more than Indulgence, which never signifies approbation or likeing; all you have by it is but for the hardness of your Hearts; as our Blessed Saviour says, of the Indulgence of the Jews, for putting a­way their Wives by a Bill of Divorse; to which our Saviour saith Mat. 19 8. But in the beginning it was not so. Their Plea for that Indulgence is distroyed by an Argument drawn from Antiquity. I have the like Argument for you; in the Primitive Church it was not so, no Indulgence for seperate Communion, upon any pretence whatsoever; you have one, and I give my reason why I wish no ill effects follow it.

In the year 1560. Mr. J. Calvin by his Letter to Arch Bishop Grindal, solicites him to obtain the favour of the Queen, to Assign; and at his request, she did Assign the Church of Saint Anthony in London, for some French exiles then there, and were of Mr. Calvins Principle, to meet in, and with License to set up the Genevian Discipline, and a Form of Pray­er which had no Conformity with the English Liturgy, which proved [Page 20] in the event a design expedient of Calvins, for advancing Presbitery in the room of Episcopacy.

Upon this Toleration, their numbers so increased, that in the year 1568. they broke out into open Schism, choosing to meet in Barns and Fields, rather than in Churches, with their Brethren as formerly; teaching 'twas impious to hold any Correspondence with the Conforming Churches. Upon this very occasion (viz.) the Queens Toleration, and particularly her Indulging the Genevian Discipline, within 8 years time, their Mem­bers so increased, and their Insolence also; that the Queen plainly saw (as her own words were) that such were the restless Spirits of that Factious people, that here was no quietness to be expected from them, till they were utterly supprest: In order to which she called a Parliament in 1592. wherein strict Laws were made against them, and executed accordingly; Barrow, Penry, and Burchet, were hanged for such Nonconformity-prin­ciples as were Treasonable; and by those sharp Laws made against them, the Ring leaders were humbled, and the whole Body of 'em brought to a good degree of Quietness at that time and held dureing her Reign.

I heartily wish that your Great Champion Mr. Baxter, prove not a true Prophet, who in his Epistle Dedicatory, (before his Treatise of Self-denial) to Coll. James Berrey, then one of the Council of State; calls Toleration Englands misery; a Liberty for drawing men to Hell; a wicked damning Liberty; a Strengthening the Party Tolerated; a giving way for their Power; a giving a way our own Power; a preparing Faggots for our own Martirdom. And he represents Tolerating Magistrates, as a sort of men that Rule as though they were uncertain whether there were a Heaven or a Hell. Thus he,

By the story in the Queen, you see what use your Predecessors, those great pretenders of Sanctity, made of their Indulgence; and if you tread their Paths, you may fall into the like mischiefs; and I will tell you why you can never stand right with the Government; because your Principles carry you to the rooting out of Episcopacy, which is the Pillar of Ecclesiastical Government. And we see by Mr. Baxter, with what Vigor and Zeal Uniformity will then be held forth in all your Pulpits.

I now return to the remainder of your Paragraph. You say, the meet­ [...]ng of the Dissenters (and after a Paranthesis) are commonly charged with be­ [...]ng Sch [...]smatical; the great out-cry is, that we leave the Church, and the un­ [...]hanking Mobile, who are so well taught as to know no other Churches, but the [...]ublick places of Worship, are easily enduced to believe it, as if it were [...]chism to Worship God any where else, let the Worship there be what it [...]ill.

You cannot be without the Leaven of Reflection, for all your pretend­ [...]d Candor and Charity, is not this highly reproachful? to say that the Unthinking Mobile, &c. are easily induced to believe it, (that is) that [...]our Meeting is Schism; What can you mean but the Pastors and Mini­ [...]ters of our Church, seduce the Mobile to believe that which is false, and [...]he unthinking Mobile are easily enduced? This is a pritty falacy, by [...]his you would perswade all (if you could) that none but the Mobile believe [...]ou are Schismaticks; all the Privy Council, the Judges, Universities, [...]nd Magestrates, and all above the Mobile have no such thoughts; this [...]s a random Shot: Pray how many besides the unthinking Mobile can you boast of in your Communion? God knows you have too much to [...]oast of, if you have any; however your boasting in this, is much more vain, than God be thanked you have real cause for; and all those Poor Souls you have Captivated, and lead astray out of Christs Fould, are [...]gnorant, or Giddy-minded; and it is done under pretence of more Spiritual Edification and Holiness, which is but the Counterfeit of them which glitters with greater Lustre (it being the Nature of all Counterfeit things so to do) to the Undescerning and Ignorant, than the real: just as Quack Mountebanks, with cunning devised Words, and Fables, per­swade the Moible, that their Medicines have much more the Virtue of Healing, and that their skill and judgement far surmounts the truly Learned and Judicious Phisitians: But God I hope will consider their simplicity, and have mercy on them; though I wish they would con­sider what our Saviour saith, That if the Blind lead the Blind, both fall into the Ditch. Then you say, as [...]f it were Schism to Worship God any where else, let the Worship there be what it will.

It would occasion too long a discourse to pursue; I will therefore only mention it. The Samaritans in the time of our Saviour were as fully perswaded, that their Altar and Worship was as true and acceptable to God as that at Jerusalem, as you are, that yours is more pure than that of our Church; yet our Blessed Saviour tells the Woman, St. John 4. v. 22. Ye Worship ye know not what, we (saith he) know what we Wor­ship, &c. The true reason why the Samaritans Worshiped they knew not what; was, because it was a separate Altar, and a separate Wor­ship from that at Jerusalem; this was Schism, and had the same ef­fects, as your separate Communion hath in this Kingdom, (viz.) Con­tentions, breach of Charity, alienation of Affection, &c.

And I do not see, but as it was Schism in the Jewish, which was the Type of the Christian Church, to set up a separate Altar, and Worship▪ so it must be Schism, to set up a separate Table, and separate way of Worship in the Christian Church, which is the Anti-type.

I mention this, because you, in the 32 page say, The common Out-cry is, that it is the setting up Altar against Altar; supposeing your thoughts here, might be upon Mr Dodwells one Altar, and one Priesthood, as that which makes the Out-cry against you; though the Term of Set­ting up Altar against Altar, was used by many of the Fathers in the Primitive Times, against Schismaticks in their days, whom he follows. But Sir, If you without prejudice, will seriously peruse that Book, you will find such weighty reasoning, that you will never more despise it; and if you cannot but despise it, you will perpetuate your Name amongst the most Learned and Ju­dicious, above all your Tribe that have been, or are, and proselite the Diocese besides; if you will Answer that Book? However it will be a sufficient Answer, for me to say, it is not the place that makes the Schism, but the separate Communion; for, if you use your way of Worship in one of our Churches, it would not abate or excuse the Schism; and so, if you were rightly ordained, and should use the same way of Worship which we use in our Churches, and is required by the Church in your Stable, and through some Provi­dence necessitated to such a place; no one of our Church would, nor a­ny other justly could charge you with Schism.

In your 25 page, Those who will allow themselves the Liberty of an Ʋnpre­ [...]udiced thought, cannot but see the difference so small, that as long as we be­ [...]ieve the same Christian Faith, and agree in the same Protestant abhorence of Papal delusions; we may easily be looked upon as one and the same, as well as two several Parish Churches may, especially being Ʋnited under the care and protection of one Protestant King, and Members of the same Common­ [...]ealth.

Difference in small and little things comes oft in my way; I cannot but wonder, that we who agree in the Belief of those High and Sacred Mysteries of Faith, so contrary to Flesh and Blood, and so transcen­dant above Natural reason, which cannot be wrought in us, but by the Grace of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and yet that even a­mong these, there should be men of high and preverse minds, sensual, and such who cause Division: As the Donatists, who did separate and [...]rend the Church, and yet believed the same Fundamental Faith, and were Zealous (to use your own Words) for the great Gospel Truths, but their separation was as yours is, for little things. How would you have your Separate Communion to be looked upon as one and the same Church, as well as two several Parish Churches? When it is apparent that you do Rob our Parish Churches. All you can and would Mo­nopolize all our Parishes into your Communion, and yet forsooth would be looked upon as one of our Parish Churches: This is a Paradox which pass [...]th all understanding.

And it is as wonderful, that the having the same Protestant abhorence of Popish delusions, should be a bar to Schism; a man may be an A­rian, Socinian; ay, or an Atheist, if he can but abhor Popery, and yet be free from Schism; is this one of your great Gospel Truths? Is this any thing like Primitive Doctrine? that Heresy, Atheism, Quakerism, and all other divided and currupt Opinions, so they but abhor Popery, may be looked upon as one and the same Church; is new and strange Divinity.

Sir, all that follows in your Book, being of the same spinning I will spare my self from any more trouble, and expose you no far [...]her. The Reader will be able to Judge, whether I have, or not, given you a truer Notion of [Page 24] Schism than that in your Enquiry, and sufficiently convicted your un­skilfulness in expounding Scripture; and fully Answered you.

I will only add this digression, which I think not impertinent, and then I'll close.

The Prayers made for the the Wednesday Fast, cannot be Charged with Popery, as your Party have the Liturgy; Supplications fitted to the Occasion, and for all capacities, imposed by Lawful Authority, by them who have the Rule over us; What account can you give to God, to the Government, and to your own Conscience, why you omit or re­fuse so indispensible a duty.

The Apostle saith, Obey them that have the Rule over you; and Com­mands this duty of Obedience to our Governors, upon the Severest and Highest Penalties. Rom. 13. v. 1, 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

How can you reconcile your Practice with this Apostolical Injunction? Unless you can charge the Prayers with something not lawful, or not rea­sonable to be offered to God; you are highly Criminal in the Apostles Judgment. God Almighty hath now settled the Government, where there is as true and real Abhorence of Popish Delusions, as you or any of your Party can pretend to; yet you yield not obedience to them even in a Religious Duty.

All your pretence is, that your Prayers are more purely Spiritual; you seek God in more apt and pleasing words, words which immediately flow from the Spirit.

What is this? but to limit and restrain the Holy Scripture to your way and to your Faction, as if no Prayers but those hammered out of your own Brains, could bear the stamp of the Holy Spirit of God; and is it Swop­pery in Robbery. not highly Prophane, if not Blasphemy, to impure all your Levites and Impertinencys to the immediate dictates of the Spirit of God? though this Holy Spirit you pretend to, can no where be found, but in the Holy Catholick Church, and Communion of Saints; where alone our Blessed Lord hath Promised it shall be to the end of the World.

All the Impostors in the world who have set up before you even Ma­homet himself, and a great number of Hereticks, and Schismaticks in the Christian Church, pretended to inspiration, and by it have deceiv­ed many. But this your pretence to inspiration, can never proselyte any, but the Ignorant and Undescerning, and those who are given to Change; unless you can produce the Credentials of a Mira­cle.

All our Prayers in our Liturgy are directed to God Almighty, and are presented in the name of the Blessed Jesus, and all we supplicate for, are for no other things, but what is allowed of, and required in our holy Religion: Now why any but Atheists, and those that are Anti­christian, joyn not with us in those Prayers and Praises, especially con­sidering that it is the Apostle Saint Paul's Judgment, Rom. 15.6. That we might with one mind, and with one Mouth glorifie God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; I know not, unless for the same Reason that you refuse those Prayers for the Fast added to the Liturgy, viz. Obstinacy and Disobedience.

Now Sir, to close up all; you cannot but see your Guilt, I Address to you in all Meekness and Christian Charity, that you will seriously consider the dangerous and desperate State and Condition you are in; for all the great and precious promises, made by God in Christ Jesus, are only to them who are Members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Ho­ly Catholick Church and Communion of Saints, they who are not of the Catholick Church, and Communion of Saints, may flatter themselves with Unwarrantable and Groundless Fancies; but can have no real Title, or Right to any of those precious Promisses; and therefore as you love your Soul, suffer not filthy Lucre, Interest or Pride to with-hold you any longer out of the Catholick Church wherein alone Salvation can be had, it is not your purer Administrations, or any other pretence, can avail or stand you in any stead, they only who are of this Society, which is the Mystical Body of Christ here on earth; have any Right ( Heb. 12 vers. 22.23.24.) to come to the Mount Sion, and unto the City of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable Company of [Page 26] Angels to the General Assembly, and Church of the first born, which are Written in Heaven: And to God the Judge of all; and to the Spirits of just men made perfect: And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant; that you may have Right and Title to all this; I heartily Pray with the Church in the Liturgy, That it may please God to bring you into the way of Truth; and all such as have erred, and are deceived, Amen.