they will admit of no other Plea But what if terms of Conformity be not sinful it is sufficient for us that we are under no Obligation to comply with them our Governours have left us at our Liberty and though the Bishops may still command them yet our own Pastors are as truly Bishops as they The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them but may be much better preserved without them and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble declares that it is the Sense of the King Lords and Commons that not Conformity but ease to scrupulous Consciences may be an effectual means to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection and the Worship of God may be as decently performed without them how are we then obliged to comply with such things Will he say it is our Duty to use all those Ceremonies and Customs in the Worship of God that are not sinful What if a Papist should ask him Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church Why do you not use Salt and Cream and Spittle in Baptism Why do you not Cross your Breasts and Shave your Heads Can you prove these things to be sinful I suppose this Gentleman would reply we care not whether they be sinful or no we are not obliged to use them and if the Papist should alledge the Command of the Catholick Church he would reply No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn such things upon us and our own Governours have not done it if the other should urge that we must comply for Unity sake he would answer The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of such Rites and Ceremonies if the Papists should press it further These are decent Ceremonies and serve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Christ and have rare mystical Signification surely He would rejoyn The Worship of God is managed by us very decently without such things Thus we say in answer to his demand if we be not obliged to Conformity though it should not be unlawful our Nonconformity is very justifiable therefore this Plea of the Sinfulness of the thing is not now so necessary as he imagines but lest we should seem to acknowledge that we had nothing to justifie our practice heretofore when Conformity was required by the Law And that we are still for an unaccountable Singularity and are resolved to differ from others meerly for distinction sake and have no regard to Parochial Order which we have formerly seemed to approve of I shall venture to say something upon this point though I am sensible before-hand some will blame me for saying so much and others for saying no more The World is not to seek for the Reasons of our Nonconformity a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatises some of which have received no answer at all as Dr. Rule 's Rational Defence and Mr. Baxter's English Nonconformity Stated and Argued wherein the Case is so copiously and yet so closely debated in the several particulars both of Ministerial and Lay-Conformity that it seems wholly superfluous to add any thing till we see what answer will be made unto it I have seen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controversie but only tells us with Confidence enough that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unnecessary unseasonable and unaccountable Undertaking and has been already answered which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Dissenters and the common reply of every baffled Party to all that is writ against them and is only taken up as a little shist to serve an easie and credulous sort of Men amongst themselves but can never be designed to give Satisfaction to others and if such Trifles must pass for an Answer to a Book so Large Distinct and Argumentative as Mr. Baxter's is truly it is to no purpose either to write or read Controversie There are three Steps a man must take before he can arrive at the heighth of English Conformity 1. He must submit to the Use and Practice of the Impositions 2. He must declare his Approbation and good liking of them 3. He must Swear never to endeavour any Alteration some of us stumble at the First many stick at the Second but the Last is most inaccessible 1. Many of us can by no means be satisfied with the constant Use and Practice of these controverted Matters and that for these Reasons amongst others 1. We observe That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages risen from this Source introducing unnecessary Ceremonies in the worship of God teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men this had reduced the Jewish Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time And the grand Apostacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Ecclesiasticks beyond its measure and exerting it in the Invention and Imposition of such Mystical Rites and Ceremonies and by adding still thereunto it grew up to such a Mystery of Iniquity and Monster of Usurpation and Tyranny as it appears at this day in the World and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and those of Rome and we could never prevail with our Antagonists to give us a Rule to distinguish them by It is usually said ours are but few but theirs are many and therefore burthensom but this does not satisfie for many or few alters not the kind and if it be lawful to use Three why not Six Twenty or a Hundred besides if ours be therefore better because they are fewer I hope they will give us leave to infer the fewer Ceremonies and the better and therefore best of all where there are none if the Matter must be resolved into their Positive decency we have already shewed by their own Confession there is no such decency in them but the worship of God may be managed as well without them But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority then let the Church command never so many we must comply and so are as much enslaved to the humours of the Ecclesiasticks as the Papists themselves and the case standing thus we think none can justly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superstition and Arbitrary Church Power by entertaining and embracing those things that have given it rise and strength in other Parts and Ages of the World Our Objection against them is not that weak and silly thing some represent it as if we reject them meerly because the Papists use them but we do it because the Imposition and use of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy 2. Especially since they are altogether useless and have no tendency to promote that which is good this much strengthens the prejudice they have done a great deal of harm and they can do no good by the Confession of the Imposers and we cannot imagine why they should
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
any way concerned in them And many of those that were at that time most zealous in urging the Covenant and Engagement and Abjuration were the first that turn'd with the Times and became as Troublesome and Vexations on the other Side and yet the instance which this Gentleman brings ought to be a little examined for 't is neither Pertinent nor True as to Matter of Fact It is not pertinent because not appertaining to the ordinary Worship of God that which he calls the Rebellious Covenant was a Solemn Oath whereby Men bound themselves to endeavour in their Places a Reformation both in Church and State according to the Word of God and particularly to preserve the King's Person pursuant to which Clause Thousands of Scotch and and English hazarded all that was dear to them on the behalf of the Royal Family Royal Declar. at Dumferling Aug. 16. 1650. it was deliberately and voluntarily taken by King Charles the Second who professed himself deeply humbled for his Father's Opposition to it and that upon full perswasion of the Justice and Equity of all the Articles thereof he had Sworn and Subscribed it and was resolved to adhere thereunto to the utmost of his Power and to prosecute the Ends of it all the days of his life And it is certain the Restoration of that Prince is very much owing to the Sence which a great many had of the binding Power of that Covenant as Mr. Crofton shews in his Defence of it against Dr. Gauden Now this being a Solemn Oath must needs as all other Oaths require some signal Expression of Consent according to the Custom of all Civilized Nations in some this Consent is signified Viva voce in some by kissing the Book in Scotland by lifting up the Hand and as we had the Covenant from thence so their Signification of Consent was used also being more suitable for the expressing the Joynt Consent of a Multitude than any other but this is nothing to Mystical Ceremonies in the stated Worship of God if no more had been required of us in the late Troublesome Times than to kiss the Book when we were called to take an Oath there would not have been many Dissenters excepting those that scruple Swearing upon any Account Besides it is not true that this Covenant with the manner of taking of it was ever imposed as a term of Communion The House of Commons indeed and the Assembly of Divines took it and most of those that held any Office of Profit or Trust but it was never imposed upon any on Pain of Excommunication or Suspension from the Lord's Supper Rushworth's Coll. Part. 3. p. 475. it was to be tendered to all in general and an Exhortation drawn up for the satisfying of those that might scruple the taking of it but it was forced upon none by any Penalties Corporal or Spiritual if the Ceremonies and Subscriptions had been no otherwise imposed it had been happy for us The Presbyterians neither imposed nor used any Mystical Ceremonies of their own devising in the Worship of God they never tied Men up to the Words of their Directory nor required any to Subscribe to it or declare their Assent and Consent to all things therein contained they never obliged Persons to Swear against endeavouring an Alteration but bound themselves to promote a Reformation of whatever should be found to be contrary to the Word of God and therefore they gave no Presidents for what has been done against them in the late Reigns 2. The Gentleman tells us the Apostles made meer Ceremonies Terms of Communion in their days which is not true and yet if it were would not justifie others in doing so who have not the Commission and Power which the Apostles had The Gentleman instances in having all things Common in their Love-Feasts and in the holy Kiss and affirms that these were meer Ceremonies imposed by the Apostles as terms of Communion but he 's miserably out all along As to the Custom of having all things common nothing more evident than that it was a thing purely voluntary and imposed upon none St. Peter tells Ananias Whilst it remained it was his own Acts 5.4 and after it was Sold it was in his Power he might have done with it what he pleased but the Sin was Lying against the Holy Ghost in pretending they had dedicated the whole to God when part was kept back surely this was more than the omission of a meer Ceremony And he is not more happy in the second instance of the Love-Feasts for as they were no Parts of Religious Worship but either going before or immediately following the Eucharist so it no where appears that they were ever instituted by the Apostles at all much less imposed as terms of Communion and though some Learned Men think the Apostles recommended them to the Churches yet I see nothing in Scripture to ground such an Opinion upon but rather on the contrary for 1 Cor. 11.20 21. the Apostle does not only reprove them for their Disorders in those Feasts but seems to disapprove of the very thing it self and advises them rather to Eat their Meat at their own Houses than to make those Solemn Assemblies Places and Times of such Feasting And the Learned Dr. Lightfoot seems to have a great deal of reason for what he says upon this place viz. That the Jewish part of the Church retained something of the Old Leaven and could not forbear Judaizing in this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper and therefore it must be attended with a Feast as the Passover was And he observes that the Apostle does not only find fault with their abuse herein but with these very Feasts themselves in that they dishonoured the Church by bringing their Meat into it which they should rather have eaten at their own Homes And as ridiculous it is to say that the holy Kiss was imposed by the Apostles as a term of Communion it was indeed the manner of Friendly Salutation a meer Civil Rite used amongst Jews and Gentiles as well as Christians and the Apostles Command relates only to the sincere chaste and honest use of it as became Persons devoted to God and that they should not suffer that Token of Respect to degenerate into an Hypocritical or Lascivious Complement It is so far from being plain that these things were imposed as terms of Communion by the Apostles That it is certain from their own words They determined to lay no burthen upon Christians but necessary things that is things that had some good tendency for that is the softest sence that the word Necessary will bear and our English Ceremonies by the Acknowledgment of all can never come under that Denomination And indeed if the Apostles had made these things terms of Communion in the Catholick Church they must have remained so to this day unless by some latter Apostolical Edict repealed for who will dare to alter the Apostolical terms of Communion and it may be this
Gentleman's design is to revive these old Ceremonies of Feasting and Kissing and having all things common not only for the sake of their Apostolical Institution but as being all of them Ceremonies of very comfortable importance to a Man of his Temper and Circumstances But after all if it were plain that the Apostles made meer Ceremonies terms of Communion it will scarcely follow that our Bishops may do so too no more than that they may write Canonical Epistles and make Laws to bind the whole World as the inspired Apostles did To make terms of Communion is a very great Power especially if out of Communion there be no Salvation for then to make terms of Communion is to make the terms of Salvation and to put such a Power into the hands of weak and fallible Men is a thing of such dismal Consequences to the Souls of Men that we may be sure our Blessed Redeemer would never do it He has in his own Person and by his Apostles whom he inspired fixed that Law by which he will justifie and condemn Men and has not left it in the Power of any Mortal to add thereunto and to pretend to such Power is not only to impose upon Men but upon God too as if he must ask them leave whether he shall have a Church upon Earth or no. REFLECTIONS Upon a PAMPHLET ENTITULED A REVIEW OF Mr. M. H ' s. new Notion of Schism and the Vindication of it THE Title of this Paper imports that there has been some kind of Answer already made to the Enquiry and Vindication but such as the Zealous Club judge Lame and Impotent and therefore have thought fit to order a Review great things surely may be expected from this which comes to supply the defects of the former Methinks the Author of the Reply is more concerned in this thing called a Review than either the Enquiror or Vindicator Reply p. 2. for 't is a scurvey intimation that his own Confederates do not believe him when he boasts that he has run down his Adversary and proved and shewed and demonstrated every thing for if they had entertain'd as good an opinion of the success of his last expedition as he himself has it had been the most superfluous thing in the World to have come with a Review before the other had received an Answer these things would almost persuade a Man to think P. 35. that T. W's Reputation is not so great amongst the party as he pretends But whether this latter comes out on purpose to Affront the Citizen or whether it be with his consent upon conviction of the miserable weaknesses of his Reply I neither know nor care my business is to enquire whether the valiant Second has done any greater seats than he that first engaged in the quarrel This Gentleman must not expect an Answer to his famous and innumerable Oxford Jests I consider the humour of his party and how dull and insipid every thing is to them how rational soever that has not a great mixture of Farce and Comedy in it for my part I shall take no more notice of them than I would do of those little ludicrous wanton Creatures that can make themselves excellent sport with their own Tails and Shadows As to the Enquiry there are two very material things he encounters in it the Design and the Management He will not allow the Design of it to be Honest and Peaceable to allay heats and create a better understanding amongst us as the Vindicator pretends that design it seems is too high and the Vindicator ascribes too much to Mr. H. in saying he endeavoured to create a better understanding betwixt parties that had been so long and learnedly contending this is to place him in the Chair and make him an Oracle and I do not know what so uneasie a thing it is to Proud Men to hear any body commended but themselves it seems the Reviewer had no design to accommodate differences or to contribute any thing to a better understanding betwixt Church-men and Dissenters he modest man will not pretend to take so high an aim for my part I believe this was not his design but then I am sure it must be something worse that is to enflame the differences and perplex the controversie and no doubt he has managed such a design as well as he could He tells us Mr. H's design was no greater than to satisfie the scruples of some persons and to make two Female Proselites which is a great piece of news to Mr. H. for he declares he knows nothing of it and desires the Gentleman to name the Persons that were to be drawn in and to tell us at what Gossipping he pickt up this Story or else we must lay the Brat at his own Door I leave it to the Reader to judge what expectations Mr. H. could have from this Book when he found so notorious a Fiction in the very first Page And truly he goes on as he begun telling us that Mr. H's Notion of Schism will turn all Church Discipline out of Doors Review p. 3. for if breach of Communion be no Schism as these Gentlemen alledge a Man may appeal from the Stool of Repentance to the Quakers Meeting House c. It is not without good reason that some Men have so great a spight at the Stool of Repentance there are a sort of Men that hate it as a Thief hates the Gallows the Citizen could not forbear it in his Book But to let that pass I wonder where this Gentleman finds any such a Sentence in either of the books he pretends to review as that breach of Communion is no Schism let him produce it or confess himself worse than a trifler Both those Books acknowledge Separation of Communion to be Schism if it be uncharitable and to be sinful if it be without good reason and how this can be prejudicial to Church Discipline I know not unless by Church Discipline be meant that uncharitable unchristian and tyrannical thing that has been sometimes acted under that Title and if that should be turned out of Doors by this account of Schism all wise men will love it better upon that score He proceeds We have reason to question the peaceableness of his design Review p. 4. for the Notion it self being contrived to encourage and justifie Separation I am afraid the last result and consequence of it will not be peace this has as little honesty in it as the former there is not the least tendency in Mr. H's Notion to encourage or justifie any sinful Separation nay it lays the strictest tye upon persons to see to it not only that the cause of their Separation be just but the manner of it peaceable and charitable too if the Cause be not just it is sinful and if it be not managed peaceably and charitably it is Schismatical Nay it obliges persons in the same Communion to avoid uncharitable contentions about the lesser matters of