The charge of schism renewed against the separatists in answer to the renewer of that pretended peaceable design, which is falsly call'd, An answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's late sermon.

THE Charge of Schism Renewed against the SEPARATISTS, IN ANSWER To the Renewer of that pretended Peaceable Design, WHICH IS Falsly call'd, An Answer to Dr. STILLING-FLEET's late Sermon.

LONDON, Printed for Henry Brome, at the Gun in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1680.

Doctor Stillingfleet Justified.

THere was lately put into my hand, a thing call'd an [Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Ser∣mon] (on Phil. 3. 16.) [by some Non-con∣formists]: The Sermon to which it pre∣tends to be an Answer, was chiefly design'd to shew that the Non-conformists Meetings in Congre∣gations forbidden by Law, are sinful Schismatical sepa∣rations. The design of this (pretended) Answer, is to remove that Charge; which it endeavours to do by giving, 1. A modest account of the Non-conformists Meetings. And, 2. Some taste of their Reasons for Non∣conformity. These are two of the three things which we are told (p. 3.) were design'd in that Discourse.

As to the first, The Pamphlet professes, that the Composers of it are in the number of those Non-con∣formists, who do not go from the Parish Church, in opposition to it, as if such Congregations were no Churches: For they expresly acknowledg, p. 4. That our Parish Churches are true Churches; and, That it is their duty to desire and endeavour the Ʋnion and Prosperity of those Churches.

And what (says this Author, p. 4.) would the Do∣ctor, or any Conformist have of us more, unless it be also to joyn with them there in the participation of the Ordinances?

As if the Doctor had not plainly enough told him and his Companions in Separation, that he would have them so true to endeavour after Peace and Union

with the Parochial Churches, as to agree together with them not only in the same profession of Faith, but in submitting to the same Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worship. This is that which the Doctor would have them do, and he would have none of them guilty of either a total, or a frequent forbearance of Communion with this Church, or any of its parti∣cular Branches in what themselves judg lawful, nor of forming separate Congregations under other Teach∣ers, and by other Rules than what the established Re∣ligion allows, p. 20.

Whereas on the contrary, of late Years, the Non-conformists, says he, have fill'd the People with greater prejudices (than for∣merly) against our Communion, and gather them into fixt and separate Congregations, which have proceeded to the choice of new Pastors upon the death of old ones; and except some very few, scarce any either of their Preachers, or People in London, come ordinarily to the publick Congregation, (p. 22.) Which, says the Doctor, we lament as a thing which unavoidably tends to our common Ruine, if not in time prevented; for by this means the hearts of the People are alienated from each other,

&c, 'Tis this obstinate and destructive course of Separati∣on which the Doctor design'd his Sermon against: In which he has made it his business to enervate the strength of those Pleas which are made use of by their best Writers, to justifie their Separation.

To which this Pamphlet pretends to be an Answer: And yet the Author of it has not thought fit to reply particularly to any one passage therein contain'd, or to shew that what the Doctor has oppos'd to their Pleas, is either impertinent, or unsatisfactory. But instead of that he endeavours an Apology for those Schismatical Practices, by hinting, or holding forth, for I cannot say proving these Principles.

1. That 'tis the duty of those who are set apart to the Office of the Ministry, (supposing them every way to be fit and call'd) to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of that Office.

2. That when two Duties come together, so that we cannot perform the one but we must omit the other; the greater Duty must take place of the less.

3. That Hearing and Preaching being relata, which do mutually put and destroy one another, the Peoples meeting is authorized by their Preachers commission: And unless those Preachers do set, and keep up Con∣venticles, the whole generation of the Non∣conformist Ministers must be laid aside from the exercise of their Office.

4. The People are bound to meet and hear those Preachers, because they are convinced in their Con∣sciences, that they do edifie more by hearing them, and so they also have the Plea of [greater Duty.]

The first of these, he pretends to prove by the Apo∣stles express Authority and Example, Who when they were threatned and commanded to speak no more in Christ's Name, have left us their Answer on record, We ought to obey God ra∣ther than man.

Which reason is impertinent and insufficient. Im∣pertinent, 1. Because the Apostles there spoken of [St. Peter, and St. John.] had an extraordinary Com∣mission, and Command to preach the Gospel, which our Non-conformists have not; and therefore, supposing they were forbidden to preach it by men, that instance would not justifie the preaching it not withstanding that Pro∣hibition: For they can produce no Command of God, which requires them to preach it, and therefore their not preaching it would be no disobedience to God's Command: But, 2. 'Tis more impertinent upon ano∣ther account, because neither are they forbidden by

the Magistrate to preach the Gospel, but allow'd to do it to their own Families, and to five more, and there∣fore they may, if they are lawfully set apart to the Of∣fice of the Ministry, exercise their preaching Talent. This instance therefore being thus impertinent to their Case, 'tis insufficient to justifie their Practice.

As for his precedent of the three first Centuries, When, said he, the Gospel was never preach'd, but contrary to the will of the Magistrate: I deny that that was well done, unless the Preachers could produce some Com∣mand of God for so doing.

And therefore, for my part, I do very much approve that which this Writer calls, A slip of the Pen, in Dr. Tillotson's Sermon, That any pretence of Conscience warrants any man that is not extraordinarily Commissioned as the Apo∣stles and first publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justifie that Commission by Miracles as they did, to affront the Esta∣blisht Religion of a Nation, (though it be false) and openly to draw men off from the profession of it, in contempt of the Magistrate and the Law. This is a very great and useful truth, and I was right glad to meet with it in a Sermon preached by that Eminent Person. And the Author of this Pamphlet hath said nothing to the pur∣pose against it.

He says, that Affirmative Precepts bind semper, but not ad semper: Which we would fain have pass for a Rea∣son, why Protestants do not use to preach under the In∣quisition: And tells us, There's Prudence therefore to be used, and Preachers need not be cast where they will be cer∣tainly trampled on. He means where they that cast them, will be certainly trampled on. And the truth is, if these Pearl-casters did foresee they should be Rent and Trampled on as they deserve, I doubt not but they would be brought (by degrees at least) to keep their precious Truths to themselves, and would be more

wary of Preaching in defiance of the Law that forbids them, if they were sure that the penalty of the Law would be vigorously and constantly executed upon them: And that they should get nothing by dischar∣ging their (pretended) Duty, but the (deserv'd) re∣ward of Gaol. But the truth is, there's Money in the case, and good store (usually) of the Wages of Un∣righteousness heaped upon such Malefactors, the hope whereof tempts them to persist in the gain-saying of Corah; and therefore they haunt those places most, where most of this Mammon is to be met with: Which puts me in mind of a Passage in Mounsieur Balzac's [Prince] p. 61.

where reflecting on the Spaniards Voy∣ages into the Indies: It's their avarice, says he, makes them cross the Seas, and run to the Worlds end; they publish it is for the good of Souls, and the de∣sire they have to save Infidels, that draws them thi∣ther; and yet 'tis very true, that the charity of these good Christians, carries them only to those Coun∣tries where the Sun warms the Earth into Gold, and is not at all employ'd toward the farthest part of the Earth where there are Souls enough to be Converted, but where they can only get Frost and Snow.

And as for those few of the good Christians we are now discoursing of, that are less fond of Money be∣cause they have less need of it, having competent Estates of their own; the maintaining and keeping up a party, and the cherishing and promoting of Schism and Sedition, does their hearts more good than Money, and is to them a very satisfactory recompence for the factions pains they take in their Conventicle-Preach∣ments.

But as for those places where they see neither of these ends can be attain'd, these Fanatick Missionaries

will never believe themselves call'd to exercise their Gifts in [them] though possibly they may want such edisying Preachers, as these Men pretend themselves to be, ten times more than London and other Places do, where they commonly reside.

And so much for the first Principle, or Ground pro∣duc'd by this Author, of Non-conformists Preaching con∣trary to Law.

The second follows, which is this, that when two Duties come together, so that we cannot perform the one but we must omit the other; the greater Duty must take place of the less: Now the two Duties which he supposes, come together in the Non-conformists Case, are seeling Unity, and preaching the Gospel: If we keep our parish-Churches, says he, we must not preach the Gospel; if we preach the Gospel, we must go to private Meetings. (Which by the way is false: For they may, and I think some few of them do, so far seek Parish union, (at least in some places distant from London) as to assemble with the rest of the Parishioners, and attend the Church in the time of Divine Service, and Sermons, and then preach to their own Flock in their private Meetings afterward). But our Author instead of proving by sound Arguments, that for them to preach the Gospel (to more than five besides their own Family) is, 1. Their duty, 2. a greater duty than to seek the Uni∣on of the Nation, by preserving that part of it which consists in complying with Parish-Church Order, he only asks Questions, Which of these is of greatest moment to the Glory of God? Which is the greatest Matter, Sir? To all his loose and indigested Talk, my Answer is briefly this, That in the case now before us, there do not come two duties together, the one whereof cannot be per∣form'd; for they may seek and maintain the Unity aforesaid, and yet may preach the Gospel to such a

number as the Law allows them to preach to, and that 'tis his duty, or the duty of the rest of the Gang to preach to more, he has not yet prov'd.

The third Principle is, that Hearing and Preaching be∣ing relata, which do mutually put and destroy one another, the Peoples meeting is authoriz'd by their Preachers Commission; and unless those Preachers do set and keep up Conventicles, the whole Generation of the Non-conformist Ministers must be laid aside from the exercise of their Office.

To which I answer. 1. Let your Non-conformists prove, if they can, that they have any lawful Com∣mission to preach to more than the Law allows them to preach to. For, 2. If they can shew no such Com∣mission 'tis their duty to be silent rather than to preach to a greater number. 3. They who hear them, may if they please, hear other legally-authoriz'd Ministers. 4. It is their duty so to do: And 'tis a sin in them to pro∣mote and encourage by their presence that Faction, Schism, and Sedition, which their Preachers are guilty of by preaching against Law.

The fourth Principle which this Writer pleads in justification of the Non-conformists, is this, That the People are bound to meet and hear those Preachers, because they are convinced in their Consciences that they do edifie more by hearing them, and so they also have the plea of [greater Duty.]

Where he takes it for granted, that a man's expe∣ctation of receiving greater Edification, or his per∣suasion that he shall receive greater profit to his Soul by hearing Non-conformists, than by hearing his own Conforming Minister, does make it his duty to absent himself from his own Parish Church, and to go to a more edifying Conventicle: For which Principle, one would think he should have endeavoured (at least) to have brought some cogent Reason; but (for ought I

see) he has not so much as endeavour'd it, and if he had, I dare say he could not have effected it; for 'tis a very false and pernicious Principle: For as much as we ought not to do evil, that any, whether lesser or greater, good may come of it. 'Tis evil to disobey Authority by transgressing those Bounds, and break∣ing that Order, which it prescribes. Our Law requires that every Parishioner should attend Divine Service and Sermons in his own Parish Church, and to hear and receive the Word from the mouth of his own Pa∣rish-Minister: He ought to obey that Law, and to ex∣pect salutary edification in the way of obedience to, and compliance with that Order; and he cannot well∣groundedly expect, or be rightly persuaded he shall re∣ceive it in the way of breaking that Order, and wan∣dring to other Churches and Preachers, especially such as are disallow'd by Law, for that is not God's way of giving it. He may indeed fancy himself more edifi'd in some respects, but 'twill in the end prove a deluding Edification, and he'll one day find it a damnable thing so to attempt greater edification in this or that part of Knowledg or Duty, as in the mean time to neglect other parts of Duty, and to do that which (what∣soever this man pretends to the contrary) must needs be (interpretatively at least) a contempt of the Govern∣ment, a neglect, and consequently discouragement of his own Minister, with scandal to his conforming Neighbours, and therefore inconsistent with the rule of Charity, Obedience, and Concord.

Nor is this Principle false in it self only, but very pernicious too in its consequents, even as to Civils. For if a Parishioner may leave his own Parish-Minister against that Minister's will, and the will of the Civil Magistrate, for greater Edification, by the same reason, a Son or Daughter may on the same account, leave their

own Parents, and remove into another Family against their Parents consent.

The Son or Daughter may pretend (and too often truly plead) that their Father and Mother are unsan∣ctifi'd Persons, that they are negligent of Religious Family-duties, and take no care to educate their Chil∣dren in the fear of God, and therefore they will for∣sake Father and Mother, and betake themselves to some other (Godly) Family for greater Edification: And so this Principle would produce as great Schisms in Families as it does in Parishes: And therefore let this greater Edification-Principle go for a great Falshood, and a ruining destructive Principle.

He talks, p. 7. Of some universal impression that there is on the hearts of most honest People, which, says he, makes them tenderly sensible of the wrong that we have suffer'd in being turn'd out of the Vincyard for our Consciences.

To which I answer, That 'tis a very evil thing for Non-conformists to complain of suffering wrong for their Consciences, and to make no conscience of doing it. What do these men mean by pretending they were turn'd out of Vineyard for their Consciences? The case was this, When after the King's Restauration, the Par∣liament upon due consideration of the horrid Mischiefs and sad Calamities, the Land had groan'd under for seve∣ral Years, and likewise of the more horrid Principles which occasion'd those Mischiefs and Calamities, both in Church and State, thought themselves oblig'd to pre∣vent the like for the future, they agree'd upon an Act of Ʋniformity to that end, wherein the Peace and Tran∣quility of the State was endeavoured to be secur'd, by en∣joyning the renunciation of such seditious and destructive Maxims, as had before disturb'd and ruin'd it: And the prosperity and good order of the Church provided for, by imposing the Book of Common-Prayer, and requiring

assent and consent to the use of the Matters contain'd and prescrib'd in that Book: To which Renunciation and Im∣position the Act oblig'd all those to submit, who did then, or had at any time a mind to enjoy any Church-Living, Promotion, or Lecture, in this Nation. To which Act many men that had then Ecclesiastical Li∣vings, either could not, or would not Conform: And this they call being turn'd out of the Vineyard for their Con∣sciences. When as the truth is, They turn'd themselves out; being tempted and prevailed upon so to do, ei∣ther by their blind and deluded Understandings, and misguided Consciences, which would not let some of them see the lawfulness of that requir'd submission and compliance, though they had studi'd and examin'd things in order to it, or else by their perverse and stub∣born Spirits, being resolv'd before-hand not to com∣ply, because they thought it would be too great a dis∣honour to them to contradict their former Principles and Practices, and too great a scandal to the Godly party, for their Leaders to backslide, and abandon the goodly Reformation they had been endeavouring and carrying on for so many Years.

Sir, For my own part I must needs confess to you, that I never did so much as take it into consideration whether I should yield or not yield to what was requir'd in the Act for Ʋnifor∣mity; and that because, 1. Being fully satisfi'd, by occasion of the more serious weighing of such Points in these latter days, of the unlawfulness of those things which in my youn∣ger years I had conform'd readily to, upon little better ground than the example and encouragement of others, I was brought (I hope heartily and sincerely) to bewail before God my for∣mer conforming to many things, and therefore durst not think of returning to that, for which I had formerly in such a solemn penitential way judg'd my self before the Lord my God. And, 2. Because being now so far gone in years,

that I am come to Jacob's must die, I cannot live much longer; I was not willing to do any thing that was scrupulous and doubtful, lest upon my Death bed it should prove an occasion of any disquiet, or disturbance to me; yet withal I must add, That it was some farther satisfaction to me, when I found that the very same things that seem'd most dreadful to me, have also sway'd most with you in keeping you off from the Conformity requir'd: Namely, 1. Those great words too big for my swallow, of unfeigned assent and consent. And, 2. The doing of any thing that is contrary to that Covenanted Reformation which we had so long and earnestly pray'd and labour'd for, or that might be scandalous to those that rejoyc'd in the first-fruits of it, and do still desire and endeavour to promote it.

These are the very words of that prime, leading, London▪ Non-conformist, old Arthur Jackson, in a letter of his, which I have still to shew under his own hand, dated February 26. 62. And I doubt not but most of the Tribe turn'd themselves out of the Vineyard upon the same Temptations, and yet these men have the confidence to cry out of the wrong they have suffer'd in being turn'd out by others. Which is just as if the Romish Priests should complain of the wrong they suffer'd by being turn'd and kept out of England (which was once such a fruitful Vineyard to them) because such Oaths, and Renunci∣ations, were impos'd upon them, and requir'd to be made and taken by them (for the securing of the Na∣tion against their Treasonable, and Seditious Princi∣ples) as their Consciences could not comply with. And yet our Author pleads for the Law's just severity against them, p. 32. of this Pamphlet; where he tells us, That the Supremacy of the Pope, and the Authority of the King, are inconsistent in this Land,—and that the Priest and Jesuite are taken by Law, as Factors for the Pope,—and an undermining the Government, is, says he, in all

States a capital Crime. Even so say I. The Authority of the King, and the owning of those Principles requi∣red to be disclaim'd in the Act for Uniformity, are in∣consistent in this Land, and therefore that they who will not disown and declare against those Principles, are taken by Law as Factors for another Schism and Rebellion, and as Persons that design again to under∣mine our Government Civil and Ecclesiastical, and an un∣dermining the Government is in all States a capital Crime; and well had it been for this Nation, if such an under∣mining of it had been made Capital in ours; so far am I from being of this Author's mind (in his saucy Insinu∣ations in this Page) that 'twas wrong and iniquity in our Governours to make such a Law (for the good of the Nation) as accidentally occasion'd these Apologists to eject themselves out of their Ecclesiastical enjoyments.

To these Apologies of theirs for preaching against Law, they presume it will be said by the Episcopal Par∣ty [But you may Conform.] If so, say they, we must then desire one or both, of these Learned, Moderate, and Judici∣ous Doctors (Stillingfleet, and Tillotson) to contribute but this one thing towards it, to answer the ensuing Objections, those especially which concern the Political part of Conformity about the Oxford Oath and Subscription. For, say they, If there be but one particular impos'd upon us as a condition of Conformity, which we prove to be sinful, and they cannot re∣fel it; there's no man has been more forward than Dr. Stil∣lingfleet, to let us know out of Hales, That 'tis not the Refu∣ser but the Imposer, is guilty of the Schism.

That which Mr. Hales said, is this, That there is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick; for where the cause of Schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation, is the Schismatick.

But with the leave of that great man, and of ano∣ther that opines according to that dictate, I do deny

that there can be any necessary cause of Schism; for all Schism is sinful, and there can be no necessary cause of Sin. 2. The Paragraph is non-sense, if we should ac∣cept of Mr. Hales his own definition of Schism: For, says he, Schism if we would define it, is nothing else but an unnecessary separation of Christians, from that part of the Visi∣ble Church whereof they were once Members: The Para∣graph then must be thus Paraphras'd. There is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick; for where the cause of Schism, that is, of unnecessary separation of Christians, is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick. The Non-sense whereof appears in its own light. 3. 'Tis absurd upon another account; for himself grants, that what Sedition or Rebellion is in the State, and in reference to Civils, that Schism is in the Church, and in reference to Ecclesiastical union. He may as well say therefore, that where cause of Rebellion is necessary, there not he that Rebels, but he that is the cause of rebellion is the Rebel; which is very pretty when it happens at any time that the Supreme Governour proves a Tyrant: And so upon that (or any other less ac∣count) is the pretended cause of his Subjects Rebelling: Indeed, a necessary cause he cannot be, let him be never so great a Tyrant: But that makes that Dictate which this Author would persuade us the Doctor makes so much use of, but does not, nor I believe can he tell us where, so much the more absurd.

That Tract of Schism tells us, That when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for truth, and acts ei∣ther unlawful, or ministring just scruple, are required of us to be perform'd, in these cases consent were Conspiracy; and open contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Ani∣mosity.

I shall not stay to question the truth of this Asserti∣on, as to those parts of it [or uncertain] and [or mini∣string just scruple]: But though (I should allow him that) in those cases consent were Conspiracy, yet open con∣testation against our proper Governours may be sinful. He has not told us what he means by the Expression; nor what sort and kind, what measures and degrees of open Contestation he intended; but I affirm, there's a me∣dium between Consent, and open Contestation; and that is an humble and modest Refusal to comply with those impos'd Propositions or Actions, which upon due en∣quiry, and diligent examination, we judg untrue, or unlawful; and humbly and meekly tendring our Rea∣sons if required, why we so judg. That any greater Contestation then this amounts to, of Subjects against their Governours, is in any case necessary or lawful, is more than I believe can be prov'd. I am sure if the Contestation be so open, and proceed so far as either to set up another Bishop in opposition to the former, or to erect a new Church, or Oratory for the dividing Part to meet in publickly, Mr. Hales himself pronounces such separations compleat Schisms, and till this be done, the Schism he tells us, is but yet in the Womb. And, as he goes on, In that famous Controversie in Holland, De Prae∣destinatione & Auxiliis; As long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while un-hatch'd; but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloyster, and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it for the separating Party there to meet: Now what before was a Controversie, became a formal Schism. Whence it follows that even in this man's judg∣ment, our Non-conforming Barn-sweepers, and (in them) Pulpit erectors, in order to meeting and preaching against Law, are formal Schismaticks. To the same purpose, Arthur Jackson aforesaid, in the same Letter before

quoted has these words,—I confess I dread the falling upon the Rock of Separation; but as long as I desire not to set up a new Church, but am willing to joyn with the Publick As∣semblies in Hearing and Prayer, and only withdraw from what is not of Scripture-Institution; I hope this partial Non com∣munion cannot be justly called Separation.

In the same Tract, Mr. Hales asserts, That it is not lawful, no not for Prayer, or Hearing, for Conference, or any other Religious Office whatsoever, for People to assemble, otherwise than by publick Order is allow'd; neither, says he, may we complain of this in times of Incorruption: For why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private which may warrantably be perform'd in publick? And in another part of the same Treatise, 'What, says he, if those to whom the execution of the publick Service is committed, do some thing either unseemly, or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? What if the Garments they wear be censured, which indeed be, superstitious? What if the gesture of Ado∣ration be us'd to the Altars?—What if the Homilist have preach'd, or deliver'd, any Doctrine of the Truth whereof we are not well persuaded? A thing which very often falls out, yet we may not Separate, except we be constrain'd per∣sonally to bear a part in them our selves. The Priests under Eli had so ill demean'd themselves about the daily Sacrifice, that the Scripture tells us they made them to stink, yet the People refus'd not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest. For in those Schisms which con∣cern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful, or suspe∣cted Act.

Thus he, which passage by the way may serve for a rebuke to these mens greater edification-Argu∣ment, before insisted on.

But because that expression [or suspected Act] comes trumping in our way again, I shall here take so much notice of it, as to acquaint the Reader, if he know it

not already, that not only very considerable Episcopal men, but some Presbyterians too, are so far from thinking, that Governours requiring men to do an Act which they scruple or suspect the lawfulness of, is a just ground for Separation, that they deny it to be a just ground for non-performance of that Act; and on the contrary assert it mens duty in that case to do the thing commanded. So the French Presbyterian Divines, and Professors at Saumur, (Thes. Salmur. de summo Controvers. Judice, Sect. 46.) Sane quum demonstrari non potest id quod jubetur aut statui∣tur repugnare regulae à Deo traditae, acquiescendum esse definitioni non negamus, vel ob hoc ipsum quod sic ab iis qui ordine legitimo constituti sunt definitum est, quos decet & vero simile est esse reliquis prudentiores, & perspicaciores. To the same purpose, Baxter in his Disput. of Church-Go∣vernment, p. 484.

As an erroneous judgment will not, says he, excuse us from disobedience to our Governours, so much less will a doubtfulness excuse us. If upon advising with our Teachers we remain in doubt about the lawfulness of some circumstance of Order—if it may not be dispens'd with without a greater injury to the Church, or cause of God, than our Dispensation will countervail, then is it our duty to obey our Teachers, notwithstanding such doubts; for it being their Office to teach us, it must be our duty to believe them with an Humane Faith, in cases where we have no evidences to the contrary; and the duty of obeying them being certain, and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain, and un∣known, and only suspected, we must go on the surer side.

'Tis time now to return to our Apologists, who, I think, have got nothing by tempting me by that Quotation out of Hales, to consult the Author himself; since the other Dictates which I met with on this occasion in the same Treatise, involve their separated, forbidden, Meetings for publick Worship in Anti-Churches of their own, in the guilt of Schism, and make the worshippers there formal Schismaticks.

That some notions in the latter part of this very Pamphlet, contribute very much to the proving those men Schismaticks, whom the former part would excuse from that Crime.

For, p. 31. thus we read, It is not all separation or division is Schism, but sinful Division. Now the Supreme Authority as National Head, having appointed the Parochial Meetings, and requir'd all the Subjects of the Land to frequent them, and them alone, for the Acknowledging, Glorifying, or National Serving and Worshipping the one only true God, and his Son, whom we have generally receiv'd, and this Worship or Service in the nature of it being intrinsically good, and the external Order, such as that of Time, and Place, and the like Circumstances, being properly under his Jurisdiction, it hath seem'd to us hitherto, that un∣less there was something in that Order and Way prescrib'd which is sinful, and that requir'd too as a condition of that Communion, there's no man could refuse his atten∣dance universally on these Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience, and consequently his separation thereby becoming sinful, proves Schism. But, says he, if the Scene be alter'd, and those separate Assemblies made le∣gal, the Schism in reference to the National Church, upon the same account doth vanish. Schism is a separation from that Church whereof we ought, or are bound to be Members: If the Supreme Authority then loose our Ob∣ligation to the Parish- Meeting so that we are bound no longer, the Iniquity (we say upon this account) is not to be found, and the Schism gone.

From which premises this Conclusion does evi∣dently follow: That until the Supreme Authority loosens the Obligation of Parishioners to the Parish-Meeting, they ought and are bound to behave them∣selves as Members of their respective Parishes, and not

to separate from them. For if they do 'tis an unlaw∣ful separation, that is, 'tis Schism.

He says indeed, that no man could refuse his at∣tendance [universally] on Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience: To which I say, 1. That however then they who do universally refuse their attendance, which I presume a very great num∣ber, if not much the greater part of Conventicles do, must be accounted Schismaticks by his own Do∣ctrine. 2. If an universal non-attendance on Pa∣rish-Assemblies be a sinful separation, and conse∣quently Schism, because 'tis a sin of disobedience, then every particular absence, and non-attendance up∣on them is sinful, and consequently Schismatical, because 'tis a sin of disobedience (in Ecclesiastical Mat∣ters) against that Authority which requires the Parishioners of this Nation not only frequently but constantly, to attend their own Parish Churches.

Now if being thus press'd, he shall think fit to fly off from his words, and to say, That if the Supreme Authority requires all the Subjects to frequent the Parochial Meetings, and those only, they who do not frequent them, but be take themselves to other Assem∣blies are guilty of such a degree of disobedience as will amount to Schism, then if any of those Subjects do (but) frequent Conventicles, (though they are not universally there, but are sometimes present at their own Churches) they must be granted to be Schisma∣ticks; and if so, he agrees at last with that Doctor and that Sermon, which he pretends to Answer: In which for ought I observe, the most that Dr. Stil∣lingfleet contends for, is, That all who own our Pa∣rish Churches as true Churches, would not either total∣ly, or ordinarily, forbear Communion with them in those things which they judg lawful; nor proceed

to form separate Congregations under other Teach∣ers, and by other Rules than what the establish'd Religion allows, (p. 20.) whereas (as he com∣plains, p. 22.) Except some very few, scarce any either of the dissenting Preachers or People in London, come or∣dinarily to the publick Congregations; upon which ac∣count he charges them with Schism; in which guilt this very Author does (for ought I see) involve them in this very Pamphlet, which was design'd to vindicate them from that Guilt.

To which Pamphlet I shall say no more at present, because I have already reply'd to all that part of it in which the Doctor's Sermon is concern'd: For the following parts of it which are taken up in Apolo∣gizing for their Preachers Non▪ conformity, and their re∣fusing to comply with those things which are im∣pos'd upon them, to make them Legal Ministers of this Church and Nation, are perfectly alien and im∣pertinent to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon.

In the 19th P. whereof he himself professes, that he did not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us, to the exercise of the Function of the Ministry, but of the Terms of Lay-Communion, that is, those which are necessary for all Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments, and other Offices of Divine Worship.—Some of the most impartial of the Dissenters themselves confessing, That very little is to be said on the behalf of the Peoples separating; from whom none of those Subscriptions, or Declarations are requir'd, that are requir'd of those that would be Autho∣riz'd Preachers. So that the People, says he, are con∣demn'd in their separation by their own Teachers; But how they can preach lawfully to a People who commit a fault in hearing them, the Doctor professes not to understand. An opposite Answer to which one passage of the Do∣ctor's

Sermon would have been more to the purpose, than all that these Apologists say for themselves in this Pamphlet. In which they have not been so kind as to assist the Doctor's Intellectuals in this matter, by making any other Apologies for the Peoples separa∣ting, than what have been already Answer'd; and therefore I have done the Task I undertook in refe∣rence to that Sermon; and shall not (at this time at least) take any notice of the Objections made by this Author, in behalf of their Preachers, to the Re∣ordination, Declaration, and Subscription, requir'd in the Act for Uniformity, nor manifest the Blun∣ders, Falshoods, and Impertinencies contain'd in those Objections.

FINIS.

Henry Brome's Advertisement, 1680.

WHereas there are several Discourses and Pamphlets abroad in the World, that pass for the Writings of Mr. Roger L'Estrange; wherein he never had any hand at all: This is to Ad∣vertise the Reader, that he hath lately Published these following Pieces, (all but the Three last) and no other.

• Toleration Discuss'd, in a Dialogue betwixt a Conformist and a Non-conformist, and betwixt a Presbyterian and an Independent.
• Seneca's Morals Abstracted.
• The Guide to Eternity.
• Tully's Offices, in English.
• Twenty Select Colloquies of Erasmus in English.
• Tyranny and Popery, Lording it over the Consciences and Lives of the King and People.
• The Reformed Catholick.
• The History of the Plot, in Folio.
• The Free born Subject.
• The Case put for the Duke of York.
• An Answer to the Appeal.
• ...Seasonable Memorials.
• The Parallel, or, The Growth of Knavery.
• A Dialogue betwixt a Citizen and Bumpkin.
• A Dialogue betwixt a Citizen and Bumpkin, the second Part.
• A further Discovery of the Plot, with a Letter to Dr. Titus Oats.
• An Answer to a Letter of Libellers.
• The Gentleman Apothecary.
• Five Love-Letters Translated.
• Discovery on Discovery in a second Letter to Dr. Titus Oats.
• The Committee, or, Popery in Masquerade, curiously done in a Copper-Plate.
• Narrative of the Plot.

• The Way of Peace.
• The Arts and Pernitious Designs of Rome.
• The Conspiracy of Atheism and Schism.