THE Charge of Schism Renewed against the SEPARATISTS, IN ANSWER To the Renewer of that pretended Peaceable Design, WHICH IS Falsely called, An Answer to Dr. STILLING-FLEET's late Sermon.  
LONDON, Printed for Henry Brome, at the Gun in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1680.   

Doctor Stillingfleet Justified.  
THere was lately put into my hand, a thing called an [Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon] (on Phil. 3. 16.) [by some Non-conformists]: The Sermon to which it pretends to be an Answer, was chief designed to show that the Non-conformists Meetings in Congregations forbidden by Law, are sinful Schismatical separations. 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 Nonconformity. These are two of the three things which we are told (p. 3.) were designed in that Discourse.  
As to the first, The Pamphlet professes, that the Composers of it are in the number of those Non-conformists, who do not go from the Parish Church, in opposition to it, as if such Congregations were no Churches: For they expressly acknowledge, p. 4. That our Parish Churches are true Churches; and, That it is their duty to desire and endeavour the Union and Prosperity of those Churches.  
And what (says this Author, p. 4.) would the Doctor, or any Conformist have of us more, unless it be also to join 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 particular Branches in what themselves judge lawful, nor of forming separate Congregations under other Teachers, and by other Rules than what the established Religion allows, p. 20. Whereas on the contrary, of late Years, the Non-conformists, says he, have filled the People with greater prejudices (than formerly) against our Communion, and gather them into fixed 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 public Congregation, (p. 22.) Which, says the Doctor, we lament as a thing which unavoidably tends to our common Ruin, 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 Separation which the Doctor designed 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 justify 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 contained, or to show that what the Doctor has opposed 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 called) 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 People's meeting is authorized by their Preachers commission: And unless those Preachers do set, and keep up Conventicles, the whole generation of the Nonconformist 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 Consciences, that they do edify more by hearing them, and so they also have the Plea of [greater Duty.]  
The first of these, he pretends to prove by the Apostles express Authority and Example, Who when they were threatened and commanded to speak no more in Christ's Name, have left us their Answer on record, We ought to obey God rather than man.  
Which reason is impertinent and insufficient. Impertinent, 1. Because the Apostles there spoken of [St. Peter, and St. John.] had an extraordinary Commission, 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 justify the preaching it not withstanding that Prohibition: 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 another account, because neither are they forbidden by the Magistrate to preach the Gospel, but allowed to do it to their own Families, and to five more, and therefore they may, if they are lawfully set apart to the Office of the Ministry, exercise their preaching Talon. This instance therefore being thus impertinent to their Case, 'tis insufficient to justify their Practice.  
As for his precedent of the three first Centuries, When, said he, the Gospel was never preached, but contrary to the will of the Magistrate: I deny that that was well done, unless the Preachers could produce some Command 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 Apostles and first publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justify that Commission by Miracles as they did, to affront the Established 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 purpose against it.  
He says, that Affirmative Precepts bind semper, but not ad semper: Which we would fain have pass for a Reason, why Protestants do not use to preach under the Inquisition: And tells us, There's Prudence therefore to be used, and Preachers need not be cast where they will be certainly 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 Rend 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 discharging their (pretended) Duty, but the (deserved) reward of Gaol. But the truth is, there's Money in the case, and good store (usually) of the Wages of Unrighteousness heaped upon such Malefactors, the hope whereof tempts them to persist in the gainsaying 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 Voyages into the Indies: It's their avarice, says he, makes them cross the Seas, and run to the World's end; they publish it is for the good of Souls, and the desire they have to save Infidels, that draws them thither; and yet 'tis very true, that the charity of these good Christians, carries them only to those Countries where the Sun warms the Earth into Gold, and is not at all employed 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 because 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 recompense for the factions pains they take in their Conventicle-Preachments.  
But as for those places where they see neither of these ends can be attained, these Fanatic Missionaries will never believe themselves called 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 produced by this Author, of Non-conformists Preaching contrary 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 ceiling 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 Union 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 lose 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 performed; 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 proved.  
The third Principle is, that Hearing and Preaching being relata, which do mutually put and destroy one another, the People's meeting is authorised by their Preachers Commission; and unless those Preachers do set and keep up Conventicles, the whole Generation of the Nonconformist 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 Commission to preach to more than the Law allows them to preach to. For, 2. If they can show no such Commission '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-authorized Ministers. 4. It is their duty so to do: And 'tis a sin in them to promote 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 edify more by hearing them, and so they also have the plea of [greater Duty.]  
Where he takes it for granted, that a man's expectation of receiving greater Edification, or his persuasion 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 aught I see) he has not so much as endeavoured 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 breaking 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 Parish-Minister: He ought to obey that Law, and to expect 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 receive it in the way of breaking that Order, and wand'ring to other Churches and Preachers, especially such as are disallowed by Law, for that is not God's way of giving it. He may indeed fancy himself more edified 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 Knowledge or Duty, as in the mean time to neglect other parts of Duty, and to do that which (whatsoever this man pretends to the contrary) must needs be (interpretatively at least) a contempt of the Government, 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 itself 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 Parent's consent.  
The Son or Daughter may pretend (and too often truly plead) that their Father and Mother are unsanctified Persons, that they are negligent of Religious Family-duties, and take no care to educate their Children in the fear of God, and therefore they will forsake 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 Falsehood, 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 suffered in being turned 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 turned out of Vineyard for their Consciences? The case was this, When after the King's Restauration, the Parliament upon due consideration of the horrid Mischiefs and sad Calamities, the Land had groaned under for several Years, and likewise of the more horrid Principles which occasioned those Mischiefs and Calamities, both in Church and State, thought themselves obliged to prevent the like for the future, they agreed upon an Act of Uniformity to that end, wherein the Peace and Tranquillity of the State was endeavoured to be secured, by enjoining the renunciation of such seditious and destructive Maxims, as had before disturbed and ruined 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 contained and prescribed in that Book: To which Renunciation and Imposition the Act obliged 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 Live, either could not, or would not Conform: And this they call being turned out of the Vineyard for their Consciences. When as the truth is, They turned themselves out; being tempted and prevailed upon so to do, either by their blind and deluded Understandings, and misguided Consciences, which would not let some of them see the lawfulness of that required submission and compliance, though they had studied and examined things in order to it, or else by their perverse and stubborn Spirits, being resolved beforehand not to comply, because they thought it would be too great a dishonour 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 required in the Act for Uniformity; and that because, 1. Being fully satisfied, by occasion of the more serious weighing of such Points in these latter days, of the unlawfulness of those things which in my younger years I had conformed readily to, upon little better ground than the example and encouragement of others, I was brought (I hope hearty and sincerely) to bewail before God my former conforming to many things, and therefore durst not think of returning to that, for which I had formerly in such a solemn penitential way judged myself 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 seemed most dreadful to me, have also swayed most with you in keeping you off from the Conformity required: 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 prayed and laboured for, or that might be scandalous to those that rejoiced 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▪ Nonconformist, old Arthur Jackson, in a letter of his, which I have still to show under his own hand, dated February 26. 62. And I doubt not but most of the Tribe turned themselves out of the Vineyard upon the same Temptations, and yet these men have the confidence to cry out of the wrong they have suffered in being turned out by others. Which is just as if the Romish Priests should complain of the wrong they suffered by being turned and kept out of England (which was once such a fruitful Vineyard to them) because such Oaths, and Renunciations, were imposed upon them, and required to be made and taken by them (for the securing of the Nation against their Treasonable, and Seditious Principles) 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 Jesuit 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 required to be disclaimed in the Act for Uniformity, are inconsistent 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 undermine our Government Civil and Ecclesiastical, and an undermining the Government is in all States a capital Crime; and well had it been for this Nation, if such an undermining of it had been made Capital in ours; so far am I from being of this Author's mind (in his saucy Insinuations in this Page) that 'twas wrong and iniquity in our Governors to make such a Law (for the good of the Nation) as accidentally occasioned 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 Party [But you may Conform.] If so, say they, we must then desire one or both, of these Learned, Moderate, and Judicious 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 imposed upon us as a condition of Conformity, which we prove to be sinful, and they cannot refel it; there's no man has been more forward than Dr. Stillingfleet, to let us know out of Hales, That 'tis not the Refuser 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 Schismatic; for where the cause of Schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation, is the Schismatic.  
But with the leave of that great man, and of another 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 nonsense, if we should accept 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 Visible Church whereof they were once Members: The Paragraph then must be thus paraphrased. There is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatic; 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 Schismatic. The Nonsense 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 Governor proves a Tyrant: And so upon that (or any other less account) 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 either unlawful, or ministering just scruple, are required of us to be performed, in these cases consent were Conspiracy; and open contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Animosity.  
I shall not stay to question the truth of this Assertion, as to those parts of it [or uncertain] and [or ministering just scruple]: But though (I should allow him that) in those cases consent were Conspiracy, yet open contestation against our proper Governors 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 medium between Consent, and open Contestation; and that is an humble and modest Refusal to comply with those imposed Propositions or Actions, which upon due enquiry, and diligent examination, we judge untrue, or unlawful; and humbly and meekly tendering our Reasons if required, why we so judge. That any greater Contestation than this amounts to, of Subjects against their Governors, is in any case necessary or lawful, is more than I believe can be proved. 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 publicly, Mr. Hales himself pronounces such separations complete 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 Controversy in Holland, De Praedestinatione & Auxiliis; As long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatched; but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloister, 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 Controversy, became a formal Schism. Whence it follows that even in this man's judgement, our Nonconforming Barn-sweepers, and (in them) Pulpit erectors, in order to meeting and preaching against Law, are formal Schismatics. 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 join with the Public Assemblies in Hearing and Prayer, and only withdraw from what is not of Scripture-Institution; I hope this partial Non communion 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 public Order is allowed; 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 performed in public? And in another part of the same Treatise,' What, says he, if those to whom the execution of the public 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 Adoration be used to the Altars?— What if the Homilist have preached, or delivered, 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 constrained personally to bear a part in them ourselves. The Priests under Eli had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily Sacrifice, that the Scripture tells us they made them to stink, yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest. For in those Schisms which concern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful, or suspected Act. Thus he, which passage by the way may serve for a rebuke to these men's greater edification-Argument, 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 Governors 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 men's 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 statuitur 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-Government, p. 484. As an erroneous judgement will not, says he, excuse us from disobedience to our Governors, 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 dispensed 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 unknown, 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 public Worship in Anti-Churches of their own, in the guilt of Schism, and make the worshippers there formal Schismatics.  
That some notions in the latter part of this very Pamphlet, contribute very much to the proving those men Schismatics, 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 required 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 received, 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 seemed to us hitherto, that unless there was something in that Order and Way prescribed which is sinful, and that required too as a condition of that Communion, there's no man could refuse his attendance 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 altered, and those separate Assemblies made legal, 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 lose our Obligation 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 evidently follow: That until the Supreme Authority loosens the Obligation of Parishioners to the Parish-Meeting, they ought and are bound to behave themselves as Members of their respective Parishes, and not to separate from them. For if they do 'tis an unlawful separation, that is, 'tis Schism.  
He says indeed, that no man could refuse his attendance [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 number, if not much the greater part of Conventicles do, must be accounted Schismatics by his own Doctrine. 2. If an universal non-attendance on Parish-Assemblies be a sinful separation, and consequently Schism, because 'tis a sin of disobedience, than every particular absence, and non-attendance upon them is sinful, and consequently Schismatical, because 'tis a sin of disobedience (in Ecclesiastical Matters) 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 pressed, 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 Assemblies 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 Schismatics; and if so, he agrees at last with that Doctor and that Sermon, which he pretends to Answer: In which for aught I observe, the most that Dr. Stillingfleet contends for, is, That all who own our Parish Churches as true Churches, would not either totally, or ordinarily, forbear Communion with them in those things which they judge lawful; nor proceed to form separate Congregations under other Teachers, and by other Rules than what the established Religion allows, (p. 20.) whereas (as he complains, p. 22.) Except some very few, scarce any either of the dissenting Preachers or People in London, come ordinarily to the public Congregations; upon which account he charges them with Schism; in which guilt this very Author does (for aught I see) involve them in this very Pamphlet, which was designed to vindicate them from that Gild.  
To which Pamphlet I shall say no more at present, because I have already replied to all that part of it in which the Doctor's Sermon is concerned: For the following parts of it which are taken up in Apologizing for their Preachers Non▪ conformity, and their refusing to comply with those things which are imposed upon them, to make them Legal Ministers of this Church and Nation, are perfectly alien and impertinent to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon.  
In the 19th P. whereof he himself professes, that he did not intent 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 join 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 People's separating; from whom none of those Subscriptions, or Declarations are required, that are required of those that would be Authorised Preachers. So that the People, says he, are condemned 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 Doctor'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 People's separating, than what have been already Answered; and therefore I have done the Task I undertook in reference 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, required in the Act for Uniformity, nor manifest the Blunders, Falsehoods, and Impertinencies contained 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 Advertise the Reader, that he hath lately Published these following Pieces, (all but the Three last) and no other.  

Toleration Discussed, in a Dialogue betwixt a Conformist and a Nonconformist, 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 Catholic.  
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 Libelers.  
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 Copperplate.  
Narrative of the Plot.   

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