A review of the true nature of schism, with a vindication of the Congregational…A review of the true nature of schisme, with a vindication of the Congregationall…

What seems to be my particular concernment, I shall a little further attend unto. Some words (for that is the manner of managing this controversy) are culled out from pag. 259. 260. to be made the matter of farther contest. Thus they lie in my Treatise. As the not giving a mans self up unto any way, and submitting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, and which he was not by any act of his own formerly engaged in, cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be reckoned to him for schism, though he may if he persist in his refusal prejudice his own edification; so no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion of one Church in all its relations be so esteemed. These words have as yet unto me a very harmless aspect; but our Reverend Author is sharp-sighted, and sees I know not what monsters in them: for first (saith he) here he seems to me to be a very Sceptic in his way of independency: why so I pray? This will gratify all sects, Quakers, and all with a toleration: how I pray? it is Schism, not ⟨p. 177⟩toleration we are treating about. But this leaves them to judge of, as well as others, what is, and what is not according to the mind of Christ, why pray Sr. who is appointed to judge finally for them? why then should they be denied their liberty? but is that the thing under consideration? had you concluded that their not submitting to what they have not light for its institution, is not properly Schism, you should have seen how far I had been concerned in the inference: but excursions unto Quakers &c. are one topic of such discourses. But now he asks me one Question, it seems to try whither I am a Sceptic or no; whether (saith he) does he believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ, for he hath instituted but one way, having run from and renounced all other ways in this nation. I promise you this is a hard Question; and not easily answered. If I deny it, he will say I am a Sceptic, and other things also will be brought in: if I affirm it, it may be he will say that I condemn their churches for no churches, and the like: it is good to be ⟨p. 178⟩wary when a man hath to deal with wise men; how if I should say that our way and their way is for the substance of them, one way, and so I cannot say that my way is the only true way exclusively to theirs:

What seems to be my particular concernment, I shall a little further attend unto. Some words (for that is the manner of mannaging this controversie) are culled out from pag. 259. 260. to be made the matter of farther contest. Thus they lie in my Treatise. As the not giving a mans selfe up unto any way, and submiting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, and which he was not by any act of his owne formerly ingaged in, cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be reckoned to him for schisme, though he may if he persist in his refusall prejudice his owne edification; so no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion of one Church in all its relations be so esteemed. These words have as yet unto me a very harmelesse aspect; but our Reverend Author is sharp-sighted, and sees I know not what monsters in them: for first (saith he) here he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of independency: why so I pray? This will gratify all sects, Quakers, and all with a toleration: how I pray? it is Schisme, not