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
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
they had pleased notwithstanding the Spirits resting upon them have come into the Tabernacle as the rest did Lastly he adds all this was secular and distinct from that which did more peculiarly belong to the Ecclesiastical Body But prophesying was a sacred thing and the Tabernacle a sacred place and that People a sacred People and if the business of Jannes and Jambres was not too much secular to come within the Verge of Schism I wonder this should be thought so forreign but indeed after all he wholly mistakes Mr. H's design in this instance which was not to shew what was Schism but what was not so viz. That all Separation or Irregularity in sacred Actions is not Schism this is that mistake which by this Text he endeavoured to rectifie and whether it be not apposite enough for that purpose is left to the Judgment of the Considerate Reader This Gentleman is so very desirous to cast upon Mr. H. the reproach of ignorance that rather than fail he will betray his own and something else which is worse Mr. H. said the Jews were obliged to worship at one place and immediately explains it concerning Sacrificing which being the most famous and noted part of their worship may well be called so by way of eminency Joh. 4.20 as it is several times used in the discourse betwixt our Saviour and the Samaritane Woman and he adds This Obligation is vacated by that Gospel that wills us to pray every where from hence our Surveyor would infer That Mr. H. thought the Jews were to pray no where but at Jerusalem when his own eyes would have told him that in the same Paragraph Mr. H. acknowledges the Jews had their Synagogues which are rather the patterns of our Christian Assemblies than the Temple The only doubt is whether that Rule 1 Tim. 2.8 since it only mentions Prayer was pertinently alledged as vacating that Obligation which confined the Jews to one Altar It is certain it has been so understood by as Learned men as ever writ upon Scripture I hope Grotius will be instar omnium with this Gentleman his words upon the place are Preces Deo hodie non minus grata sunt in quavis Ecclesia quà m in Templo Hierosol and he bids us compare this with John 4.21 And Danaeus and Vorstius and Beza are with him in it all these and many more were so ignorant as to think that only one part of worship is here mentioned yet it is a rule which relates to the whole and takes away all pretences of the Holiness of Places This Gentleman seems to deny that the Jews were obliged only to offer at one Altar and tells us of an Altar at Mount Ebal of Samuels Sacrificing at Mizpah Zuph c. And Elisha at Mount Carmel and says the Jews had their Synagogues and inferiour Altars which were still in Communion with the Supream One and yet afterwards he tells us out of Sigonius that there were no Synagogues till the time of the Captivity Review p. 13. that they who wanted the Temple to pray and teach in might have some place like the Temple in which they might assemble to perform that sort of Duty and confesses that the Jews were confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem P. 11. till that Obligation was taken away by our Saviour now what can a man do but wait with patience till this Cameleon has assumed some certain colour and when he has told us which of those inconsistent opinions he will abide by he may expect a reply It is certain there was an express Law confining the Jewish Sacrifices to the Sanctuary which God should chuse Deut. 12.13 14. Take heed to thy self that thou offer not thy burnt Offering in every place thou seest but in the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse in one of thy Tribes there shall thou offer thy Burnt-offerings Yea all that was Sacred to God as their Tithes and Free-Will-Offerings must not ordinarily be eaten in any other place but that which God should chuse and though God gave them leave in Case of great distance from the Sanctuary to eat those things in their own Gates yet all Devoted things that were to be Sacrificed though the distance was never so great must be brought to the appointed place What then shall we say to the Cases mentioned where Sacrifices were offered at other Altars The Answer is plain 1. All those Anomalous Offerings excepting the last were made before the chosen place was fixed and Temple built and it should seem by the beginning of the 12. chap. of Deut. That this Law was not designed to oblige so strictly till the place was fixed and prepared for that purpose But 2. These were all extraordinary Cases and are not to be urged in Bar of a standing Rule we are not certain that those Sacrifices were offered by the Priests the Sons of Aaron and yet the Law appropriated that work to them God may dispense with his own Law but it is a Law still and binds men though not God and is to be strictly observed in all Cases saving those wherein God himself by his Prerogative sets it aside That there were any constant Inferiour Altars upon which the Jews were allowed to Sacrifice is a Notion more Novel and Wild than any thing in the Enquiry the meer Suspicion of such a design in the two Tribes and a half on the other side Jordan filled the People with amazement and they appeal to God that they had not built that Altar Josh 22.22 23. to offer thereon Burnt-Offering or Meat-Offering or Peace-Offerings and till they had made this Protestation the rest of the Tribes could not be satisfied and that these Inferiour Altars were in Communion with the Supream has as much of Sence in it as the other has of Truth I despair of ever knowing what the meaning of this Word Communion is if it may be predicated of things inanimate we shall never comprehend its boundless significancy The Gentleman we see is something confounded in his account of the matter of Fact let us enquire whether he be any thing more clear in his Mystical Reasonings from it He is taught by Mr. Dodwel to say That the only way of Uniting the segullah to God was by the Sacraments But this is notoriously false for the Sacraments were only the Symbols of that Union Review p. 1◠which fundamentally consists in their hearty Dedication of themselves to God and whoever had so done were the peculiar People of God whether ever they enjoyed Sacraments or no. That none could be in Union with God unless United to the High-Priest is false too for the Seed of Abraham were Gods People before they had any High-Priest or Common-Altar amongst them the Sacraments were not only transacted by the High-Priests Parents Circumcised their Children themselves for a long time at least and the Passover might be celebrated without a Priest and all true Believers are United to God
their own Sence there were no separate Meetings otherwise where-ever there is a Violation of Love and Charity amongst Christians there is a breach of Communion and his whole Book tends to prove it Will this Gentleman say that by these divisions are meant the rude and disorderly behaviour of some amongst them or rather the contests that those miscarriages caused If he speaks sence he must say the latter Forit is not usual to call the miscarriages of one sort divisions Besides these miscarriages tho' very great were chiefly about the Love Feasts which accompanied the Sacrament as the Gentleman himself acknowledges and therefore were not altogether so destructive of Communion as if they had been about the Sacrament it self But if that will not do he will try the old Salvo and these divisions must be into Sects and Parties that were Heretical But how can it then be said that these Divisions arose when they came together to these Feasts what did some of them turn Hereticks presently upon the Congress And become Orthodox again when they parted and so turn Hereticks anew when they came together the next time And certainly if they were Hereticks the Apostle would have charged the rest to have cast them out and not suffered them to Communicate with them at all and that had been a proper and likely way to have put an End to such Disorders But this he grounds upon the verse following For there must also be Heresies among you and blames Mr. H. for omitting it and would fain know what we have to say to it Why I 'll tell him in a few words This does not shew that the Divisions he reproves were Heresies but gives us the reason why he believed the report which he heard of their Divisions I hear there are Divisions or Schisms amongst you and I partly believe it for there must be also Heresies amongst you I need not wonder if there be Schisms amongst you for I know there will be Heresies also which are a great deal worse Thus it has been understood by very Learned Expositors and it seems the Natural import of the words and their connexion with the former and the Particle also makes it plain enough But after all if this Gentleman will in one place make Schism to be Heresie and in another a disorderly behaviour at the Communion Table or at the Feasts attending it he will advance an Idea of it much more Novel than Mr. H's and it will fairly acquit Dissenters from being Schismaticks for he can neither charge us with Heresie nor any such disorders at the Lords Supper The last place agitated is 1 Cor. 12.15 That there be no Schism in the Body Mr. H. acknowledges that Schism is that which breaks or slackens the Bond by which the Members are knit one to another Here the Gentleman presently claps hold and says that is done notoriously by Separation and breach of Communion yes no doubt Communion is broken by breach of Communion we won't dispute that but all Separation does not break Communion if we only separate in those things wherein Christian Communion does not consist the Bond is firm still therefore Mr. H. well added but this iâ— Bond not an Act of Uniformity in the same Ceremonies but of true Love and Charity the Gentleman replies nor is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence We grant it Sir it is sufficient for us that the Act of Indulgence takes away the Obligation of the Act of Uniformity we do not desire it should take away Mens Obligations to preserve the Unity of the Church which we question not is as Sacredly observed in our Assemblies as in yours He falsely charges Mr. H. with saying that true Love and Charity is the onely Bond by which Christians are knit together he does not say it is the onely Bond but certainly it is the Bond though not the onely one for they are United by Faith also but it is onely the breach of this Bond of Love which is properly called Schism He tells us the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together and let us hear what they are They are incorporated into one Society or Body but is that a tye by which they are knit together or does it not rather shew us what they are when united together Their being animated by one Spirit and so having one Hope and being within the One Covenant of Grace are not so properly the Bond by which we are United but the effects of our Union to Christ by Faith and it 's that is properly the Bond or Uniting Grace on our part that joins us to the Head God in Christ and from this the other Grace of Christian Love results by which the Members are Morally united one to another How far the Unity of the Ministry is absolutely necessary to the Unity of Christs Body has been already discussed in the former part of this Treatise He concludes his Reflections upon the Enquiry with the same ingenuity which has all along appeared in him He acknowledges that Charity is a comprehensive Virtue and every Sin is a violation of it as Theft Murder Treason but as it would not be good Logick to make Uncharitableness serve for a definition of them all so neither in the case of Schism And we acknowledge it would not and where does he find that Mr. H. makes uncharitableness the Definition of Schism he makes it but part of the Definition the Genus onely and this Gentleman by his own pretty Colloquy makes it to be the Generical nature of all Sin but the Enquirer adds the Differentia taken from the subject those who agree in fundamentals and its object the smaller things of Religion and this with its Genus makes up the compleat Definition of that which Scripture calls Schism But the account which this Gentleman has given of it is so uncertain and various so far from a Definition that it falls short even of a bungling Description In one place he affirms where there is Schism there is a breach of Communion p. 9. in another there was a Schism amongst the Corinthians and yet they were in the same Communion p. 22. In one place it is Heresie p. 21. In another place Fornication p. 20. In another rude and disorderly tricks at their Love Feasts p. 29. In one place it is opposing their Orthodox Governours p. 26. In another place it is siding with them p. 25. and yet this is the Man that cannot endure any body should be thought a Conjurer in Logick and Divinity besides himself I hope the Enquiror is got safe out of this Gentlemans Hands I now proceed to do the Vindicator the same Justice in which I shall be brief because the merits of the Cause are discussed already and his little scurrilous Reflections are not worth our notice The Citizen of Chester presented his Adversary with a List of the Names of those that had done Wonders in