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
certainly will in case he make use of the same Liberty So that Absolute and Universal Liberty of Conscience is a down-right contradictory inconsistent Supposition which one Consideration by the way is sufficient to overthrow all that a Late Author has pleaded in its behalf But I shall pursue this no further as being only a Digression from my Present Concern What I stand for now is this That a Toleration when it is granted implies no more than only a Removal of such Penalties as the Law would otherwise inflict upon those who Disobey it That it does not either Abrogate or Suspend or Dispense with the Law but only bridles and reins up the Execution of it All which is to be understood with the fore-mention'd Condition where there is an Establish'd National Church And this notwithstanding the Toleration is the present Case in England where there is a Church Establisht by the Law of the Land and invested with several Temporal as well as Ecclesiastick Rights and Priviledges where the Publick Liturgy stands Authorized by several Acts of Parliament where Articles of Religion and Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical are also Confirm'd by the same Authority where the Acts of Uniformity remain unrepeal'd as before and where even the Dissenters themselves are all required to pay Tithes to the Publick and Legallyappointed Ministry Which is also a plain and certain Argument that they are required to attend upon it and conform to it For is it imaginable that the Laws should Oblige them to Contribute their part to the Support and Maintenance of that Worship to which they do not enjoyn them to Conform This would be against the very Supposition of an Establishment and would place the Church and the Conventicle upon an equal ground indeed that is it would make neither of them Establisht but both only Tolerated But they confess the Church to be Establisht and so indeed she is as much as ever and therefore the only Change made by the Toleration is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside As for the Preceptive that stands where it did and Obliges under Sin though not under Civil Penalty And if so then those who now divide from this Church Establisht by Law which Law does also require their Communion with it are true and proper Transgressors against the Law and if they do it Causelesly are also guilty of the Breach of Church-Unity that is of Schism notwithstanding any Publick Order for the not inflicting the Punishment otherwise due to them for so transgressing This cannot excuse them either from Disobedience to the State or from Schism in the Church with whose Establishment they are still Obliged to Conform as far as Lawfully they may though not accountable to the Law for their Non-conformity Thus the Jews were justly taxable with disobedience to their Law in the matter of Arbitrary Divorce though for some Prudential Reasons tolerated in the Practice of it by Moses their Chief Magistrate The Effect of which Toleration as our Saviour himself expounds it was not Innocency but only Impunity Against what has been hitherto discours'd I know but of one Objection that a Man would not be Ashamed to Urge or Impertinent to Answer or that deserves the Expence of Ink and Paper But there is another which I must first take in my way because 't is thrown upon me and is very loud and importunate for Satisfaction which must therefore I think be given it for quietness sake In the first place then it is pleaded that this is no Ordinary Toleration That it is not a bare Supine Neglect to animadvert a kind of Drowise fit or Nodding of the Government no nor a design'd and deliberate Connivance only nor yet a Private act of Indulgence declared by the Will and in the Name of the Prince alone But that 't is an Indulgence granted and setled by an Act of the whole Legislative by the joint Concurrence of King and Parliament that 't is a Toleration by Law by the same Law upon which the Church it self is erected and by which it stands This is the Common Popular Objection and there is not a Woman or a Shop-keeper but what is Big with it Now I grant the Dissenters that they have a Toleration setled by Law and that therefore this is no Ordinary Toleration and I know they are not a little puffed up with it And by the way Sir 't would make even a very grave Man smile to see how those Men who have been hitherto such Despisers and Vilifiers of a National Establishment are now lifted up with the Conceit of a National Liberty Of what advantage this may prove either to themselves or to the Nation or to the general Interest of Religion I leave to wiser Heads to Conjecture and to Time to shew but in the mean while I fancy this their Plea from the Extraordinariness of the Toleration will do 'em but little service For 't is the unhappiness of this Objection that it proceeds upon a wrong State of the Question The Question is not concerning either the Kind or the Degree of the Authority but concerning the Nature and the Extent of the Grant not by what they are Authorized but to what whether to act Allowedly and with Innocence or only Unrestrainedly and with Impunity And to what purpose then do they insist upon the Greatness of the Authority If it be said that this is no Mistaking the State of the Question but an Inferring the thing denied viz. Liberty of Allowance from the Greatness of that Authority whereby this Solemn Toleration is granted I Answer that then the Inference is grosly False and Illogical 'T is certainly a very pleasant way of Arguing to infer the greater extent of the Grant from the Greatness of the Authority whereby it is made as if a Lesser Grant might not be the Effect of a Greater Authority Suppose that instead of Moses God himself had been the Author of the Toleration concerning Arbitrary Divorce among the Jews This Toleration was indeed given by Moses without any Divine Commission for it as far as appears But suppose it had been given by God himself It will be readily granted that such a Toleration as this would have been of much greater Authority than the other indeed of the greatest in the World But would it therefore have been to any higher Purpose or greater Effect No that does not follow Moses his Toleration reacht as far as Impunity and a Divine one would have reacht no further It would not have produc'd any other Effect though perhaps it might have been a further Security and Establishment of the same Though the Authority it self be Greater yet the thing granted by that Authority may be the same that is otherwise granted by a Lesser and if there be nothing else in the Business but only a greater Degree of Authority it must and will be so And thus 't is in the Case before us Though a Toleration by Act of
Mr. Hales a very Free and for the most part Judicious Writer and one very remarkable for his Moderation especially as to all Church-matters and who writes of Schism with all the tenderness imaginable handling it as if he were feeling the Edge of a Razor And yet after all his Endeavours to reduce it into as narrow a compass as he could by making as few guilty of it as might be he could find nothing to justifie Separation but only Sinfulness of Communion As may appear from several Passages that occur in his Tract of Schism For says he Page 195. For the further opening the Nature of Schism something must be added by way of difference to distinguish it from necessary Separation and that is that the Causes upon which Division is attempted proceed not from Passion or Distemper or Ambition or Avarice or such other Ends as Human Folly is apt to pursue but from well-weigh'd and necessary Reasons and that when all other Means having been tried nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience but open Separation So that Schism if we would define it is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church of which they were once Members Again says he Page 198. Unadvisedly and upon Fancy to break the Knot of Union between Man and Man especially among Christians upon whom above all other kind of men the tye of Love and Communion does most especially rest is a Crime hardly pardonable and that nothing Absolves a man from the guilt of it but true and unpretended Conscience Again says he Page 209. What if those to whose care the execution of the Publick Service is committed do something unlawful c. yet for all this we may not separate except we be constrain'd personally to bear a part our selves The Priests under Eli had so ill demean'd themselves about the daily Sacrifice that the Scriptures tell us they made it stink yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest For in these Schisms which concern Fact nothing can be a just Cause of refusal of Communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. Again says he Page 215. Why may I not go if occasion require to an Arian Church so there be no Arianism exprest in their Liturgy And again Lastly Page 227. speaking of Conventicles says he It evidently appears that all Meetings upon unnecessary occasions of Separation are to be so stiled so that in this sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismaticks From these and other like Passages any one may be satisfy'd that Mr. Hales with all his Moderation could not but see that where Separation is not necessary there Communion is and that to depart from the Communion of a visible Establisht Church with whom you may lawfully Communicate is to be guilty of Schism And so much seems to be granted even by the Author of the Letter of Toleration who defines Schism to be an ill grounded Separation in Ecclesiastical Communion made about things not necessary 'T is true indeed by things not necessary this Author means as he afterwards explains himself things not expresly contain'd in the Rule making him a Schismatick that separates from a Church because that Church does not require what the Scripture does not But this will come to one and the same thing For why is he a Schismatick that makes a Separation from a Church for not requiring more than is expresly contain'd in Scripture but only because he might Communicate with that Church notwithstanding this her frugality and reservedness and consequently his Separation was unnecessary This is the thing into which the Schism of such a Separatist must be at last resolv'd And then for the same reason why is not he as much a Schismatick that separates from a Church that does require more than the Scripture expresly contains provided it be not contrary to the Rule of Scripture since with this Church he may also lawfully Communicate and therefore has no Necessity for his Separation 'T is the unnecessity of the Separation that in both Cases makes the Schism So that this Notion of our Author though at first sight it seems to offer somewhat New resolves it self at long run into the Old Common Notion of Schism which has all along obtain'd in the Christian World Where-ever therefore there is no necessity of separating there the Church has a Right to Communion which to with-hold from her is Schism or else there is no such thing as Schism in the World This Right the Church of Rome had before her falling into her gross Corruptions and this Right the Church of England and all other Churches have that are Reform'd from them And this Right every Lawfully Constituted Church has by vertue of the Divine Law which is her Original Charta and which of it self lays upon all Christians a sufficient Obligation to Church-Unity though there should be no Civil Authority to back and inforce it For indeed unless it were so how could there be such a thing as the Sign of Schism in the Apostles Times and in the more Primitive Ages of the Church There was then no Civil Law to Oblige Christians to church-Church-Communion so far from this that the Edge and Point of the Civil Sword was turn'd directly against it The State and the Church then not only moved in two Different but in two Opposite Spheres And yet we find that in those early times the Sin of Schism was as much condemn'd and Schismatical Persons as deeply branded as in any of the after Ages Nay more indeed because of the singularity and strangeness of the Crime Punish'd indeed they could not so well be for want of the Concurrence of the Civil Sword which was not then in a Christian hand but they were censured and condemn'd and according to the Apostle's Admonition those were mark'd and avoided that caused Divisions And therefore though we should allow the Present Toleration to Silence the Civil Law whereby Conformity is injoyn'd which yet from the Premises appears to be far otherwise yet since the Divine Law requiring all possible Unity stands uncancell'd for sure the Toleration won't be pretended to reach that those that make Caufeless and unnecessary Divisions will still be guilty of Schism notwithstanding the favour of the Toleration which I am afraid will prove but an indifferent Plea for Separation at the Last day to those that have no better What then you 'll say is the Effect of a Toleration Or what can be supposed to be the just and reasonable intent of it I answer As to the Effect it cannot release at all from any preceding Obligation It does not release so much as from the Obligation of the Civil Law whose Penalty it only suspends much less does it release from Obligation to the Divine Law with which it has nothing to do and upon which it has
no manner of Effect It does not therefore discharge any from Obligation to Conformity who would not be discharged without it All indeed are actually eased by it that 's an universal and indifferent Effect but none are discharged or unobliged Then as to the Intent of it all that it can be reasonably intended for is to ease those few from Penalties for I doubt they are not many who are so unhappy as really and sincerely to be persuaded in their Consciences that 't is not Lawful for them to joyn in Communion with the Church of England Though the Toleration does actually Ease all indifferently yet 't is for the Ease of such only that a Toleration can be justly or reasonably intended whose Condition indeed would be as pitiable as I am afraid it is rare But even here the Toleration has no other Effect than barely to Ease them If they are withall releas'd from any Obligation 't is not by Vertue of the Toleration but by Reason of something else namely their unhappy Judgment and Persuasion in thinking our Communion unlawful which however in it self false and erroneous must be allow'd to bind in Conscience while 't is their Misfortune to be under it This is the thing that releases from Obligation whenever there is any Releasement The Toleration only Eases them from suffering the Penalty of Non-conformity And 't is for their Ease only that it can be reasonably intended But as for those who are satisfy'd of the Lawfulness of Communicating with the Establisht Church who I fear make the greatest part of those that separate from it they are still obliged under pain of Sin though not of Civil Chastisement to Communicate with it And if they do not 't is not a Toleration or Act of Indulgence though granted by the highest Power upon Earth that can excuse them from the Sin of Schism at least before God Nor do such Men deserve the favour of a Toleration And now Sir from the Measures laid down it plainly appears that if the Separatists from the Church of England were guilty of Schism before the Toleration which whether they were or no depends upon other Grounds and is not now to be disputed over again they are as much guilty of it now there being no Change made by the Toleration as to the Preceptive but only as to the Penal part of the Law Which may suffice to clear the Author of Christian Blessedness of the first Imputation laid against him that of a false Charge The two others will be more easily and more briefly dispatch'd The next thing therefore for which our Author is blamed is the Uncharitableness of his Charge This indeed is a heavy Censure and ought to be well-grounded or else it will recoil upon those that make it But I think there has been that said upon the former Objection that will scarce allow any room for this For if the Author's Charge was uncharitable it must be either because of the Matter of it or because of the End and Design of it Not certainly upon the account of its Matter because that appears to be true for the proof of which I appeal to the Reason and Argument of the preceding Discourse And if they fix the Uncharitableness of it upon its End and Design they themselves will bring their own Charity in question by judging so severely of the Intentions of the Author which they cannot be supposed to be privy to For how can they pretend to know the Author's Thoughts and Designs Did he ever Communicate his Intentions to them Or will they Judge by Inspiration and pretend to the Gift of Divining and Conjecturing as well as of Praying by the Spirit I that am intimately acquainted with the Author and know more of his Principles and Sentiments Thoughts and Intentions than any of those that take the Liberty of Censuring and Condemning them do verily believe that in his continuing the Charge of Schism upon the Separatists he intended nothing against Charity but rather the greatest Charity and Good-will I know 't is his most deliberate and well-assured Sense that if ever there was or can be such a Sin as Schism in the Church of Christ they of the Present Separation are truly and deeply guilty of it And since it came fairly in his way he thought himself obliged in Charity to reprehend them from it not knowing what good effect a Candid and Rational Admonition might have upon those for he had Charity enough to hope there might be some such who were not quite over-run with the Humour of Opposition nor arm'd Cap-a-pee with Prejudice And being withal in the mean time assured of the Duty of Fraternal Correption and how much that concerns every Christian as being the Duty even of a Jew in any-wise to rebuke his Brother and not to suffer Sin to lie upon him And if I may have leave to divert a little from the Defence of my Friend to my own Justification I think I may safely say that I am now in Prosecution of the very same Charitable Design For though I acknowledge my self to have had some regard to the Reputation of my Friend which I think has suffer'd without Cause and which to Assert and Vindicate I take to be a very Innocent Design yet I can say as far as I know the inward Springs of my own Actions that the Principal End and aim of this Undertaking was to further that great and dear Interest of Christianity for which our departing Saviour so earnestly and so solemnly pray'd to his Father the Interest of Ecclesiastick Unity To further this I say is my main Design both by awakening the Consciences of those who by the Favour of the Government striking in with their own Natural humour of Contradiction may be tempted against the inward Sense and Light of their Minds to transgress against the great Christian Obligation to Publick Order and Unity of Worship and by undeceiving and disabusing others who by the Impunity of the present Toleration may be so far imposed upon as to fancy themselves releas'd from any such Obligation Both which I think are very Good very Charitable and very Christian Designs But to return I think Sir there appears now to be as little reason for taxing our Author with Uncharity as with Error For his own part I believe he is Conscious to himself of neither But if he is Guilty I dare say he would be glad to be Convinc'd that so he might Rectifie the One and Repent of the Other For the present he thinks there is so little occasion for either that if he had not only Charg'd our Separatists with Schism but with the most unjust and unreasonable Schism that ever was made in the Christian Church he thinks it would have been no Slander And he has Commission'd me to say that he is ready against any Opposer to make it good But though the Author's Charge was neither False nor Uncharitable yet was it not something Unseasonable So
Natural Temper and Complexion or from Education or from long Custom to a contrary way or from blind Regard to the Authority of some Men for whom perhaps you have had a more early than just Veneration or from Humour or from Passion or from Interest or from whatever else may bride and corrupt the genuine native Sense of our Minds For unless the Scale hang even 't is to no purpose to weigh any thing in it Secondly When you have thus truly devested your selves of all Prejudice and reduced your Judgments to an even poise then apply your selves seriously and deliberately impartially and sincerely soberly and in the fear of God to consider and examin the State and Constitution of our Church and the Terms of her Communion whether they are lawful or no. But be sure you do not this by advising only with Books of your own way or by consulting only with Guides of your own Party and Persuasion for this would be to fall back into your old Prejudice again but by a free and indifferent recourse to the Writers and Leaders of both Sides by considering and weighing what is offered by the learned and excellent Defenders of the Church as well as what is said by the Advocates for the Separation and by trying and judging all according to the infallible Rule of Scripture and the Eternal Truth of God shining forth in your own Souls And if Thirdly After your most impartial and sincere Endeavours rightly to inform your selves according to the best use of your Faculties and Opportunities it be still your unhappiness verily to be persuaded in your Consciences that the Communion of the Church of England is unlawful which though I cannot deny to be absolutely possible seems yet as hard to me for a considerate Man really to believe as to believe Transubstantiation yet I say if you should be invincibly determin'd to such a Persuasion in the Name of God abide where you are and make use of the Toleration and enjoy the Benefit of it with Peace and Satisfaction of Mind I would not for a World persuade you to Communicate with the Church of England as excellent as she is against the real Sense and Persuasion of your Consciences For the following of which you can never be accountable provided it be not your fault that you are of that Persuasion But if Fourthly and Lastly You are Convinced of the Lawfulness of holding Communion with the Church and to be free with you I cannot but think that most of you are if you would confess the truth then I pray consider seriously with your selves what tolerable Account you will be able to render either to God or Man for continuing a Separation in that Church where even according to your own Judgment and Confession you might lawfully Communicate Or how you can be said to preserve the Unity of the Catholick Church or that Communion of Saints which you profess to believe if you separate from the Communion of a Visible Establisht National Church of whose Lawfulness you are satisfy'd and from whom therefore you need not separate Consider whether this be not a Causeless dividing dis-uniting and dismembring of the Body of Christ a high Violation of that Publick Order and Decency which he has required in his Church and as great a Breach of the Christian Peace as you can possibly be guilty of in the Peace of the State In one word consider whether this be not all that which both Scripture and the best Antiquity represent and so severely condemn under that one Emphatical word Schism And do not think to salve all at last by taking Sanctuary in the Toleration This you see stands Neuter leaves the State of the Question as it found it and does not at all interpose for your relief but leaves you to stand or fall by the Absolute Merits of your Cause These therefore alone you ought to consider and enquire into viz. Whether you can honestly and safely Communicate with us or no And if you find you can then 't is most certain that you ought The Law of God and the Law of Man for the Toleration you see evacuates neither do still oblige you to it and if you do not though the Government excuses you from the Penalty yet neither that nor any thing else will excuse you from the Sin of Schism The short is that which will justifie such a Separation as this will justifie any and then there will be no such thing as an Obligation to Church-Unity and consequently no such thing as Schism in the World And I desire never to reduce an Adversary to a greater Extremity than when he is forced to deny the very Being and Possibility of the Sin of Schism that he may prove himself to be no Schismatick This Sir is all I think necessary to say upon this Occasion and I think I have said nothing but what I have well thought and consider'd and what is my real Judgment and what will stand the Test whether of Charity or of Truth I have view'd and review'd what I have written and I must needs declare that I cannot discern the least flaw in the Argument of this Discourse nor do I fear the Severity of the most Critical Eye or Hand However if any one of the Learned among the Diffenting Party thinks the Argument of this Discourse may be Answer'd and withall thinks himself sufficiently qualify'd for the Undertaking for I declare before-hand that I shall not think my self concern'd to take notice of every impertinent Scribler I fairly and freely invite him to it and withall do promise him for his better encouragement that he shall find me either Able to Defend what I have written or Willing to Submit Farewell POSTSCRIPT Concerning MODERATION I Think it very proper and seasonable in a word or two to rectifie another very Popular Mistake wherewith I find most Common Persons and some others are imposed upon It is concerning Moderation whose Notion I perceive to be generally as much abused as that of Toleration and to as ill a purpose Moderation without question if rightly understood is a most excellent thing as signifying I. In general such a temper of Soul and such a government of all a Man's Thoughts and Desires Words and Actions as may steer the course of Life in the middle way between the Extremes of Defect and Excess so as to be always affected in Proportion to the Greatness or Goodness of the End and to the Necessity or Usefulness of the Means Or as signifying more particularly with relation to the Body such a due and well-proportion'd conduct of it and regard to it as becomes a Creature that is neither a meer Animal nor a pure Spirit but partakes of both Natures and therefore ought not so to be addicted to the interest of the Body as to neglect the Spiritual Life nor yet so devoted to the Life of the Spirit as to forget he is in the Body This way being as much too High as
grounded that I need not insist upon this Plea From the whole course of this Argument which I believe has receiv'd no damage by the management it fully and clearly appears that the Sanction of the Law is not only a thing really distinct from it but also no way necessary to its Obligation and therefore that the removing of the Sanction does not imply or involve the removal of the Law and consequently that the Toleration by removing the Sanction does not remove no nor so much as interrupt the Obligation of the Law to which the Sanction has been shewn to be not at all necessary Which I think breaks the Neck of the Objection and he had need be a very skilful Artist that shall set it agen Well but suppose which you see is not the Case that the Law which enjoyns Conformity to the Religion and Church establisht were by the Toleration perfectly remov'd and the Preceptive part of it taken away as well as the Penal yet neither upon this Supposition which is indeed a very great Concession and Abatement would a Toleration excuse those from Schism who would be guilty of it without it For Sir these Men are to consider if they have not already consider'd it that we do not derive the Grounds of Obligation to Ecclesiastick Communion only from the Authority of the Civil Law though that must be allow'd to add a considerable weight to the Obligation but also and chiefly from that of the Divine Law which I conceive to be as Positive and as Express in requiring Unity and Conformity of Worship as in requiring any Religious Worship at all The necessity of this is by S. Paul press'd upon the Ephesians from the Unity of that Body whereof they were Members from the Unity of that Spirit which was to them the Common Principle of Life and Action from the Unity of that Hope to which they were call'd from the Unity of that Lord to whose Service they were all devoted from the Unity of that Faith which they all profess'd from the Unity of that Baptism whereby they were grafted into the Church of Christ and lastly from the Unity of that God who was the Father of them all who was above all and in them all Every one of which Heads of Argument might justly deserve the Consideration of a particular Discourse but that I am willing to suppose my Reader so apprehensive as not to want to have things laid out to him more at large Accordingly the Christian Church is always represented by Figures that express the greatest Unity not only between that and Christ but also between Fellow-Christians This is said to be that One Body into which we are all Baptized by One Spirit and which is said to be fitly joyn'd together and compacted This is that Spiritual House built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner-stone in whom all the Building fitly framed together grows into an Holy Temple in the Lord. 'T is represented also as one Flock under one Shepherd Jesus Christ whose last and most Solemn Prayer was for the Unity of the Church which must therefore be supposed to be highly agreeable to the Mind and Will of God otherwise our Saviour would not have pray'd for it so earnestly and with such Solemnity Though I question very much whether this Solemn Prayer of Christ will be fully heard and answer'd till the Glorious State of his Millennial Reign upon Earth However in the mean time 't is most certain that 't is the Great Duty of us all to endeavour after that State of Unity which our Saviour pray'd might be among his Disciples Hence it is that Schism is Condemn'd as a Work of the Flesh and those that Separate are said to be Sensual not having the Spirit and Christians are admonish'd to mark and shun them that cause Divisions and are withall Commanded to mind or think one and the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stand fast in one Spirit with one Mind to walk by the same Rule to be joyn'd together in the same Mind and in the same Judgment and with one Mind and Mouth to glorifie God the Father with a World of Precepts and Exhortations to the same purpose which every one may find that does but open the Bible Now what can all this signifie Nothing certainly less than this That the Unity of the Church is so Sacred a thing that it ought to be preserv'd by all Lawful means and that no Separation ought to be made in it without absolute and evident Necessity In one word that where 't is Lawful to Communicate there 't is Sinful to Separate Which is more expresly deliver'd in that Apostolical Canon taken notice of by the Author of Christian Blessedness If it be possible as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. This takes in the whole Latitude and Capacity of Society the State as well as the Church in both which by vertue of this Precept Peace and Unity is to be maintain'd as far as is Possible and therefore without question on as far as is Lawful And if the Peace of the State is to be preserv'd as far as is possible then certainly much more the Peace of the Church Since then the Scripture is both so frequent and so express I might say also so earnest and passionate in inculcating the Necessity of preserving the Unity of the Church and in Condemning all unnecessary disturbances of it it is most certain that the Divine Law without the Confirmation of the Civil is a sufficient Obligation to Church-Unity where-ever it may Lawfully be held Every Christian Church that proposes Lawful terms of Communication has by the Law of God though the Civil Law be silent in the case an undoubted Right to the Conformity of all that are within the Pale of her Establishment who cannot with-hold it from her without incurring the Guilt of Schism which according to the general sense of the Christian World is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation and then is Separation unnecessary when Communion is lawful The Argument in Form is Whoever separates unnecessarily is guilty of Schism But whoever separates where he may lawfully Communicate separates unnecessarily Therefore whoever separates where he may lawfully Communicate is guilty of Schism The Minor Proposition is plain by its omn Light since there can no Moral necessity be pretended for not doing what may Lawfully be done And the Major Proposition is clear by the Light of Scripture which presses and injoyns the Peace and Unity of the Church to the very utmost degree of strictness even as far as is possible Whence the Conclusion necessarily follows That whoever separates where he may lawfully Communicate is guilty of Schism This is so clear and evident that the most moderately affected in Point of Church-Unity and Conformity could never shut their Eyes against the Light of it though they endeavour'd to wink never so hard Particularly
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