THE CHARGE OF SCHISM CONTINUED BEING A Justification of the Author of Christian Blessedness for his Charging the Separatists with SCHISM notwithstanding the Toleration In a Letter to a City-Friend LICENS'D Decemb. 8. 1690. LONDON Printed for Samuel Manship at the Black Bull over-against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1691. SIR THE Information you give me concerning the great Clamour that is made by some in the City against our Friend the Author of Christian Blessedness for continuing the Charge of Schism at this time against the Separatists from the Church of England I am the more ready to believe because I find he meets with a great deal of the like Treatment in the Country as far as the Sphere of my Acquaintance or Intelligence reaches I can hardly put my Head into any Company but where I hear him either Passionately rail'd at by Popular uneducated Tongues or gravely Condemn'd by those of more sober and improved Understandings who though no Enemies to his Person have yet but little Charity for his Cause Nay several who know nothing at all of the Book and so cannot directly and expresly condemn it do yet shew how ready they would be upon occasion to do so by declaring their Judgments against the Proposition maintain'd in it For I find 't is a thing generally taken for granted that the Dissenters are now no longer under the guilt of Schism however they might be charged with it before For say they the Tables are now turn'd They have now an Authentick Patent for their Separation and may divide from you by Authority And therefore let your Indictment run never so high and be otherwise never so well proved their Liberty will be their immediate Discharge For Sir you must know that the Toleration is generally supposed to lay all in Common to put the Church and the Conventicle upon a square and to acquit those that Separate not only from the Penalty but from the Fault of Non-conformity This Notion I perceive has found entertainment not only in Vulgar Heads who seldom think distinctly about any thing but confound all things whose Difference is not to be felt and handled but also among those of good Natural sense and who have taken a Turn or two of Scholastick Education and understand something of the Measures of Reason and Consequence Particularly I find this Conceit passes very current among Ladies and Gentlemen who for want either of Leisure or Ability or Attention seldom examine things to the bottom but judge according to Outside and Appearance But this I do not so much wonder at when I observe that Men of profess'd Study and considerable Learning are carried away with the same Fancy which I find gets ground every day and let me tell you Sir among some others besides those whose Interest is concern'd to have it true I find some of these begin to talk very odly and untowardly in this matter and not according to their usual Clearness and accuracy of Judgment which they still retain in their other Discourses But as for the Interested Parties they catch at this Popular Plea of the Toleration with all the greediness imaginable and insist upon it mightily an Argument by the way that they distrust their other Defences and are become downright impatient of the Charge of Schism and think themselves not only highly Affronted but greatly Wrong'd and Injured whenever they are tax'd with it and as you know Sir are very angry with our Author for continuing the Charge What Charge us with Schism at this time of day Now we are in Favour Now the Government smiles upon us Now we have the Law on our Side c. How far they have the Law of their Side will be better understood from what is to follow In the mean time I with that some of those who are so incens'd against our Author and so free in their Censures upon that part of his Book would have took the Courage to appear against him in publick which would have been a much fairer and more manly way than either to rail at him in Corners which by the way are as little sought for by Charity as by Truth or to pester him with Scurrilous and abusive Letters without Names This argues their Fear to be as great as their Malice and that they diffide either to their Cause or to their Skill in managing it The truth is they ought for their own Credit as well as in Justice to the Author either to have Suppress'd their Resentments or to have Vented them in Publick Which if they had done I dare undertake they should not have been disappointed of an Adversary But it seems they have thought fit to make use of another Method which though not equally declarative of their Sense yet with the help of a little Spelling and Collating things together may serve to pick out enough of their Meaning For as far as I can gather from what I observe and from what I hear the Sum of all that they say against our Author bating impertinent Cavils and Foul-mouth'd Reflections may be reduced to these three Heads 1. The Falsness of his Charge 2. The Uncharitableness of it 3. The Unseasonableness of it Which Treble Censure is grounded upon one Common Argument because say they the Dissenters are Now by Vertue of their Toleration upon Equal Terms with the Church But Sir in the First place how can that be when One is Establish'd and the Other only Tolerated Is not Establishment more than Liberty If by Liberty here were understood Allowance or Warrant to act which is the highest Sense of the word that the Persons concern'd stand for it would yet fall much short of Establishment which does not only Allow or Permit but Enjoyn and Require Much more then if Liberty here be found as I believe it will to â—ignifie only a Capacity of acting without Punishment Liberty of Allowance is much short of Establishment much more Liberty of Impunity And how then are the Church and the Dissenters upon Equal Terms Some therefore who better understand what they say chuse to express themselves thus That the Dissenters have as much Authority for their Liberty as the Church has for her Establishment Which implies not Absolute Equality but only Equality of Proportion Now this I readily admit But what then Therefore they are not guilty of Schism in Causelesly dividing from her Communion I interpose the Term Causelefly not without reason For if they say they have sufficient Cause for dividing from us then they no longer stand to their Plea of Toleration but put their Cause upon another Issue which I think has been already sufficiently examin'd and exposed But that which they stand for now by the nature of their Appeal seems to be this That they are not guilty of Schism because of the Liberty they have by the Toleration which must therefore be supposed to excuse them from Schism though they Causelesly divide from us For if they had just Cause for their
Separation then they would be excused from Schism without a Toleration which then need not be pleaded But this is the Plea that is now generally insisted upon for their discharge from Schism which must therefore be understood with this Supposal though they do Causelesly divide from the Communion of the Church This therefore is the true and explicite State of their Plea The Dissenters have now as much Authority for their Liberty as the Church has for her Establishment And therefore they are not guilty of Schism in Causelesly Separating from her Now this Consequence I utterly deny and Affirm that such Separatists are as much guilty of Schism now after the Toleration as they were before To make this Clear we must in the First place distinguish between the Law it self and the Sanction of the Law By the Law it self here I understand the bare Simple Proposition wherein either the doing or the not doing such a thing is enacted By the Sanction of the Law I understand those External Motives which are proposed and solemnly annex'd by the Law-giver to his Law as an ingagement to Obedience that is Rewards and Punishments These Sanctions though they are sometimes made a part of the Law as when we say the Penal Part by way of Contradistinction to the Preceptive yet properly speaking they are no part of the Law at all but only Accessories or Appendixes prudentially added to it as Expedients for the better inforcement of Obedience The Law if self is wholly compleated in the Proposition from which the Sanction is as much distinct as the Hedge is from the Inclosure or the Ground which it incloses This Distinction naturally leads us into another as being dependent upon it For if the Sanction be a distinct thing from the Law then we must also 2dly distinguish between the Abolishing of the Sanction and the Abolishing of the Law and between the Suspension of the Sanction and the Suspension of the Law and much more yet between the Suspension of the Sanction and the Abolishment of the Law If the Law and the Sanction were one and the same thing yet the Suspension of the Sanction could not be an Abolishment of the Law because Suspension is not Abolishment Much less then can the Suspension of the Sanction be an Abolishment of the Law upon the Supposition of their Difference These things therefore ought carefully to be distinguisht From the Distinctions premised this Conclusion will necessarily arise That the Directive or Preceptive part of the Law may still remain in force though the Penal part I speak according to Common use be removed whether it be by Abolishment or by Suspension For since the Preceptive and the Penal part are supposed to be wholly distinct 't is impossible that a Change made in the One should at all affect the Other unless you could suppose some Connexion or other to intercede between them As for instance the Soul and Body being supposed to be Substances really distinct 't is impossible that a Change in the One should at all affect the Other unless there were such a Law of Connexion between them that Certain Thoughts in the Soul should raise Certain Motions in the Body and that Certain Motions in the Body should occasion Certain Thoughts in the Soul which is what we call the Vital Union between Soul and Body In like manner say I concerning the Preceptive and the Penal part of the Law that upon Supposition of their real distinction 't is impossible that a Change in the One should at all affect the Other unless there should happen to be such a declared Connexion between them by the Will of the Legislative that upon the Ceasing of the One the Other also should Cease or unless the Nature of the thing infer the Necessity of it Neither of which may be pretended in the present Case as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Process of this Argument At present I suppose it and do therefore say that the Preceptive part of the Law may and will still remain in force though the Penal part which is distinct from it be remov'd Whence it will further follow that the Preceptive part of the Law does at present actually remain in full force For all that a Toleration does or can do is only to remove the Penalty where there is an Establisht National Church It is not there a Liberty of Allowance but only a Liberty of Impunity I say where there is an Establisht National Church For indeed where there is no Legal Establishment for the Publick Exercise of Religion a Toleration would be a Liberty of Allowance I mean as far as the State or Civil Law can give an Allowance in this matter but where there is such an Establishment there it can only be a Liberty of Impunity There it only suspends or takes away for a time the Penal part which will not excuse from transgressing against the Preceptive which where-ever there is a National Establishment still Lives Breathes Speaks Commands and Obliges too under Sin though not under Civil Penalty Every one knows that has either Read or Thought any thing about the Nature of Laws that a Toleration is very much short of a Dispensation But now a Dispensation does not Abolish the Precept of the Law much less then may a Toleration be supposed able to do it Indeed a Dispensation does some way affect the Preceptive part of the Law and that is it whereby it exceeds a Toleration It is indeed a present Suspension of it not an absolute thorough Suspension but a Suspension with relation to such a particular Person or Action in respect of which the present Course of the Law is interrupted But now a Toleration does not so much as affect the Preceptive part of the Law it has no manner of effect upon it much less can it Abolish it or Null the the Obliging force of it All therefore that it can do is only to remove the Penalty And this is the true Difference and perhaps the Only one that can be assigned between a Dispensation and a Toleration A Dispensation does for the present and to some intents and purposes bind up or suspend the Preceptive part of the Law and interrupts the Authoritative and Obliging Power of it and thereby makes it not only consistent with Impunity but with Innocency to act against it For it makes the Law as no Law with respect to the Person or Persons dispens'd with and for the time while they are dispens'd with But now a Toleration does not pass any such Effect indeed not any at all upon the Preceptive part of the Law It neither strikes it nor is levell'd at it All the Execution that it does or is design'd to do is upon the Penal part which indeed for the time is wholly remov'd by it So that a Dispensation does as much exceed a Toleration as an Abrogation does a Dispensation In that a Dispensation does do no more than Suspend the Preceptive part
indeed some say who say neither of the other Nor is this an inconsiderable Exception if true For as every thing is Beautiful in its Season so is Season the Beauty of every thing and there is nothing Beautiful out of it Actions Materially good and wherein we mean well are oftentimes utterly spoil'd merely by being Mis-timed But why I pray was this Charge so unseasonable What because the Separation was grown very wide and by reason of the relaxation of the Government growing still every day wider because some were invited to it as they are to other Sins by Impunity and others began to make that a Plea for its Lawfulness because it began to set up for one of the Court-fashions and was growing to be not only a Priviledge of the Saint but the Accomplishment of the Gentleman because some used their Liberty as a Cloak for their Maliciousness and almost all as an Opportunity to serve the Interest of their Cause because lastly that Church and State which were so lately rescued from the Jaws of Popery were now in as Critical a Point of Danger from the Incroachments of the Separation was it therefore out of season to Charge the Separatists with Schism Now I always thought that the most proper Season to admonish Men of their faults was when they were most Rife and Epidemical and when they had most Temptations and Opportunities of committing them and when the Commission of them would threaten the greatest Danger and Mischief This has been generally thought the most proper Season of Admonition by all wise Men in all other Matters and why not in this 'T is the necessity of Admonition that at any time makes it seasonable and then there is most need of it when the Manners and Ways of Men are most disorderly and irregular The more corrupt therefore and degenerate the Age the more seasonable is the Reproof And indeed if the general prevalency and fashionableness of Vice be enough to make Admonition unseasonable 't is now high time considering the Moral state of the World that not only all Writing but all Preaching too were laid aside But this I suppose is a consequence which those that blame our Author's Charge as unseasonable will not admit whence it follows whatever in partiality to their own concern they may be induced to say that even by their own measure it was not really unseasonable But 't is further said that this was a Treatment altogether unexpected and unlook'd for They expected now as much favour from the Pulpit and the Press as they found from the Government and that there should now be no other Discourses about them but such as were Healing Complying and tending to Moderation and not to have the old business of Schism reviv'd again This was as much contrary to Expectation as to Inclination and Humour and was it not enough to vex any body to be so disappointed That it was enough the Event shews but whether it ought to be may admit more question But I 'll tell you a Story While Thcodora poffess'd the Empire of Constantinople with her Son who was yet in minority one named Methodius an excellent Painter an Italian by Nation and Religious by Profession went to the Court of the Bulgarian King named Bogoris where he was entertain'd with much favour This Prince way yet a Pagan and though tryal had been made to Convert him to the Faith it succeeded not because his Mind was so set upon Pleasures that Reason could find but little access He was excessively pleas'd with Hunting and as some delight in Pictures to behold what they love so he appointed Methodius to paint him a piece of Hunting in a Palace which he had newly built The Painter seeing he had a fair Occasion to take his opportunity for the Conversion of this Infidel instead of Painting an Hunting piece for him made an exquisite Table of the Day of Judgment Wherein he represented that great Solemnity with all its Circumstances of Terror In the end the day assign'd being come he drew aside the Curtain and shew'd his Work 'T is said the King at first stood some while pensive not being able to wonder enough at the strange Sight Then turning towards Methodius What is this said he The Religious Man took Occasion thereupon to tell him of the Judgments of God of Punishments and Rewards in the other Life wherewith he was so moved that in a short time he yielded himself to God by a happy Conversion Now whether this Device of the Painter was unseasonable or no or whether the advantage of the Design and of the Event would excuse the Disappointment I leave to the Reader to judge And thus Sir having fully clear'd my Friend from the treble Indictment laid in against him by shewing his Charge of Schism to have been neither false nor uncharitable nor unseasonable I shall now for a Conclusion of all address my self to the Dissenters in a word or two concerning their Behaviour under the present Toleration Not what it is or has been for that is well enough known but what it ought to be Some it may be who are not all over Argument-Proof moved with the Reason of the fore-going Considerations may be ready to ask of me What would you then have us to do or how shall we behave our selves under the present state of Things It seems indeed to be as you say That the Relaxation of the Government makes no Change in the Obligations to Conformity but if we should lay down the Separation and come over to the Church what are we the better for the Toleration And is it reasonable that there should be a Toleration and we not the better for it What was the Toleration granted not to be enjoyed Is it like the Tree of Paradice good for Food and pleasant to the Eye and withall planted within our reach and yet not to be medled with Shall we be so unkind to our selves as not to embrace an opportunity of Ease and Liberty Or so ungrateful to the Government as not to make use of that Privilege of Indulgence which the kindness of our Superiors has vouchsafed us What would you have us do I answer in one word Do now as you ought to do before For since the Toleration as has been proved makes not any the least Alteration in those Obligations to Church-Unity that are derived either from the Law of the State or from the Law of God but all things as to that stand now in the same posture as they did 't is plain that your Behaviour also ought to be the very same now that it ought to have been before the Toleration If the Points of the Compass stand now as they did then without any Declension or Variation 't is plain that you ought to steer the same Course now as you ought then If you ask what that is I answer First Lay aside as much as possibly you can all manner of Prejudice that may arise either from