there be no particular Warrant in Gods Word for them may not we for all this be sure that your Church requireth Men to do things which God hath particularly forbidden And if we be sure of this upon the plain Grounds of Reason and Scripture should we be afraid to reject your Communion in these things because another sort of Men are so unreasonably wilful as to reject our Communion for the sake of things that are nothing like to these What if they conceiving that our Forms of Prayer are not so Edifying that our Rites and Ceremonies are not so expedient but rather Vnlawful as being Human Inventions what I say if they lay so great a stress upon these things as to set up a Communion which they Fancy to be more refined and unexceptionable May they not be to blame in all this and yet the Church of England not be liable to blame but worthy of commendation for departing from you in your Latin Service your half Communion your Praying to Dead Men and Women your giving Divine Honors to a Wafer and your other Gross Superstitions and Idolatries Although our Church had not ordered her publick Worship so discreetly and carefully but that in sundry things it might be reformed to good purpose it might yet by no means be necessary for any of her Members to forsake her Communion but it would on the other hand be their great fault so to do so long as she holds forth all the necessary means of Salvation and requires nothing to be professed or to be done that is contrary to Gods Word But yet it would be necessary to renounce the profession of your Impious Errors and to forsake you in all things wherein your selves have departed from the plain Truths of Reason and Christianity and contradicted the plain Word and Laws of God Though it may happen that a Man may do so Foolishly as to run himself upon great inconvenience in forsaking his Habitation because there is some petty Disease reigning thereabouts which is known to endanger no Mans Life yet it may be Wisely done by another Man to run his Country when the Plague is raging in every corner of it especially if he could know that it were impossible for him to escape if he should tarry there any longer And yet I suppose you will not deny but the one as well as the other may pretend that he left his dwelling for the sake of better health and more safely But I hope you will grant that the later pretends this like a Wise-Man though the other does it like a Fool. The case we are upon is much what the same From you it was necessary to depart for the sake of greater purity but so it is not necessary for you or others to depart from us and yet others may take the same Plea into their mouths against us and we may not be able to help it though we can well shew that they have no good reason for it And thus much for the Difference of the Case with respect to Separation for greater purity 2. I proceed next to consider the Difference with respect to that common Question Who shall be the Judge The Church of Rome arrogating to her self an Infallibility in determining all Questions of Faith doth in pursuance of this claim deny private persons the Liberty of examining her Definitions by the Holy Scriptures and requireth them to acquiesce therein without more ado as there is great reason they should if indeed they have reason to believe her Infallible The Church of England pretendeth not to Infallibility But we say that she is not deceived in those points which she propounds to be believed as necessary to Salvation nor in rejecting those other Articles which the Roman Church propounds under that notion And agreeably to this pretence she hath Translated the Holy Scriptures into plain English which are the best means whereby to Judge if what she says be not true she not only alloweth the People to Read them but exhorteth and requireth them so to do and causeth them to be Publickly Read to the People in all Religious Assemblies By this means she traineth up her Members to an Ability of Judging according to their several Capacities not only concerning All that she teaches them to believe but also concerning All that she teaches them to do as their Duty to God or Man so that she does not bring them up as the Church of Rome Educates her Children to an Implicit Faith and a Blind Obedience But yet the Superiors of our Church do challenge a Right to Judge in some things for the People commited to their charge and will not allow that in those things they should Judge for themselves and they are All things that relate to Publick Order and which may without Sin be determined one way or another but are capable of a better or worse Determination that is All Indifferent things We say that things of this nature being determined by a Competent Authority ought without farther inquiry into the Reasons of such Determination to be done by all that are under that Authority As for the Peoples Faith in God and their Obedience to him in doing what he hath Commanded and avoiding what he hath Forbidden our Church does not resolve that into her own Authority but into those very Reasons upon which they that are in Authority do build their own Faith and Obedience which Reasons are included in the Holy Scriptures But as to her Appointments and Orders in all things neither injoined by God himself nor by him forbidden she expecteth Submission to them upon the Account of her own Authority and alloweth not us to Judge of the Expediency or Inexpediency of them before we will Conform our Practice to them All which is so to be understood that still her Authority in these things is supposed to be of God and the Duty of Submitting thereunto required in the general precepts of Obedience to Superiors But if any Man ask Who is to be Judge of things Indifferent as to a Mans practice whether his own Conscience or his Superior I Answer that as to a Man 's own practice himself is to be Judge what things are Indifferent and which consequently come within the compass of Human Authority to Determin For it is plain enough that by the same Rule which sheweth us what is Duty and what is Sin we come to Judge of what is Indifferent And therefore when we grant to Private Persons a Judgment of Discretion concerning Sin and Duty we cannot deny them the right to Judge what is neither Duty nor Sin but Indifferent which is the Sum of what the Author of the Case in behalf of Dissenters hath said upon that matter But then how can Authority pretend to abridge private Persons of Judging as to their own practice concerning Indifferent things To this I Answer in the Words of the same Author where he acknowledges his Adversary to have said well to those
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
who cannot comply with some things required in the Liturgy and can say no more then that they think them not Decent not Expedient not Orderly for says he no Private Person is a Judge of these things Which is an excellent saying but so directly contrary to the main principles of his Book that I wonder how it fell from him We are then to Judge whether the things required by Authority be Indifferent that is Lawful and then to Judge no farther as to our own Practice But for the Decency and Expediency and Orderliness of those things to leave our Superiors to Answer to God for that Our doing them is Warranted by our Rule which is to obey Authority in all Lawful things Now it is things of this sort only and with respect to Order and Decency and Prudent Determination of what is most likely to Edify that our Superiors pretend to Judge for us what is and what is not to be done so as to allow us no right to Judge for our selves about them They claim Obedience to their Constitutions in these things upon the Account of their Authority which when the matter is Lawful should without more ado conclude our Practice Indeed they Judge also what Faith we are to profess what Worship we are to offer up to God and what Life we are to lead in order to our receiving the benefit of Church Communion and by consequence they do take upon them to Judge in our behalf what are the Articles of the Christian Faith what is the true Christian Worship and what it is to lead a Christian Life For otherwise it were impossible that the Ministers of Christ should discreetly and honestly use that Authority which he hath left them to take into the Church those that are duly qualified for it and to turn out those that are no longer fit to be continued in it But still there is a great difference between their Judging for us in those things and in the matters aforementioned For they suppose that the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Commandments of God are the same that ever they were from the beginning of the Church and that it is not in the Power of Man to make any alterations in these standing Rules of Christianity and that Obedience is not due to any Authority of Man going about to make such alterations From whence it follows that Private Persons should be able to Judge wherein true Christianity consinsts as well as their Superiors that they also may offer up unto God a Reasonable Service To which end the Bible is put into all Mens hands the meaning of the Scriptures is opened in our Religious Assemblies the People are trained up to understand the particulars of Christian Faith and Obedience with the Reasons and Motives thereof that as we said before they may be able to resolve their Faith into the same grounds of Divine Authority upon which the Bishops and Pastors of the Church do themselves believe And we do Unanimously acknowledge that if this Church makes the profession of false Doctrine or the braking of any of Gods Commandments a condition of her Communion they that upon this account Separate from her Communion are before God clear of the Guilt of Schism in so doing And here she makes all Private Persons Judges for themselves whether she doth this or not and that by training them up the best way she can to be able to inform themselves in these matters But the case is otherwise with respect to Indifferent things relating to Gods Worship For though our Superiors profess that they are not to meddle in adding to or taking from the Faith and the Commandments of God and though they appeal to Private Persons that they do not in Fact usurp an Authority to this purpose which they profess to disclaim yet in these Indifferent things they claim a Power to add or diminish or to make such expedient alterations as they shall think fit to be made and this without being any way accountable to the People for their discretion in so doing before their Orders be obeyed And we say that whoever they are that will not be concluded by Authority in these things but upon any pretence whatsoever taken from them do break away from the Communion of the Church they are Guilty of Schism in so doing And this must be truly said if what that Author himself hath said be true that no Private Person is Judge of those things And now I think any one may see a vast difference between the claim of the Church of Rome to be the only Judge of what she imposes upon her Members and the claim of the Church of England to the same with reference to hers that in the former case it is unjust and unreasonable but in the later very equal and necessary and which no Man that is not over-ruled by a fit of passion and prejudice but must allow to a Competent Authority Whereas therefore we have considered the points in Question between the Dissenters and our selves with respect to Prudence Expedience and Better Edification We say withal that this is more than we were bound to do in order to the Conviction of Dissenters that it is their Duty to conform to the Liturgy and the Laws of the Church And that because the Authority by which they are Establisht obligeth us to Submission if there be nothing in them to make our Communion with the Church Sinful though we should be so arrogant as to think we could have ordered these matters with more discretion if our Advice had been taken But if setting aside the consideration of Authority we have moreover shewn that upon all accounts of Decency and Expediency Forms of Prayer are to be preferred before Extemporary Prayers and that the particulars now excepted against are so far from betraying any want of Judgment in those that prescribed them that they are Indications of the great Wisdom and Caution wherewith they proceeded we have not I say performed this believing it necessary to prove the Separation to be Vnjustifiable but intending to shew thereby that it is more Inexcusable And although it was no part of our Design to render those of the Separation more Inexcusable by this performance yet I beseech them to take care that it happens not so in the Event If after all it be asked what an Inferior is to do that Judgeth those things to be Vnlawful which his Superiors in full Perswasion that they are Indifferent at least require him to do I Answer as all Men that have a Sense of Honesty will Answer That whilest he is perswaded that they are Unlawful he ought to forbear them But then as no Man of Understanding will deny he is yet a Sinner before God for refusing that Obedience to a Lawful Authority which he ought to perform since in order to the performance of it he might and ought to understand his Duty better than he does For as the forementioned Author says Things
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
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
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
from her because it is most necessary not to deny the Truths or break the Laws of God Therefore also by saying that we Separated for greater purity we mean not that we have forsaken but some Corruptions only of the Roman Worship as if our Communion were now indeed purer then theirs though not so pure as it ought to be This is not our meaning For we contend that this Church hath purged away all those Practices and abolisht all those Rules relating to Gods Worship which are contrary to his Word and by Consequence that there is no Impurity left in the conditions of our Communion so that any Man whose Conscience is rightly informed may Communicate with us without Sin Wherefore this comparative expression of Separating for greater purity from the Roman Church respecteth the State of that Church supposing indeed that all the conditions of that Churches-Communion were not impure but withal implying that some of them and those truly not a few were so And therefore that her Communion was not pure enough for any Christian to join in it with a good Conscience Thus I have shewn what we understand by Separating for greater purity and how we maintain this Plea in Answer to the Church of Rome Now therefore although the Dissenters use the same Plea in Words in Answer to us yet if they do not understand the same thing by it that we do nor attempt to make it out by shewing wherein our Communion is Corrupted with such conditions as oblige the Members of this Church to do what God hath forbidden or to neglect what he hath Commanded them to do or to contradict what he hath revealed This Plea I say if it be not made out by such particulars as these is by them weakly brought to justify their Separation from us by our example in Separating from Rome And though the general pretence may serve to delude Injudicious People who have not learnt to distinguish between Reasons and Colours yet it will neither acquit them before God nor in the Judgment of Wise Men who can easily discern and will Impartially consider the Difference of the Case It is indeed a plausible Colour for their Separation from us that we Separated from Rome for greater purity and but a Colour unless they could shew wherein our Communion is Impure or which is all one what are those conditions thereof which be Sinful or Repugnant to the Laws of God But what is it that they mean by this greater purity of Worship for which they Separate Wherein doth this purity consist Let Reasonable Men Judge Extemporary Prayers are more pure than Forms of Prayer To Receive the Communion Sitting or Standing is more pure than to Receive it Kneeling To omit the Sign of the Cross after Baptism is more pure than to use it And the Ministers Praying in a Coat or a Cloak is more pure then to Pray in a Surplice But till they can shew that our way in any of these instances is forbidden by God either they cannot justly pretend that it is Impure or at least they must confess that they mean by Impurity something else when they charge it upon us than what we mean by it when we charge it upon the Communion of the Romish Church and therefore that they do not use the same Plea against us that we produce against that For with us Impurity is Sin and an Impure Communion is a Communion in which we cannot Communicate without Sin i. e. without transgressing the Law of God But as far as I can see Impurity with them must go for something else that is either for doing things that God hath not forbidden or for the omitting of things that he hath not Commanded And if the Church hath Power in Indifferent things and that be pure against which there is no Law their pretence of Separating for greater purity is altogether groundless unless they can prove that they cannot have Communion with us without neglecting to do what God Commands or doing what he forbids Therefore the former discourse concerning Terms of Communion shews that there is a vast difference between this Plea as it is used by us and as it is used by the Separatists against us For we do not Separate from the Communion of the Roman Church upon this principle that the Church hath no Power to make Orders for the Worship of God in matters that are left to our Liberty or to prescribe Rites and Ceremonies that are not contrary to Gods Word But upon this principle as far as we can Judge do the Dissenters Separate from us and the main controversie we have with them is whether it be within the compass of Human Authority to prescribe in things of this sort and consequently whether it be part of the Duty of Christians to submit unto and in their Practice to comply with such prescriptions They will not deny that we shew the Church of Rome where the Scripture forbids what that Church requires and this through all those instances of their Corruption in Worship for which we pretend it necessary for us to depart from her Communion Now if the Dissenters can shew the like of any condition in our Communion I promise to recant all that I have said in behalf of the Church of England under this head of the purity of her Communion and instead of Vindicating my Defence of our Church as to this particular to depart from her Communion in that thing whatever may come of it from this time forwards And I trust that through the Grace of God I should not for the sake of any Worldly Interest either resist the Evidence of any clear Argument tending to my conviction or act in contradiction to a convinced conscience and judgment in a matter of this high nature But to deal plainly the Dissenters seem to be very sensible of the uncasiness of this task that is of proceeding in the same method to convince us of Vnlawful Terms of Communion which we use against the Church of Rome They go another way to work and it would make an Indifferent Man suspect their cause to see what shifts they use to make good their pretence They demand of us where Scripture Commands or what need there is of those things which our Church requires They pretend that the Liberty of Christians does in great part consist in this that they ought not by Man to be determined to any practice in Gods Worship to which God or the Nature of the thing has not determined them They say that the appointment of Significant Rites and Ceremonies is a derogation from the Royalty of Christ and the sufficiency of the Scriptures And to give some countenance to these pretences they would perswade us that the Scripture it self intimates some such thing as if nothing were to be done in Gods Worship but what is by God himself Commanded excepting always those circumstances necessary to action the choice whereof must yet be left to every Man and as
Indifferent and Things Commanded and Forbidden are not Things which we Fancy but which indeed are so If the Light of Nature and the Holy Scriptures are a Rule of what is Duty and what is Sin they are a Rule also of what is Indifferent And the same Light that shews what is necessary to be done and what is necessary not to be done does withal shew what is Lawful to be done or to be forborn And as an Erroneous perswasion that something is Lawful which God hath forbidden will not acquit any Man that hath the means of better Information from Sin in doing according to his Perswasion of the Lawfulness of what he does So neither will any Mans Erroneous Perswasion that his Superiors require him to do what is Vnlawful when the thing it self is Lawful acquit him of the Guilt of Disobedience in following that Perswasion In what degrees this or that Mans Ignorance in these things is culpable God only knoweth for the most part and therefore he only can Judge the World in Righteousness But more or less culpable it is in All that have means of Knowledge And it concerns every one of us as we love our own Souls to consider Impartially what God hath Commanded and what he hath forbidden in his Word and consequently what he has left to our Liberty and that because his Word is a Rule sufficiently plain as to these things For if those to whom God hath given Authority being corrupted in their Judgments by Passion or any Worldly Interest take those things to be Lawful which God hath forbidden and impose them upon All that are subject to their Rule their Perswasion shall not hinder their being grievous Sinners against God nor Exempt them from being answerable to him for abusing their Authority and for all the pernicious consequences thereof in drawing some Men into Wicked Practices and in punishing others for well doing And by like Reason if Subjects not rightly attending to the Rule of their Duty are grown to a Perswasion that those things are Vnlawful which their Superiors injoin them to do whereas indeed they are Indifferent and thereupon refuse to do them This Perswasion shall not acquit them before God nor hinder them from being answerable for Abusing their Liberty and for all the pernicious Consequences of their Disobedience in Setting a bad Example in Breaking the Peace of the Church in Disturbing Publick Order and which very often happens in Giving occasion to the worst of Men to profane the Name of God and to speak Evil and Blasphemous things of his Holy Religion I say Ignorance will help no more in this later case than in the former because it is as easie for the Subject to know what is Indifferent as for the Ruler to know what is Vnlawful These considerations I confess do more properly belong to the last Plea of Conscience but it was very convenient to touch upon them here where we have been inquiring what things they are in which Authority is to over-rule private Judgment and to determine the Practice of Inferiors and withal how great a difference there is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in Answering this Common Question Who shall be the Judge 3. I come now to the last Difference consequent upon the two first respecting Authority and Terms of Communion and that is the Difference of the Principles upon which each side Separates as to their tendency either to maintain or to overthrow one Communion amongst Christians This will fall under a double Consideration 1. That of maintaining one Communion amongst Christians in this Kingdom 2. That of maintaining one Communion with Forreign Churches I shall begin with the First 1. As to Vnity at home The Romanist pretends that upon the grounds of our Reformation Divisions and Separations will be endless amongst us We also pretend that the principles of the Separation from the Church of England tend to the same But with what difference of Reason on each side it is easy to Judge by what has been said already We have Reason to think there would be no end of Divisions if a Competent Authority injoining nothing but what is Lawful to be done in the Communion of Christians is not to be obeyed And certainly this may be very true although it be false that to Submit to the Authority of the Roman Church and that too in things Unlawful to be done by any Christian or by any Man is necessary to prevent Divisions We say farther that there can be no need of an Ecclesiastical Tyranny on the one hand and a blind Obedience on the other to keep those Christians together in one Communion that live within one Jurisdiction if a due use of Authority in Lawful Superiors on the one hand and a Dutiful Subjection of Inferiors thereunto on the other would do the business as most certainly it would But if some Men will be Stubborn we cannot help that any more than we can hinder other Men from being Tyrants But we are sure it concerns both the one and the other as much as their Salvation concerns them not to be so And if this consideration will not keep them within bounds and make them Wise and Honest they must Answer it to God one day And in the mean time Subjects that Suffer Vnjustly for refusing to Obey the Wicked Commands of their Superiors must bear it as patiently as they can and by their Prayers to God and their Meek Obedience to their Rulers in all Lawful things endeavour to recover themselves into their good Opinion And Superiors that are vexed with Froward and Disorderly Subjects who break Christian Communion when no just Cause is given them must do what they can to lay the Truth before them and if this be to no purpose they must use their Authority as Prudently as they can to prevent the Evil Example from going farther We are sensible what advantages the Papists make to themselves against our Reformation by the examples of Dissenters and the Dissenters by the Papists When the Papists have Men and Women of weak understandings to deal with they tell them that the Reformation is run out into several Sects and Parties and no Man can tell where Separation will end If therefore you Love Vnity return to the Church of Rome where we are all of one Faith and Communion The Separatists on the other side set off their claims to an unrestrainable Liberty of choosing in what Communion to Worship God by shewing to their Proselytes the Tyranny of the Roman Church Now we of the Church of England are as much against the Tyrannical Vsurpations of that Church as the Dissenters and as much for Vnity against causless Separation and for Obedience to Lawful Authority against Stubbornness as the Romanists And both these upon principles that consist well with one another We say on the one side that a Foreigner should not affect an Authority over us and that those who have the Authority ought
to require nothing in the Communion of Christians but what is agreeable to Gods Word and Lawful to be done And on the other side that in such things we ought to do what is Commanded and by no means to run into a Separate Communion Upon these principles we departed from Rome and stick where we are and I trust that through the Grace of God we shall neither go back to Rome nor run after the Separation there being no need either of the former to preserve Vnity or of the later to avoid Tyranny To draw to a conclusion of this matter The main Reason of our Separation from Rome was this that we could not continue in her Communion without doing things that God hath plainly forbidden The Reformation of our Church was at first effected by and hath all along stood upon Good and Just Authority She does not only hold forth all necessary means of Salvation but she requires nothing to be done in her Communion that is contrary to Gods Word And therefore we hold our selves bound under the pain of Schism to continue in her Communion Now I do not understand how upon these principles Men must run into Endless Separations unless it be impossible for us whatever we pretend to know who are our Lawful Governours and to know what God hath Commanded and what he hath Forbidden us to do And I must confess if these things be Impossible to be known 't is a Foolish thing for any Man to trouble his Conscience with Cases of Communion and Separation As for the Dissenters to omit the Independents whose Churches are in their very Constitution inconsistent with Submitting to a Common Authority in matters of Worship they have forsaken us for nothing but because the Forms of our Worship or our two or three Ceremonies in it are not Commanded in Gods Word and because in things left otherwise to our Liberty we are determined by the Authority of our Superiors Or because these things might be better ordered and because the Communion which they have taken upon them to set up in Opposition to the Church of England is purer than ours though ours be a Lawful Communion Now these principles do indeed tend to Endless Separations unless these Men could tell us either how we could be United in one Communion though all of us believed it Vnlawful to Obey a Competent Authority that should presume to determin any Indifferent things relating to Gods Worship or what particular Communion that is from which it would be Vnlawful to Separate even upon this principle That there is no Obligation to Communion where there is any thing possible to be mended in the outward mode of Gods Worship In a Word they that Separate upon Just and Necessary cause as the Church of England hath done from the Church of Rome and stop there are not to be charged with the consequence of their practice who Separate without such Causes as the Dissenters do from our Church And if they have proceeded farther than they are able to justify themselves by the principles of our Reformation they must Answer for it themselves 2. The principles of our Reformation do not obstruct our Communion with any true Church of Christ abroad where there are no Unlawful Terms of Communion But so do the principles of the Dissenters Separation By the same reason that our Governours determin one Common order of Worship and Discipline for the Churches over which they have Authority The Governours of other Churches also may determin in these things according to their Prudence for the People subject to their Authority And we who blame the Church of Rome for interposing her Authority amongst us with whom she has no more Right to meddle than any other Forreign Church has must in all things that come within the Liberty of Christians leave other Churches that are as Independent upon Vs as we are upon Rome to their Authority and Liberty And this is what our Church has expresly declared In these our doings we condemn not other Nations nor prescribe any thing but to our own People only for we think it convenient that every Country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of Gods Honor and Glory and to the reducing of the People to a most Perfect and Godly living without Error or Superstition and that they should put away other things which from time to time they perceive to be most abused as in Mens Ordinances it often chanceth diversly in divers Countries In pursuance of which excellent and truly Catholick Declaration I would not only Communicate with Foreign Churches who differ from us in nothing but matters of From and Ceremony but if I were amongst them I should observe their Establish'd Modes and Forms of Worship and though I thought our own way at home worthy upon all the accounts of Order and Decency and Tendency to Edification to be preferred before theirs yet I should not only conform to their way but Religiously abstain from creating any prejudice against it in the minds of Christian People in those places and rather do all that Honestly I could to bring those to a favourable Opinion of it who were prejudiced against it This is that Rule which St. Austin thought should take place not only in respect of those Orders which were Establish'd by Synods of Bishops but in respect also of those Customs which had crept into particular Churches though it was hard to tell why or how they came in In things of this Nature saith he there is one most wholesom Rule to be observed That wherever we see any of them obtain which are neither contrary to Faith nor good Manners and have some tendency to Edification we should not only abstain from finding fault with them but Commend and Practise them our selves And yet he complains in this very Epistle of the multitude of Ceremonious Observations in which particular Churches differed from one another and wishes that a Reformation were made by Authority Thus in the foregoing Epistle speaking of the different observations of divers places for Instance that some fast upon the Saturday and some do not c. and of all other things of this kind which are to be accounted Indifferent Nothing says he does more become the Gravity and Prudence of a Christian then to do after the manner of that Church into which he shall happen to come Then he relates St. Ambrose his celebrated Answer to Monica about things of this sort When I am at Rome I Fast on the Saturday when I am here at Milan I do not Fast And so when thou comest into any Church observe its Customs if thou wouldest neither give just Cause of Offence nor take Offence without Cause This advice St. Austin magnified highly and the more he thought of it the better he liked it For says he I have often with great sorrow considered how the minds of Weak Christians have been disturbed by the
his Soul to look to it that the Cause of his Separation be Just For this is one of those Cases wherein a meer Perswasion of Conscience will not secure a Man acting according to it from sinning against God And from hence it is evident that this Plea that we cannot in Conscience hold Communion with the Church of Rome may in our mouths be a very good Plea against the Papists as without question it is if our Consciences are rightly informed as to the Points controverted between them and us But the same Plea in the mouths of the Dissenters against the Church of England may not be good as most certainly it is not if they are perswaded that our Church hath given them just Cause for their Separation when there is indeed no such matter And therefore we may at least hope that they will all of them now seriously apply themselves to consider the merits of the Cause between them and us which they are now in an especial manner bound to do since the Charity of the Ministers of this City hath made the doing of it easie to all Persons that will be at the Pains to Judge for themselves and that by bringing down the particular Questions in Controversy between them and us to the Capacity of Ordinary Christians And if they will not use this Opportunity that is given them to Consider these things they will have the more to Answer to God and they most of all that disswade them from it To conclude this Point whereas the Papists declaim against our Separation from them under pretence of Conscience as if this had shewn the way to all sorts of Sectaries to Separate from us upon the same pretence We hope that all Persons who are not willing to be deceived will be able to Distinguish between a misguided Conscience on the one hand and a well Informed Conscience on the other and then proceed to examine the Reasons of our Separation whether they be not Just and Necessary and if they find them so to be that they will acquit us from all their blame who Separate without such Reasons For it is very Foolish and unjust not to allow the pretence of Conscience to be good in any Case because it is not so in all Cases Surely if one Mans Conscience tell him that he may and ought to Rebel while himself does not believe that 't is Rebellion he is going about this hinders not but another Man may Lawfully and justly pretend Conscience for his Loyalty and Duty to the Government And though in some Places of the World there are Sovereign Princes who extend their Authority for the maintaining of Damnable Errors and the suppressing of Gods Holy Truth and all the while believe that they use their Power as they ought to do yet this shall not hinder but that Princes who believe and profess the true Religion and withal protect and encourage it with their Authority as much as they can being fully perswaded that so they ought to do that they I say shall for this receive Gods thanks and rewards while the former shall go without them In like manner Conscience may be pretended for Disobeying the just Laws of that Authority which God hath set in the World and in the Church but this shall not hinder his Plea from being good who pretends Conscience for refusing to Commit Idolatry though all the Powers under Heaven should require him so to do Men may by mistake think they do God good Service in murdering his Servants For this has been done by you of the Church of Rome And if in such Plain Cases as these your understandings have been so foully Corrupted it is not so greatly to be wondred at that the Judgments of other Men are so perverted by Interest and Passion as to believe themselves Countermanded by God in things required by their Superiors but in which it would not be their Sin but a Performance of their Duty to obey And yet I hope this Answer whether it be better to Obey God or Man Judge ye was once Truly and Pertinently made and may be so again And so much for the Difference of the Case with respect to Conscience which was the last thing to be considered And now I know that all this will signify very little to any Man that brings not an honest mind with him to Consider it or who had rather take his Opinions in these things upon Trust than be at the Pains to Judge for himself But why should a Man disparage himself so much as not to use that Understanding which God hath given him in matters that Concern his Salvation Why should he be such an Enemy to himself as not to let go a Dangerous mistake when he may enjoy the Truth instead of it if he will use Reasonable Diligence to Consider what is said on both sides Give me leave to put you in mind of your Duty in this Case in the Words of an Ancient Christian Writer In all matters of Practice and Duty it Concerns every Man to use his own Judgment and Discretion in searching for Truth and in weighing what is fit to be done rather then to be betrayed into Error and Sin by such a Credulous reliance upon others as if himself had not the Reason of a Man and were incapable of Consideration God has given to every Man his share of Wit both to find out some things by himself and to weigh those which he hears from others 'T is Natural to all men to love Wisdom and to desire the Knowledge of the Truth And they make Fools of themselves who without Discretion take the Words of their Leaders for all that they say and follow them more like Beasts than like Reasonable Creatures which words are not so to be taken as if it were Dishonourable or Dangerous to any Man to make use of the help of others in Learning the Truth For this were to destroy the use of the Ministry in the Church of Christ and to take away the benefit of mutual endeavours to lead one another into a right Understanding of our Duty But for all this it may be a very Foolish and Unmanly part and it may betray us into very Dangerous Errors not to use our own Judgment at all in matters of Sin and Duty and in Opinions leading to the one or the other but instead thereof to rely altogether upon their Authority whom we have taken for our Guides This is what we say both to the People of the Popish and of the Dissenting Party that if they would apply themselves with Ordinary Diligence and with a sincere mind to find out the Truth in thse Cases they would not meet with any great Difficulty to Perplex them in the way especially if they whose Authority they very much rely upon would speak as plainly and clearly to the Points in Question as without Vanity I may say we have hitherto done We do not desire them to stop their Ears against those
with which they agree in the Substance of Faith and Worship and from differing with Authority for the future about things Indifferent The Cause of the Separation as it is managed by themselves is so very Slight that one would hope they should be of themselves something afraid to venture their being Schismaticks upon it and consequently that they should be ready to consider what has been said to shew that there is indeed no Just Cause given them to Separate from our Church and that there is no Reason to call any thing Popery which they dislike in our Communion as some of them have done to the great disadvantage of the Protestant Religion since as much as in them lay they have made the World believe that the Cause of Popery is better than it is and that it doth not consist only of Opinions and Practices that cannot be defended but of some also that may And it is not the least kindness that the indiscreet Zeal of some Protestants hath done to the Church of Rome that they have inveighed against some things which may be easily justified as if they also were Popish Corruptions And the Learned Men of that Church have not been behind hand in making use of this advantage and that by straining their utmost Wit to represent the Protestant Religion under such Colours as if it stood in Opposition to Episcopacy and Liturgy and to all Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions And I am perswaded the Dissenters cannot do the Protestant Religion a greater kindness than by forbearing to give them this occasion for the Future For let a Cause be never so good in it self it is never likely to thrive in their hands who instead of pressing their Adversaries with what they can never maintain are still forward to deny what they are well able to prove As for the Papists amongst us their mistakes in Faith and Worship are so Gross and Foul that if they would give themselves a little time to Consider what has and what may farther be said to convince them I do not doubt but all of them that are endued with a Competent Understanding and an Honest Sense of things would soon feel those palpable Errors into the belief and practise of which they have been hitherto deluded by an unreasonable deference to the Authority of the Church of Rome and no longer stand off from the Communion of the Church of England The bigger any fault is one would think it should be more easily spied Now these Men Separate from us meerly because we have abandoned those wicked Doctrines and Practices which are of themselves a most necessary Cause of Separation from any Church in the World that should Impose them And therefore they of all Men are the most Notorious Schismaticks that can be imagined And I beseech God to open their Eyes to see it and to recover into the way of Truth all such as have Erred and are Deceived that those who have hitherto been obstinate may prove all things and that those who can be perswaded to Consider these things may hold fast that which is good Rom. 15. 5 6. And the God of Patience and Consolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus That We may with one Mind and one Mouth Glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Amen FINIS ERATA Page 18. line 18. for Term read Form p. 15. l. 31. for cppear r. appear p. 25. l. 27. r. l Cor. 14. Ad Antonianum Ep. 52. Ad Cornclium Ep. 55. Case on behalf of Diss P. 5. P. 17. P. 16. 17. P. 9. P. 20. c. Case on behalf of Diss P. 2. P. 3. P. 3. Case P. 29 30. Case in behalf of Dissenters P. 2. P. 3. P. 36. P. 3. Preface to the Liturgy Ad Januarium Ep. 119. Ep. 118. Ad Casulanum Ep. 86. Ep. 86. Ep. 119. Lactant. lib 2. De Origine Erroris Sect. 7. 1 Thess 5. 21.