For Schism, and Separation, after some sparkling words of rash-blasphemous, and fiery Sirs, he telleth us 1. ⟨p. 107⟩(1. that nothing may be established in the Church, which God hath not commanded in his w•rd, 2. that all forms of worship and all m•re Ecclesiastical rites, not prescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and consequently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous,) are the first principles of Separation. Now if it would please the Rejoinder either to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easily decided. In the mean time, I answer. 1. the first principle is from Moses, if it be understood, as we mean it: thou shalt not add any thing thereto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with forms of worship, is not ours, but only by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly deny, that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depend upon the Bishops calling. 4. The fourth is made schismatical, by a schismatical conceit of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thing in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phrase withal, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep) if he did believe these principles, is nothing else but a rhetorical flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bow to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitary body, in the Lords supper, though these are more palpably idolatrous (in his conscience) then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.
For Scisme, and Separation, after some sparkeling wordes of rash-blasphemous, and firie Sirs, he telleth us 1. ⟨p. 107⟩(1. that nothing may be established in the Churche, which God hath not commanded in his w•rd, 2. that all formes of worhip and all m•re Ecclesiasticall rites, not praescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and consequently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous,) are the first principles of Separation. Now if it would please the Rejoynder eyther to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easilie decided. In the mean time, I answer. 1. the first principle is from Moses, if it be understood, as we mean it: thou shalt not adde any thing therto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with formes of worship, is not ours, but onely by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly denie, that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depende upon the Bishops calling. 4. The fourth is made scismaticall, by a scismaticall conceyt of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thinge in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phraze withall, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep) if he did beleeve these principles, is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bowe to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitarie bodie, in the Lords supper, though these are more palpablie idolatrous (in his conscience) then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.
