they would Submit to our Bishops and by their Conformity contribute to uphold the Order of this National Church But then the Independents indeed must in Consequence of their Principles deny that Bishops singly or jointly whether with the Civil Authority or without it have any right to prescribe to their Congregations in matters Ecclesiastical since in these things they hold their Members to be accountable to no Authority under God but that of the Congregation to which they belong And now I shall compare the two Cases of Separation with respect to three things which will I conceive Comprehend all the forementioned Pleas on both sides that is with respect 1. to Authority 2. To Terms of Communion and under this head to the Common pretence of Separating for greater Purity 3. To the Plea of Conscience 1. With respect to Authority We are divided from the Church of Rome as one particular Constituted Church from another neither of which has any Authority to prescribe to the other in matters Ecclesiastical And therefore as I said before tho the Terms of the Communion of that Church were not Unlawful yet if She would have no Communion with us unless we would be govern'd by Her Laws And if our Church Governours should use their own Liberty and Authority to prescribe to us what they Judged more Sutable to the General Rules of Scripture and more Conducible to the great ends of Christianity The Separation ensuing upon that Churches affecting an Usurpation over us could not be Schismatical on our Part who are not the Subjects of the Bishop of Rome but upon the Part of that Church it would be so for Her exercising an Authority where She has no right so to do But the Case of the Dissenters is far otherwise who Separate from this National Church in which they were Born and Baptized and where they live For by thus doing we say that they withdraw their Obedience from their Lawful Governours from whom if they Divide especially if they set up a Communion distinct from that of their Superiors and of the Congregations under them they are guilty of manifest Schism unless the Terms of Communion be Unlawful For it is by no means sufficient to clear them of this fault that those things which fall within the Compass of Church Authority are not well order'd because although this were true yet in these things their practice is to be Determined by that Authority For we think it very Evident that no Society can be united and maintained without this Principle that a Lawful Authority is to be Submitted unto and Obeyed by Inferiors in all Lawful things and that the mere Imprudence or Inexpedience of its Determinations cannot absolve them from their Obligation to comply therewith Now that it is a Lawful Authority upon which the Constitutions of this National Church stands I think no Man can deny that will grant a National Church it self to be but a Lawful Constitution For there is the Concurrence both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors to give them force The Bishops and Presbyters first agreed upon the same Rule and Order for Church Government and Worship which being afterward approved by the Lords and Commons in Parliament was then made a Law by the King so that if the Confederation of the particular Churches of this Kingdom to govern themselves and to serve God in Religious Assemblies by the same Rule and according to the same Term can become the matter of a Law obliging all Christians amongst us to Conformity here is no Auhority wanting to induce such an Obligation And it is to be Consider'd that every one who Separates from that Parochial Congregation where he lives and betakes himself to an Opposite Communion had been guilty of Schism in so doing although the Churches of this Kingdom had not been United as they are into a National Form but each Bishop with his Presbyters had made Rules for Religious Assemblies Independently upon the Rest But now the fault of such Separation is heinously Aggravated as the Case stands by these two Considerations 1. That those Orders or Impositions upon the account whereof he Separates from the Parish where he lives were made by the Common advice of the Pastors of Christs Flock in this Kingdom and that for a Common Rule to them All Which method was a most proper means to Unite their particular Churches more closely one to another and to Edify and Strengthen them by such Union Therefore that Separation which would have been blameable of it self is so much the worse as it tends to break so profitable an Union and to expose the Authority of so many Church Governours to Contempt as contributed towards it by their Advice and Consent 2. That since the Rules thus agreed upon are made Laws also by the Soveraign Power such Schism is aggravated farther by Disobedience to the Lawful Commands of the Civil Authority under which we live and to which all particular Churches in this Kingdom do owe Obedience in all Lawful things And now I believe our Presbyterian Brethren will grant that upon these accounts there is a vast difference between the Cases of Separation from the Church of England and from the Church of Rome in point of Authority But then I must confess the Independents are likely enough to say that these Impositions are as truly Usurpations upon particular Congregations as if they had been enforced upon this Kingdom by a pretended Authority from Rome And if there were no difference between saying and proving we might here be at a considerable loss However this must be granted that an English Bishop may have good Authority to Govern his Diocess and a Presbyter his Parish here in England and yet it may be foolish and unjust in a Forreign Bishop to claim any Authority over the one or the other And I hope they will not deny that the King has good Authority here though the Pope has none nor that the Laws of the Land concerning Religion and Gods Worship do bind the Consciences of the Kings Subjects something more than if they had wanted the Authority of the Legislative Power at home and came to us from abroad with nothing but the Seal of the Fisherman to recommend them i. e. that in this latter case we might have refused them as wanting Authority but not so in the Former but that the matter of them being supposed to be Lawful they ought to be complied with And whereas the Independents suppose the Independency of their Congregations to be of Divine Right both in Opposition to Episcopal Superiority and to National Church-Government this we must leave to the merits of the cause between them and us And I may as well take it for granted that their pretended Right to Independency has been as clearly argued of Novelty and Weakness as the Popes pretended Right to Supremacy has been argued I say of more Novelty and almost as much Weakness But to step a little out of the way of
my present business I may appeal to all understanding persons who cannot judge of the Learning used on both sides whether that Notion of a Church or of Church-Communion is likely to be true which makes it impossible for the particular Churches of a Christian Kingdom to be United under the Soveraign Authority in the observation of the same Rules advised upon and the same Laws made for the benefit of them all In the mean time I conclude this head with saying that though the Pope has no Authority in this Kingdom yet it follows not that every particular Congregation must be Independent And I challenge any Man to take any one Argument used by any of our Church to prove the Independency of our Church upon the Bishop of Rome and make it hold to prove the Independency of a Congregation either upon a National or Episcopal Church if he can Wherefore supposing the Decrees of the Bishop of Rome to be of no good Authority amongst us and our own Laws in matters Ecclesiastical to want no good Authority the conditions of Communion being otherwise Lawful on both sides then the Separation ensuing upon our refusal to submit to those Decrees would not be Schismatical on our part but the Separation of our Independents and all others amongst us refusing to Submit to these Laws would be so on their part And thus much for the Difference in point of Authority 2. We are to compare the Cases also with respect to the Terms of Communion relating to matters of Faith and Worship And in the first place the Dissenters acknowledge that the Faith professed in this Church is pure and intire and that she does not require the profession of any Doctrine in Order to her Communion which a good Christian has reason to suspect And this makes a great difference between the Terms of Communion with our Church and the Terms thereof with the Church of Rome which requires the profession of Gross and Palpable Errors of all whom she admits to her Communion But the great ossence is taken at our Forms of Divine Service and the Ceremonies thereunto belonging And the offended parties are of three sorts 1. Those that do not directly charge any of our practices in Worship as Sinful but suppose some of them to be Inexpedient and Vnedifying And they that Separate upon this account must acknowledge this Difference in the Case that whereas we separating from Rome forsook an Unlawful Communion for one that was Lawful they Separating from us forsake a Lawful Communion for one that they believe to be better And of these I shall take notice again in a fitter place 2. Another sort are they who pretend something more that is that they Scruple the Lawfulness of the things enjoined and that they ought not to Communicate with us so long as they remain under these doubts And these Men also must confess a great difference between the reason upon which they Separate from us and that for which we Separate from the Church of Rome Since we are past doubting in the case and positively affirm those conditions of Communion with the Church of Rome which we complain of to be in themselves Unlawful And in Consequence hereof they must not deny that there is a great difference also between those grounds upon which they and we pretend against that Church the Unlawfulness of her Impositions and those upon which they suspect the like of ours And that is that the Roman Church is by us attacqued with clear and unquestionable evidence of Reason and Scripture against her but that it remains doubtful whether there be any good evidence in Scripture against us concerning which more will be said under the next head In the mean time it does by no means follow that because Separation is Just and Necessary where some things are required to be done which we certainly know God has forbidden therefore it is Just and Necessary also where other things are required concerning which we do not know but they may be Lawful 3. The third sort are they that pretend these Forms of Worship and Ceremonies which the former either Scruple or judge only Inexpedient to be indeed Sinful and to render our Communion not only suspected and less desirable but plainly Vnlawful And I grant that these are the Men who come up to the point And if they could but make good what they say they would shew their Separation from our Church to be grounded upon one General Reason of our Separation from the Church of Rome which would sufficiently clear us from the Imputation of Schism if no other reason were to be given But I believe a very wide difference of the case will appear when we come to consider 1. The particular Practices themselves which are by us said to be Unlawful in the Communion of the Roman Church and those which by the Dissenters are said to be Unlawful in ours And 2. The way and means by which we pretend to prove those and that by which they pretend to prove these Unlawful 1. Let us Consider the particulars themselves The Dissenters do with us Condemn as Unlawful Prayers in an unknown Tongue the Adoration of the Host Worshipping the Cross and the like Practices of the Roman Church in Her Forms of Worship from which they acknowledge also that we have Purged our Communion But they say we have retained other Practices something akin to these though not quite so bad for Instance Kneeling at the Communion wearing the Surplice Signing with the Sign of the Cross and some of them add the Publick use of Forms of Prayer Now all that I design under this head in Comparing the former and the later particulars together is to shew that the Unlawfulness of the former being supposed the Unlawfulness of the latter cannot be from thence inferr'd And that for this plain Reason because the Questions concerning the one and the other are perfectly distinct from one another For as the Bishop of Rome's having no Authority here in England shall not hinder the Authority which our Bishops exercise in England from being Lawful and Good So to pray in an unknown Tongue may be absurd and contrary to Scripture but for all this Forms of Prayer in a Language understood by the whole Congregation may not only be Lawful but Profitable and in most Cases necessary The Adoration of the Host may be an Idolatrous Practise yet to Kneel in the Act of receiving the Eucharist where such Adoration is disclaimed shall be no such Practise We may Sign the Baptized Insant with the Sign of the Cross and yet not Worship that Sign we may do the former in token of the Obligation which Baptism layeth upon us without Attributing any of that Virtue or Efficacy thereunto which makes the Popish use of it Foolish and Superstitious What Practice is there in the Roman Church which we as Unlawful have abandoned from whence the Unlawfulness of Wearing a Surplice or seeing it worn can with any
That this Church of England had no dependence upon the Authority of the Church of Rome which She might not lawfully throw off and that She does not owe any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome but had just Power without asking his leave or staying for his Consent to Reform Her self And withal that the Church of Rome ought to have Reformed Her self as we have done since there were most necessary Causes for so doing the Communion of that Church being defiled with the profession of those damnable Errors and the practice of those Superstitions and Idolatries which we have done away To this purpose we challenge those of that Communion with the particulars of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation their Sacrifice of the Mass their Service in an unknown Tongue their half Communion their Worship of Images their Adoration of the Host and the rest of those Abominations whereof the Communion of that Church doth in great part Consist We acknowledge that we separated from them in these things when we Reformed our selves but in so doing we were not guilty of Schism from the Church of Rome and that if nothing else were to be said because this Church owes no Subjection to that but withal that the Causes of the Reformation being so necessary as we pretend them to be the Separation of Communion that ensued upon our being and their hating to be Reformed was on our side just and necessary upon that account also and therefore not Schismatical So that our Answer is twofold 1. That the Church of England being by no kind of Right subject to the Roman or any Forreign Bishop had full Power and Authority without asking leave of Forreigners to Reform her self And this we say would have cleared her from the Imputation of Schism if the causes of the Reformation had not been so necessary as indeed they were If before the Reformation there had been no Unlawful conditions of Communion required in the Western Churches and all the fault that could have been found in them had amounted to no more than bare Inconveniences and Imprudence in the manner of their Discipline or in ordering the outward Mode of Worship it had yet been free for the Church of England to have Reformed those lesser faults within her self though no other Church would have done the like And though for such defects remaining in other Churches abroad she ought not to have Separated from their Communion yet she might very justly and Commendably free her self from them at home But if a Forreign Church suppose that of Rome should hereupon have abstained from the Communion of this Church till we had returned to the former Inconvenient though Lawful Rites and Customs that Forreign Church had been guilty of Schism in so doing And if the Church of England not willing to part with her Liberty and to prostitute her Authority to the Usurpation of the See of Rome should have adher'd to her own Reformation she had not been guilty of the breach of Communion following that her Resolution because she had done nothing but what was within the compass of her just Power to do and in which she was not liable to be controuled by any other Church We say with St. Cyprian that the Episcopal Government of the Church ought to be but one spread abroad amongst Bishops many in number but heartily agreeing together But with the same excellent Man we say too that it is Equal that every one of them should have a part of the Flock assigned to him which he is to Govern remembring that he is to give an account of his management to God Which he said in asserting the Freedom of the African Churches from Subjection to the Roman This we think is justly applicable to our Case The Church of England is a National Church once indeed under the Usurpation of the Roman Bishop and at length rescued from that servitude we are at present United together by Common Rules for Government and Worship Consulted upon and agreed unto by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation and then made Laws to all the particular Churches of this Kingdom by the Authority of the Soveraign These Laws shew the Reformation of the Church And they do not want any Authority they ought to have for wanting the consent of the Roman Bishop upon whom we have neither Ecclesiastical nor Civil Dependence For if any one single Bishop of the African Church might determin Causes and judge matters of Ecclesiastical cognisance which yet was seldom done in things of moment without the advice of Collegues when the Church had rest from Persecution and this without allowing Appeals to Rome much more may the Bishops of a whose Christian Kingdom confederate together to order Church matters Independently upon the See of Rome especially being required thereunto by their Christian Soveraign to whom they all owe Subjection and Obedience in all things saving their Common Christianity So that if the Causes of the Reformation had not been so weighty as indeed they were yet considering the Authority by which it was effected our Separation from Rome thereupon ensuing was wholly Guiltless on our part it being necessary unless we would submit to the Unjust and Tyrannous Claims of a Forreign Bishop 2. To the charge of Schism laid against us by the Romanist we Answer also that the conditions of Communion required in the Roman Church were many of them Vnlawful to be submitted unto since we could not Communicate with her without professing Doctrines that are plainly contrary to Gods Word nor without doing several things that are clearly and particularly forbidden by it And since it is not in the Power of any Man or Church to dispense with our Obligations to the Laws of God we could not be obliged to preserve Communion with the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents upon those Terms But because Catholick Communion ought to be preserved they ought to have put away those Scandals from amongst themselves which since they have not done though the Separation is equal on both sides yet the Schism is not ours but theirs only And therefore we farther say that if the Corruptions of the Roman Church which God forbid should ever come to be establisht in this Church of England again by the same Authority that has abolisht them it were not only Lawful but a necessary Duty to separate from the Communion of this Church in that Case We have that Reverence of Church Authority and of the Supreme Magistrate that we will submit to their Determinations in all things wherein God has left us to our own Liberty But if they Command us to do things contrary to his Determination and to take that liberty which he has not given us we must remember that we are to obey God rather than Man We have that sense also of the mischief of Divisions and Separations and of the Duty of maintaining Church-Communion that if the Laws of God be but observed we are not only ready to comply
with what our own Superiours impose upon us for the sake of Peace and Unity at home but if we were to go abroad we should observe the Customs of other Churches though perhaps very different from ours and this for the sake of maintaining one Communion of Christians every were But neither abroad nor at home can we purchase Unity of Communion at so dear a rate as to break Gods Commandments for it We know it is a good thing for all the parts of the Church to have but one Communion but we must not do evil that even this good may come And least of all that evil which Church Communion and Church Authority were in great part designed to prevent For as we believe that Christ formed his Disciples into a Spiritual Society so we have great reason to conclude that one main end hereof was that by the Communion of Christians under their Governours the holy Truths and Laws of God concerning his Worship and our Salvation might be more advantageously held forth to the World and more effectually guarded and maintained And therefore to keep this Communion one as much as in us lies we will do any thing required by our Superiors that God has left us free to do or not But to deny that Holy Truth or any part of it or to break any of those Divine Laws for the sake of which this Communion it self was Instituted neither of these things dare we do to prevent Divisions and Separations And we are as sure that Transubstantiation Adoration of the Host Worshiping of Images Praying to the Dead and Praying in an unknown Tongue are Repugnant to several express Texts of Scripture not to say to Common Sense and Reason We are I say as sure that they are the plain Laws and Truths of God to which these things are contrary and withal that to guard these Truths God Instituted a Church and a Communion of Saints as we are that there was any such thing as a Church Instituted or Church Communion required And truly if Separation when there is such cause for it as we pretend were not a necessary Duty it might becom the Duty of Christians to be United in Scandalous Impieties and Damnable Errors And I think no body will say that in such things one Communion is either to be desired or excused but rather to be broken and that every Man is concerned as much as his Salvation is worth to break away from it And we are certain it can never be necessary to any Mans Salvation to be a Schismatick Upon this account we say that they who in Queen Mary's days chose to lay down their lives rather than return to the Communion of the Roman Church were so far from being Schismaticks that they were Gods Martyrs in so doing And had it been or should it be our lot to have this choice so hard to Flesh and Blood offered to us we trust that through the mighty Grace of God we should follow the Faith and Patience of those holy Men and Women who Sealed this Cause with their Blood meekly suffering under the Displeasure of that Just Authority the Unjust Commands whereof they could not honestly obey This plain though General account we give of the Separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome And if we pretend no more in our own Defence against that Church than we can prove we have Reason to think our selves safe on that side 2. Let us now see upon what Principles and by what pleas the Dissenters Defend their Separation from the Church of England To us therefore charging them with Schism upon this account they Answer also That our Communion is Corrupt and that they cannot with a safe Conscience continue in it and that they are bound for greater Purity of Worship and Ordinances to divide from us But in making out this general Answer they do not all go the same way nor do some of them allow those to be good Reasons for a Separation which others think substantial enough That in which most of them do agree is in assigning some Ceremonies injoined in our Church concerning which some of them say that they are Unlawful to be used in Gods Worship others of them that there is great cause to doubt whether they be Lawful or not And these dare not join in our Communion with Scrupulous and Unsatisfied minds The things of this sort are the Sign of the Cross in the office of Baptism though this be made by the Minister only Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist and the Ministers wearing a Surplice in Publick Worship The other Faults they find with the Liturgy however they are thought by the Generality of Dissenters to be a Reason sufficient to ground Separation upon are not I think produced by those that should best understand the Cause as amounting to make our Communion directly Unlawful But yet there are that say they ought not to prefer a worse mode of serving God before a better And the mode which themselves observe being better they are to prefer that before ours and therefore to separate from us for the most part Others go yet further from us and take Liturgies and prescribed Forms of Prayer to be Unlawful to be used or at least suspect them so to be And all these do Generally dislike the Form of Diocesan Episcopacy However they seem not to lay the stress of their Separation upon that since they acknowledge our Churches to be true Churches of Christ and if it were not for other things might be Lawfully Communicated with although they are governed by Bishops And because the Civil Authority concurs with the Ecclesiastical in requiring Conformity to our Church Laws they do not pretend those Laws to be enforced by an Authority to which they are not bound to submit And therefore as far as I can find they rather chuse to Justify their Separation upon the account of the Unlawfulness or suspected Unlawfulness of the things Imposed or upon the preference of a better Communion then ours is But out of these I must except the Independents who acknowledge no other Church to be agreeable to the Word of God but such a Company of Christian People United one to another by a particular Covenant under Officers of their own chusing as can at once Assemble in the same place for the Worship of God And these Men think the very Constitution of our Church to be reason enough for a Separation from it I will take notice of no other Dissenters at present but those that Separate upon some one or more of these grounds which may be reduced to three 1. That a National Church Authority is an Usurpation upon particular Congregations which are pretended to be the only Churches of Christs Institution and that every such Church has full Power in it self to order all things relating to Worship and Discipline and is not of right accountable to any other Authority for the order it shall take to govern
it self in these things And therefore the Independents as I said think themselves clear of the Guilt of Schism as having Separated from a Church which is not of Christs Institution For they take an Independent Congregation only to be such But yet these are willing to come in with the other Dissenters for their Interest in the next ground of Separation upon which all of them as far as I can Judge hope to find the surest Footing And that is 2. That the conditions of our Communion those namely before mentioned are not Lawful for a Christian to Submit unto And here I include those that do but Scruple the Lawfulness of those things which are injoined in our Church For they that say positively they are Unlawful and they that but suspect them to be Unlawful produce the same Arguments the former to justify their Peremptoriness the latter their Scruples The Reasons I say upon which they go are the same only they work up some of them to a greater height of confidence then others are come to and some again they leave altogether doubtful what to say whether to conclude for us or against us They agree in blaming our Church for requiring things to be done in Gods Worship which he has not Commanded some also of which have been and still are done by Papists in their Idolatrous Services from whom we ought to depart in all things that are not necessary to be done Upon these grounds some pretend to be sure others to be afraid that to suffer their Children to be signed with the sign of the Cross to Kneel at the Communion to be present at Divine Service where a Surplice is worn and to submit to Liturgies and prescribed Forms of Worship are Unlawful And these Reasons I find owned in the Case of Indifferent Things used in Gods Worship Stated on the behalf of Dissenters just now published For thus that Author declares in their behalf We cannot saith he conceive it Possible that in things of Divine Worship things of an Indifferent Nature should be the Just matter of any Human Determination farther than the particular Practice of the Person determining And again Where in matters of Worship God hath wrote Ors whether by his Pen in Sacred Writing or by his not prescribing the particular Circumstances no Man can blot them out though themselves may as to their own Practice for this or that Time or Act where they cannot use more than one of those Postures or Circumstances That is where God hath left Men at their Liberty to do this Or that they may Determin themselves but no Human Authority may Determin for them Farther As to things in Gods Worship not Determined by God they Judge every Man is Sui Juris and ought to be Determined by God alone to this Or that i. e. he can be obliged to this or that Part by God only And he says plainly that most of them are Confident that in matters of Worship no Superiors may restrain what God hath left at Liberty In Pursuance of this general Principle he says some Posture in an Human Action being necessary and none by God Determined in every Act of Worship where there is no Determination they believe themselves at Liberty and think they ought not to be Determined by any thing but their own practical Judgment according to present Circumstances It is a Liberty with which God hath made them free Again He acknowledges that they Judge it Vunlawful to obey Laws concerning Words in prayer which God hath left at Liberty and concerning Habits and Gestures supposing them to be left at Liberty and that none who is to use them verily Judgeth them Vnlawful And he intimates more then once that things not necessary and Ordinarily used in Idolatrous and Superstitious Services may not in their Judgment be lawfully used How well he has proved these Positions I am not concerned to examine but leave him for that to his Learned Antagonist These Observations are particular enough for my purpose which is to shew the Difference between the ground of our Separation from the Roman Church and those of their Separation from us whom this Gentleman defends 3. There are those who for all this seem not to think our Communion Unlawful in it self since they can sometimes Communicate with us in our whole Service But they Judge the way of the Separate Meetings to be more perfect and a better means of Edification and the ground of their Separation is this that it is Unlawful to Communicate Ordinarily in a more imperfect way of Worship and enjoying the Ordinances of the Gospel where a better may be had 2. I come now to the second Point which is to compare the grounds of Separation on both sides together that we may Judge wherein they differ or how far they agree 1. I do acknowledge that the most general ground of all is the same on both sides or at least may be so that is that we Separate from the Church of Rome in a full Perswasion of Conscience that so we ought to do And that the Dissenters Separate from the Church of England with the like Perswasion But how far this Agreement makes the Case of Separation the same on both sides and whether it will equally justify the the Church of England's Separating from Rome and the Dissenters Separating from the Church of England will be Considered time enough after all the other Reasons are compared 2. The next general Reason on both sides alledged is that Separation was necessary for greater Purity of Worship and Ordinances We for greater Purity Separated from Rome The Dissenters for greater Purity Separated from us Now whether this may or may not reasonably be pretended by the Dissenters in their Case as well as by the Church of England in Hers will best oppear when we have laid together the particulars exaepted against on both sides by us with Reference to the Communion of the Church of Rome by the Dissenters with Reference to the Communion of the Church of England and have also Considered the way of maintaining Objections against the Terms of Communion with Rome or England that is peculiar to each side But 3. There is not the same Plea offered to justify the Separation in both Cases with Respect to that Authority by which the Conditions of Communion are prescribed For we of the Church of England do unanimously deny that the Bishop of Rome hath any Just Authority to make Rules for the Communion or to prescribe Laws for the Government of our Church But all the Dissenters do not question the Lawfulness of that Authority by which our Liturgy is Establisht and those things which they Object against are required For those of the Presbyterian Perswasion amongst us however they dislike Diocesan Episcopacy yet seem not to insist upon it in their late Writings as a ground of Separation from this Church but if other things were Reformed according to their mind
Quarrelsom humour and Superstitious Niceness of some of the Brethren who upon very slight grounds of Reasoning or being addicted to their own Customs at home or fond of what they have observed abroad raise such Wrangling Disputes about things that cannot be clearly Determined either by the Authority of Holy Scripture or the Vniversal Tradition of the Church Catholick or by the Consideration of what is best for Reformation of Life that they seem to reckon nothing well done but what they do themselves I shall add no more but that plain Rule he gives elsewhere to this purpose As to things in which the Scripture defines nothing certain one way or the other the Custom of the Church and the Decrees of our Ancestors are to be held for Law Now by this and much more that might be produced we may see what the true Notion of that Liberty was which the Ancient Church allowed in matters of Indifference Not that there was no Rule in the particular Churches for the Ordering and Regulating of things of this sort For we find the Bishops did use their Authority in these things over their charges as St. Ambrose's Words to St. Austin's Mother about the forementioned case do plainly imply Resist not thy Bishop in this matter but what he does that do thou without any Scruple or Dispute And besides those particular Customs the Variety and Multitude of which St. Austin complains of there were the Determinations of Episcopal Synods concerning things not Determined in Scripture which he does not complain of But their Liberty consisted in this that the Rules of this sort establisht in the Communion of any Church were not imposed upon Foreign Churches and Catholick Communion was not broken upon the account of different Rites and Customs For though St. Austin was sorry to see the minds of some Weak Christians troubled about Questions of this kind yet I do not find that he had any occasion given him to complain that Communion was broken upon these accounts as before his time it had been by Pope Victors rashness in presuming to Excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for observing Easter upon the fourteenth of March had not Irenaeus and other Wise and Moderate persons seasonably interposed To apply all this to the matter in hand Since the Church of Rome has made such things conditions of Communion with her as are in St. Austin's phrase contrary to Faith and Good Manners our Separation from her upon this account does not at all hinder us from Communicating with any true Church in the World that does not bar us out by Unlawful Terms of Communion For in things that God hath left at Liberty this Church persumes not to interpose her Authority abroad nor refuses the Communion of those Churches whose Customs and Observations are different from ours meerly because they are different Nay let the Church of Rome her self make an end of Imposing False Doctrines and Wicked Practices and there will be an end of our Separation from her Let her give over Commanding things that God hath Forbidden and makeing Articles of Faith of things that are not revealed but are indeed contrary to Sense and Reason and she may for us use her Authority at home in things Indifferent and though she be guilty of great Abuses even in this kind which need a Reformation yet I for my part should not break Communion with her for these things if she would throughly Purge her self from the other In the mean time we are of one Communion with all Foreign Churches that presume not to change the Faith nor to contradict the Laws of God and this we should demonstrate by actual Communion with them if we had occasion to go abroad amongst them But this makes our case very Different from that of the Dissenters who Separate from the Church For so long as they withdraw from our Communion for the sake of Ecclesiastical Order that are not contrary to Gods Word and Separate from us upon this principle that every thing is Unlawful in Gods Worship which is not Commanded in Scripture but enjoined by our Superiors only they must not upon those principles have Communicated with any Church in the Primitive times when there were far more Vncommanded Rites and Vsages Establish'd for the regulating of Worship than now there are in our Church And upon these principles they must not Communicate with any Reformed Churches abroad since how different so ever the External Mode of their Worship may be from ours yet some they all have and that consisting of Rules not Determined by Gods Word but by the Law or Custom of Man To New England they must not go hoping to find a Communion there Lawful to be embraced upon these principles The Nonconformists to our Liturgy and Discipline that are there will stand to their own censures concerning Worship and Discipline and will make out by their Church Authority such as it is what they cannot shew Chapter and Verse for Our Separatists if they go thither shall find no other use of their Liberty allowed there but Conformity and Compliance with that way of Worship and Government which there obtains It is a plain case that they who Separate from our Church upon the account of Unommanded Rites and Practices in Gods Worship are something more obliged by this principle to avoid Communion with all Foreign Churches if Rules for Customs concerning things Indifferent are to be found amongst them all as most certainly such Rules more or fewer all of them have For in the former case our Separatists are disobedient to their proper Governours and Pastors whose Authority over them is some thing more clear and indisputable than that of the Governours of other Churches where they might happen to go And therefore if they will not in things of this Nature be Determined by an Authority at home there is less reason to believe their Consciences will suffer them to be Determined therein by one abroad I conclude therefore that though our Reformation leaves usfree to Communicate with all Churches abroad that do not require Sinful Terms of Communion as the Church of Rome does yet the Separation of the Dissenters from us proceeds upon grounds destructive of Communion with any Church in the World Indeed I believe most of our Dissenters would Communicate with several Reformed Churches abroad but in so doing they must depart from the principles upon which they Separate at home unless they can find a Reformed Church which exerciseth no Authority in Forms of Prayer nor in any Indifferent things for the external Regulation of Publick Worship But where such a Church is to be found I am yet to be informed And thus much concerning those Differences of the Case that are Consequent upon the Difference in point of Authority and of Terms of Communion 3. I come now to consider the last Plea I propounded which I confessed was not only Common to both sides but which also may be as truly alledged on