over be proved to be falfe, and that it was not taken from them, I think it may be faid to be very impertinently and imprudently made ufe of in this cafe, and if it farther appear to be fo from Mr. Tallents's own Reafoning upon this very head, it certainly may be thought very unbecoming his Years and Learning thus to trifle with the World, and endeavour to impofe upon Men. Now, by its being taken from the Romish Doctors, he muft mean either that our Notion of Schifm, or the Opinion that Schifm is as heinous a Sin as Murther or Adultery is taken thence, or both. But neither of these is true. For, firft, our Notion of Schifm is not the fame with theirs; ours is as ancient as the Church of Chrift, and the fame with the primitive Fathers: Theirs is later, and crept in with the exorbitant Power of the Pope, and is owned by no Chriftians in the World but thofe of their own Communion. We acknowledge every true and lawful Bishop to be the Head of Unity, and Reprefentative of Chrift within his Diftrict, and that Schifm arifeth by departing from and fetting up againft fuch lawful Authority; but we own no one Head of the Univerfal Church but Chrift Jefus himfelf: They are for one Univerfal Vicarial Head by divine Appointment fix'd to the See of Rome, to whom all Bishops in the World must be Underlings and Slaves, and without whofe Direction or Allowance they must not dare to Act; which as it can never be proved, fo is it intolerable and impracticable. But I need not farther infift on this, because thus far our Accufer himself acquits us. For thus faith he, They (i.e. the Romanifts) Say none are in the Church, but they that own the Pope, and communicate with the Church of Rome. But the Church of England is far from any fuch abominable Thought: And few, if any of our great Men, incline to the Papifts in this, though feveral join with

them

them in the damming of Schifmaticks, (p. 13.) It remains therefore to enquire concerning the Opinion, That Schifm is as great a Sin as Murther or Adultery, whether we have taken it from the Roman Doctors? And if we have not, then there is no truth, as well as no force in his Argument. He might have fpared his pains in proving, That the Papifts are of this Opinion; for I fhall readily grant it. But then Mr. Tallents did not fo well confult the Intereft of his Cause, when at the fame time he tells us, and brings his proofs for it, That the Roman Doctors have taken this Opinion from the Fathers; and he particularly names Clemens, Cyprian, Optatus, Auguftin. Indeed he cannot find a Saint amongst them, though the meaneft of his Tribe fhall be honoured with the Title. In fhort, he faith as to Baronius, That he obferves, that Chyloftom and hierom have faid the fame, and all the Fathers of the Church, (p. 12.) A jolly Company. Now why might not we take this Opinion from the Fathers, as well as the Romanifts? Are we more debarred from the Fathers than they? Is there an Inquifition, or any Deleaturs, upon the Fathers among us, as there is among them? Or are the Fathers neglected, and not read by us? I thank God, as poor and mean as I am, I have by me a good parcel of the Fathers, and I think can read them as well as fome others; and I fhould think my felf very unadvised, if I fhould have recourfe to the Romanifts for that, which I could much better have from the Fathers themselves. Would any Man, who hath his Senfes, leave the pure clear Fountain, to drink at a fulfom muddy Stream? When we have it in our choice, why fhould it be thought, that we would take an Opinion from thofe, who in all other Matters would be a fhame and reproach to us, when we might as eafily have it from them, who were the Glory of

the

the Chriftian Church, and would be an Honour and Reputation to us? It would tempt one to think, that Mr. Tallents had condemned the Opinion as foolish, with a defign to beg us all for Fools. Why could he not be as civil to us, as he is to the Romanifts, and allow us to have taken the Opinion from the Fathers, as well as acknowledge that the Roman Doctors have done fo? But perhaps there is a confiderable Reafon for this, which though Mr. Tallents thought fit to keep as a Secret, yet I am refolv'd to blab it out. To have faid, that we had taken it from the Fathers, would have been no fcandal to us, nor have excited the Scorn and Indignation of his Party against us, but might have endangered the giving fome Credit to the Opinion; and therefore, right or wrong, true or falfe, we are to be charged with taking it from the Roman Doctors; for otherwife his Party could not be alarm'd, nor we made obnoxious to the Hatred and Violence of Legion. This is neither very ingenious, nor honeft. And I will farther give him a Reason, why he ought and might more properly have faid, that we took this Opinion from the Fathers, than that the Romanists have done fo. For we urge this against Schifm in that Senfe and Notion which the Fathers themselves had of Schifm; but the Romanists urge this against Schifm in their Novel and Peculiar Notion of it. So that let both the Truth of the Opinion, and the Application of it be confidered, it is we that have taken it from the Fathers, and not the Romanists; for as they apply it, theirs is not the Opinion of the Fathers, but ours is.

(6.) As for the Nature and Danger of the Sin of Schifm, it will be more properly confidered in another place; here I am only concerned with our Author's Reafoning: And from what hath been faid, I think it doth plainly appear, that his Af

fertion

sertion is not true; and though it were true, yet it is of no force in this cafe, as not proving what he brings it for; and fo his first Argument is good for nothing And I need not follow him after all thofe Authors, which he brings to prove what we do not deny. But because he names one or two, who fpeak more favourably of Perfons involv'd in Schifm, I fhall return him only this fhort Anfwer: That God hath bound us up to the Rules and Laws he hath given us, but hath not limited himself, as to the Difpenfation of his Mercies and Favours, out of the common and ordinary way. How far therefore God may be pleased to extend his Mercy to Perfons mifled into Schifm, who are purely under miftake, and otherwife fober and modeft, and willing to come to the knowledge of the Truth, it becomes neither me nor any other to determine, whatever we may hope or with; this is wholly in the good Pleasure of the Almighty And though Pity and Compaffion may move us to hope and fay what is moft favourable and kind, yet here we have no certain Rule to walk by; nor is it fafe for them to truft to fuch uncertain Charitable Supposals. And therefore this I do fay, and will ftand by, till I shall be convinced of the contrary, That they are out of the Ordinary Way, and that is the Rule, according to which we ought to make our Judgment, which way foever our Affections may work.

CHAP.

CHAP. IV.

The Opinion, that Schifm is as great a Sin as Murther or Adultery, prov'd to be not against Scripture, §. 1. Objections answered, 2. The Text, 1 Cor. 13. 1, 2, 3. explain'd and vindicated, 3: Two Texts in St. Luke reconciled, and their meaning fet forth, 4. Dr. Sherlock vindicated, 5. What Agreement neceffary, 6. Separation from the Authority of the Church, feparation from the Church, 7. The Citations from Mr. Hooker and Dr. Stillingfleet confidered, 8. His Argument retorted, 9. Mr. Dodwell defended, 10, 11. That Schifm deftroys Charity, 12. The Author's mothermiftake confuted, 13.

(1.) THE THE Noife of Popery was the Forerunner to found to Arms, and rouze the Party; but that proving a falfe Cry, he next endeavours to fhelter himself under the Authority in Scripture, to which we are as ready to fubmit as any Men whatsoever; but firft defire to know, whether it be fo or no. For the greater the Authority, the more dangerous a falfe Pretence of it. Now his fecond Argument he lays down in these words: This Horrid Opinion has no ground in Scripture, but is full against it, (p. 19.) If it have no ground in Scripture, I ought not to defire him to fhew, what is not; but if it be full against Scripture, I think he is obliged to prove that very clearly; otherwife he will be much to blame for drawing up fuch a horrible Charge: But this I cannot find that he hath done, or any where to purpose fet about it. But if I do prove, that this Opinion, let him call it as horrid as he pleafeth, hath ground in Scripture, then the Confequence will be, that it is not against it; and then their cry of Scripture, Scripture,