A brief vindication of the non-conformists from the charge of schism as it was…A brief vindication of the non-conformists from the charge of schisme as it was…

3. Pag. 23, 24. There is a Distribution of all Dissenters into two Parties; (1.) Such as say, That although they are in a state of Separation from our Church, yet this separation is no sin. 2. Such as say, That a state of Separation would be sin, but notwithstanding their meeting in different places, yet they are not in a state of Separation. The Difference of these two Parties seems to me, to be only in the different ways of expressing themselves, the one granting the use of the word Separation in this case, which others will not admit. For their Practice, so far as I can observe, is one and the same, and therefore their Principles must be so also, though they choose several ways of expressing them. Both sorts intended, do plead, that in sundry things they have communion with the Church of England, and in some things they have not, nor can have it so. Some knowing the word Separation to be of an ⟨p. 21⟩indifferent signification, and to be determined as unto its sense by what it is applied unto, do not contend but that if any will have it so, the state wherein they are, should be denominated from their dissent unto those things wherein they cannot hold communion with the Church of England; and so are not offended if you call it a state of Separation; how best this hinders not but that they continue their Communion with the Church of England, as was before mentioned. Others seem to take Separation in the same sense with Schism, which is always evil. Or at least they pretend it is their Right to have the Denomination of their state taken from what they agree in with the Church of England, and not from their dissent in other things from it. And therefore they continue in a Practice suitable unto that dissent. Wherefore I judge that there is no need of this Distinction, but both parties intended are equally concerned in the Charge that is laid against them for their dissent in some things from the Church.

3. Pag. 23, 24. There is a Distribution of all Dissenters into two Parties; (1.) Such as say, That although they are in a state of Separation from our Church, yet this separation is no sin. 2. Such as say, That a state of Separation would be sin, but notwithstanding their meeting in different places, yet they are not in a state of Separation. The Difference of these two Parties seems to me, to be only in the different ways of expressing themselves, the one granting the use of the word Separation in this case, which others will not admit. For their Practice, so far as I can observe, is one and the same, and therefore their Principles must be so also, though they choose several ways of expressing them. Both sorts intended, do plead, that in sundry things they have communion with the Church of England, and in some things they have not, nor can have it so. Some knowing the word Separation to be of an