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
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
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
THE DIFFERENCE Of the CASE Between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome And the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England LONDON Printed for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleetstreet and Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England SInce the happy Reformation of this Church they of the Romish Perswasion have with their utmost Art insinuated that our Reformation proceeded upon Principles Destructive of all Order and Government in the Church and that it naturally tends to endless Separations To this end they have laid hold upon that advantage which the Divisions amongst Protestants have offered them and said that the Reasons upon which we ground our Separation from the Church of Rome will hold to justify the Separation of the Dissenters from the Church of England And the Truth is some of the Dissenters have been so Indiscreet to say no more as to alledge the same thing And I am very sorry that Men of the same Perswasion with us in Opposition to the Impious Errors and Practices of the Roman Church should give so much Countenance to that grievous Charge upon the Reformation as some of them have done The Papists are too much beholden to them for giving the Occasion of this Accusation but to joyn with them in the same Charge is too great a kindness in all Reason and indeed Destructive of the Common Cause of the Reformation by insinuating one of these two things either that there was no Reason for this Separation on either part or else that notwithstanding our pretended Reformation we are still as bad as the Church of Rome for otherwise they cannot have the same Reason to separate from us that we had at first to separate from that Church I shall endeavour with Gods help to shew in a short and plain Discourse upon this subject that the Cases are vastly different and that we have very good Reasons wherewith to justify our Separation from the Church of Rome and that the Dissenters who forsake our Communion cannot by any good Consequence from those Reasons warrant their separation from our Church In this attempt I am sensible that I have Adversaries on both sides and that it often happens to be a nice and hazardous business to determine between two Extremes But I hope there is no reason to apprehend great Danger in this Case since it is the same false Charge against the Reformation in which these Extreme Parties agree and it is of that nature that 't is all one whether I confute it against the Papists or against the Protestant Separatists for if it be disproved against one 't is shewn to be unjust in both This is our Case that as we Charge those of the Separation from our Church with Schism so do the Romanists Charge us of the Church of England with Schism too But with this Difference as we pretend that we have good Reason for that so have not they for this For Schism is a Causeless Separation from a Church And we think we may appeal to all Disinteressed and Judicious Christians that we have shewn our Separation from Rome to be grounded upon Just and Necessary Causes but that the Dissenters have shewn none such for their Separation from us And when all is done it should not incline any Man to think that the Truth is either with the Romanist or with the Dissenter because the Charge of Schism is laid by the Romanist against us and by us against the Separtist with equal Confidence unless he sees withal that it is laid with equal Justice For it was not indeed to be expected but that when some Protestants demanding a farther Reformation separated from our Church this pretence would soon after be set on foot both by those of the Church of Rome and by those of the Separation It lay fair for them both and right or wrong was likely to be taken up by both since it would serve exceedingly well to help a bad Cause and to give popular colours to the weak Arguments both of the one and of the other side The Romanist was not likely to forego such an advantage as the Separation of our Dissenters gave him to disgrace the Reformation amongst those that loved Unity Nor was the Separatist likely to omit that advantage which our Reformation gave him to commend his Separation from us under the notion of a farther Separation from Rome to those that abhorred Popery And therefore it will stand all Discreet persons in hand to weigh the merits of the Cause on both sides and not to admit any prejudice against our Communion in favour either of the Papist or the Sectary meerly because they both say that in justifying our Separation from the Papist we vindicate the Separation of the Sectary from our selves I must not in this narrow Compass pretend to enter upon a Discussion of the several Questions controverted between us and our Adversaries on both sides But shall take it for Granted that what has been said in Answer to the several Objections of the Dissenters against our Communion has been well argued against them And likewise that in charging the Church of Rome with those several Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice which have made her Communion Intolerable we have said upon each point no more than what has been well proved against that Church and which upon all fit Occasions we shall by the Grace of God be ready to make good again But my principal design is to shew that there is no manner of Inconsistence in the way we take to vindicate our selves from Schism charged upon us by the Church of Rome with those principles upon which we accuse our Dissenting Brethren of that fault who separate from the Church of England And that the Romanist cannot take our Arguments against the Separation of the Dissenters to condemn our Reformation nor the Separatist our Reasons against the Communion of the Romanist to acquit himself in forsaking the Communion of our Church This I conceive will be made to appear 1. by laying down the Reasons on both sides those by which we pretend to justify our Separation from the Church of Rome and those upon which the Dissenters lay the stress of their Separation from us 2. By Comparing them together that we may Judg wherein and how far these Cases agree with or differ from one another In laying down the Reasons on both sides I shall begin with the grounds upon which this Church separated from the Church of Rome and then proceed to those upon which the Dissenters separate from us 1. To the Church of Rome charging us with Schism we Answer in general That our Separation from her was necessary by Reason of those Corruptions in her Communion which we could not comply with against the Conviction of our Consciences More particularly we say
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
against in our Communion are in themselves Indifferent and they cannot make them Unlawful otherwise then by fetching a Compass about and pretending that they are then Unlawful to be done when our Superiors require us to do them And now I may leave it to the Judgment of all Men that can Consider a Case without great Prejudice whether there be Reason to forsake the Church of England upon the account of Unlawful Terms of Communion pretended to be in her Worship as well as upon the same account to leave the Communion of the Church of Rome that is whether a thing may become Unlawful in Gods Worship for not being Commanded by God and for being enjoyned by Man because every thing that God hath forbidden is neither Lawful to be Commanded by Man nor to be done though it be so Commanded I know not whether some of our Brothers party may not think that he hath given us too much Advantage by reducing the Question to this State But I think it is not his Weakness but the Weakness of his Cause that has led him to it For they are not able to prove the Unlawfulness of the present Impositions in Order to Communion but upon such Principles as these are And I may appeal to Mankind Concerning the Difference of the Case between them against us and us against the Church of Rome in this matter that the Reason of our Separation from Rome will not justify their Separation from us nor that the Reason upon which we challenge them of Schism can fly in our own Faces when the Church of Rome challengeth us of the same Crime But I shall say no more of this Point at present because I foresee Occasion of resuming it presently in another place But this Author offereth another Reason also of the Vnlawfullness of those things that are required and that because they have been and still are used in Idolatrous Services and are not of themselves necessary to be used by us I think I may venture to say that this Reason has been sufficiently exposed But my business is to note the Difference of the Case We Separate from Rome because otherwise we must Communicate with her in her Idolatry which is necessary not to be done The Dissenters Separate from us because otherwise they must do some things not necessary to be done which have been and still are done by Idolaters Again the Dissenters as he says Scruple Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Communion because there is an Objectum Motivum as he calls it before their eyes I think he means because the Elements are Worshipped by the Papists who say they believe them to be no longer Elements but God himself And to Kneel therefore when we take these into our hands is to give some occasion to others to think that we Worship the Elements and therefore the Dissenters Question the Lawfulness of an Adoration of God under these Circumstances I am glad if it be but Question and Scruple though I am sorry 't is so much But whether they only Scruple Kneeling upon this account or more than Scruple it for this Gentleman does not always speak so distinctly as I could wish There is however this difference in the Case that whereas one principal Reason why we Separate from the Papists is because we dare not Worship Bread which without all Question is Idolatry one reason why the Dissenters Separate from us is because we who have so loudly declared against that Idolatry do Worship not the Bread which we believe to retain its own Nature but God only as they themselves confess when we partake of that Bread And here I may be content to let the matter rest that whether we consider the Particulars pretended to be Unlawful in both Communions or the way taken by us to prove those Unlawful which the Church of Rome would impose upon us and that way which the Dissenters use to make out the like charge against the Church of England the difference is so great that the charge of Schism which upon this account viz. of Terms of Communion in Worship we bring against the Dissenters for Separating from us cannot with Reason and Modesty be returned upon our selves for Separating from the Church of Rome I have now compared the two Cases with Respect to Authority and Terms of Communion But before I proceed to compare them with respect to the Plea of Conscience I shall endeavour to represent some other Differences of the Case that are plainly consequent upon one or both of those Differences which we have already considered And they are these three 1. The Difference of the Case with respect to Separation for greater purity of Worship and Ordinances 2. The Difference with respect to that Common Question who shall be the Judge 3. The Difference of the principles upon which either side Separates as to their tendency either to maintain or to overthrow one Communion amongst Christians 1. With respect to Separation for greater purity of Worship and Ordinances The Dissenters say that if for greater purity England Separated from Rome others also may for greater purity Separate from England And because I perceive this Consequence is insisted upon not only by well meaning People but by some that would not be thought the meanest of the party I shall examin it as throughly as I can hoping to gain the Readers Pardon if I repeat some things that have been already Discoursed but which are necessary to be observed in order to a right understanding of this matter The ground I shall proceed upon in Discoursing of this Consequence is that we and the Dissenters do not understand the same thing by greater purity By the Impurity or Corruption of the Roman Communion which is the principal Reason of our departing from it we understand the Sinfulness thereof and by Separating from that Church for greater purity we therefore mean forsaking her Communion that we might not partake in her Sins which otherwise we could not avoid To make good this charge that her Communion was and still is Corrupted in this Sense we have but that one plain way already declared We shew that there are several Doctrines which she Professeth several Things in her Worship which she Practiseth that are plainly contrary to the Truth which God hath revealed and to the Laws which he hath delivered to us And that those Errors and these Practices are not of a slight Nature but that they grate upon the very Foundations of Christianity And moreover that she exacteth the profession of the one and the doing of the other from all her Members So that when we say that we Separate from that Church for greater purity we mean that there are several Impure or Sinful conditions of Communion required in that Church with which as she has ordered the matter we must pollute our selves and of which we our selves must be guilty if we Communicate with her at all And therefore it was necessary for us to depart
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