216 The Rea f nablenef titer foryou to argue for yourfelves, from the Scripture- notion of Schi/m, and from the Writings of the Fathers ; or for Me to turn filch Apgu rents againft You, For, we are both agreed, that all caufelefs Divifions amongtl Chritlians are to be avoided : And the Point in Quet{ ion is not, Row the word Schifrn is ufed in Scripture; or, what the Fathers have faid of the Jccafions, and Nature of Schifm ; but only this, Whether your Separation from the Church of England be neceffary, or not ? If it be not, you acknowledge it to be Slüfmatical ; and, therefore, you endeavour to fhew, that it is If it be, We acknowledge it not to he Scifma- tical ; and only endeavour to fhew, that it is not. But whether it be fo, or not, cannot be (hewn, either from the Scrip. ture Notion of Schifn,or from any Sayings of the Fathers. You allege alfo in your own Vindica- tion thejudgment of Mr.Hales:And there- foae, here I muff take notice, that the ,Beadt..r is very much miflaken, ifHe ima- gine, that there is any thing in his Writ. my to your purpofe ; "or; that you can defend your felves by any thing you, have tranfcribed fromHim :_ tho', if you could
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=