the Reformation put our Churches under that of the Presbytery has put yours under that of the Episcopacy and as we are assured that you do not despise our simplicity so neither ought we to oppose our selves against your Preheminence See both these Letters and a third from Monsieur L'Angle to the same purpose at large in the latter end of Dr. Stillingfleet's Misch of Separ Thus much for the foreign Divines Now we will come nearer home and see what our Dissenters themselves have thought of the Church of England from which they separate First then Several of the Dissenters to avoid the imputation of Brownism do sincerely profess before God and all the World That they hold the Church of England to be a true Church of Christ with which they did and would hold Communion notwithstanding any defilement or unwarranted Power of Church Government exercised therein See the Apologetical Narrative p. 5 6. Again They own that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and that they can find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church and that 't is lawful and * If occasional Communion be lawful constant is a Duty See Papers for Accomm p. 47 51 56. sometimes a Duty to communicate with us Baxter's Defence of his Cure p. 38. and 64. Corbet of Schism p. 41. Peace-offering in the name of the Congreg party Anno Dom. 1667. p. 10. True way of Conc. part 3. c. 1. sect 40. and Mr. Baxter in his last Answer to Bagshaw p. 30 31. has these words You little know what pernicious design the Devil has upon you in perswading you to desire and indeavour to pull down the interest of Christ and Religion which is upheld in the Parish Churches of this Land and to think that 't is best to bring them as low in reality and reputation as you can and contract the Religious Interest all into private Meetings And see also Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. to the same purpose And lastly Dr. Owen in his Book of Evangelical Love p. 54. acknowledges That they look upon the Church of England measuring it by the Doctrine received since the Reformation to be as sound and healthful a part of the Catholick Church as any in the World I have now prov'd that Separation from a true Church is sinful and schismatical I have proved the Church of England to be a true Church and all this I have proved from their own Writings How will they now justify their Separation or clear themselves from the imputation of Schism What will they say to this Is Schism not a sin Or is their Separation from us not Schism If they say it is not Schism Why then our Non-conformist Ministers know better what is Schism than all the Learned Divines of the Church of England and the most Eminent Men of all the Reformed Churches beyond Seas do For I have shewed from their own words That they do acknowledge the Church of England to be as true and sound a part of the Reform'd Church as any in the whole World and condemn all those that separate from her as guilty of Schism Doubtless these Men are as competent judges of Matters of Religion as any of our Dissenting Ministers And I am sure we have not the least reason to believe they would flatter us for they are strangers who have no dependance upon us and Men of more Piety and Honesty than to indulge us in any thing that is sinful But it may be they will say that all these Learned Divines beyond Seas who have acknowledged the Church of England to be a true Church are ignorant of the Errors and Corruptions in her But let me tell them They might have a little more civility than to suppose that so many godly upright Men would rashly give their judgment of Matters of so great moment as those are which relate to Religion before they were truly acquainted with the nature and circumstances of the thing And besides They ought not to judge of other Men by themselves Because the most of their own Divines are utter stangers to the practice and Constitution of other Churches as appears sufficiently by their Principles of Separation must they believe others to be so too No throughly accomplish'd Divine can be supposed to be ignorant of the true state and condition of any Reformed National Church much less of so great and considerable an one as the Church of England But to put this out of dispute it appears before that several of the most Eminent Men before-mentioned were in England for some years and frequented both the Churches and Meetings on purpose to acquaint themselves with both in order to giving their judgment of them Since therefore the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and the Worship true and Government and Constitution of it as agreeable to that of the best and purest Ages of the Church as any now in the World let us in the name of God lay aside all those fears and jealousies that have possess'd the minds of too many of us concerning it and let us remember that not only the Peace and Prosperity of this Church and Nation and of every particular Member of it depends upon our Union but of the Protestant Religion all over the World Tho' there may be some things amiss in the Church of England it is not the business of private Men to Reform the Church or dispute the fitness or unfitness of every little imposition Their Duty is to Conform at least in the outward action and submit the fitness of such things to the Wisdom of those to whom God Almighty has intrusted the Government of the Church and Nation they may reasonably be thought more competent judges of what is convenient and fit to be done or not to be done than private Men can be And if any thing be amiss in the Government of the Church or the manner of God's Worship they are to answer for it not the People God will call them to an account for imposing upon his People things not agreeable to his Will But will never condemn us for doing our Duty in submitting to such Governors as he has placed over us 'T is true there are some things in Religion which are essential to it without which Men cannot be saved Now in case our Governours command us to act contrary to these we ought not to obey for we must obey God rather than Men But 't is agreed on all sides That the Church of England enjoins no such things and that they who live godly sober lives according to the Doctrine of this Church are in a safe and ready way to Heaven But 't is a difficult Matter for Men to forsake what they have been all their lives accustomed to they cannot believe that Separation is so great a sin as we seem to make it And that so many honest good People and godly Ministers did live and die in sin If they are resolv'd they will not believe
been and is at this day commended and approved of by all the most Eminent Divines beyond Seas Perhaps some may say if the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops be so agreeable to that of the Primitive Church and approved of by other reform'd Churches as we pretend it is how comes it that they all did not follow the pattern of England and become all Diocesan Churches I answer They may as well ask us Why all the Nations of the World that were subject to the Roman Emperors did not upon the decay of the Roman Empire when they resum'd their just Rights of Government to themselves become all Monarchies according to the Pattern of England Some Nations besides England Ireland and Scotland did assume Episcopal Government as Denmark Sweden c. but perhaps it was not consistent with the present Circumstances or Politick Constitution of all places at the time of the Reformation to set up Episcopal Government as indeed it was not And therefore since neither Episcopal nor any other particular kind of Government is so essential to a Church as that a true Church may not be without it in case of indispensible Necessity they put themselves some under one Form of Government some under another as was most agreeable to their present constitution but with this Caution every where That all Protestants of every whole Church be the Government what it will should be oblig'd to Conform to the Establish'd Church in which they liv'd For though every National or whole Church had a Power to chuse what kind of Government they pleased for themselves yet 't was never allow'd that particular scrupulous People among themselves had Power to do so too This Power of subdividing was never pretended to nor practis'd in any other Nation since the Reformation but in England So that though they do all allow the Antiquity and Usefulness of Episcopal Government yet since 't is not Essential to a true Church no more than that of the Presbyterian or Independent nor convenient at this time for all places some may refuse it and yet it does not follow that we in England should do so since 't is convenient for us and more agreeable to the Laws and Constitution of these Kingdoms and comes by much nearer the Practice of the Primitive Churches than any other whatsoever But they say we make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church for that we will suffer none to execute the Office of a Minister here in England unless they be ordain'd by a Bishop To this I answer 'T is plain we do not make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church For we allow all the Reform'd Churches to be true Churches and Communicate with them and yet some of them have no Diocesan Bishops 'T is true by the Laws of this Church and Nation none are to be admitted to execute the Office of a Minister in any Cathedral or Parish Church or Chapel nor to hold any Ecclesiastical Benefice within these Kingdoms but such as are willing to submit to the Orders and Government of this Church and the Laws of the Land And therefore since both the Laws of this Church and Nation do require that all Ministers who desire to serve in this Church shall declare publickly that they assent to and approve of our Form 〈◊〉 Worship c. and are willing to use the same as the Church appoints and that they shall receive their Ordination and Licence to execute their Office from the Bishops 'T is but reasonable that such as want these Qualifications shou'd be refus'd the Liberty of executing their Office in these Kingdoms * The Church of England does not say absolutely that all those Ministers who want Episcopal Ordination are no true Ministers but only that none shall be accounted a lawful Bishop Priest or Deacon so as to execute their Function in the Church of England unless they be once Ordain'd by a Bishop as appears by the Preface to the Ordination But the reason we refuse them is not so much because that Presbyterian Ordination does not make them true Ministers according to God's Law as though no instance can be given of Ordination without a Bishop in Scripture or Antiquity but all to the contrary because they stubbornly refuse to submit to our Laws and Constitutions and contemn the lawful Authority under which God has plac'd them and commanded them that they should obey And this is evident from the Statute of 14 Car. 2. In which there is a particular Proviso That all Ministers of Foreign reform'd Churches who come into this Kingdom by the King's Permission are to be excepted out of and excus'd from the Penalties of that Act. And this Custom of requiring Conformity and Subscriptions from all who desire to be admitted to the Office of the Ministry is agreeable to the Practice of every settled Church that has been ever since Christ's days as will appear hereafter The 3d. Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our * By National Churches are meant the whole Churches of such Nations as upon the decay of the Roman Empire resum'd their just Right of Government to themselves both in Church and State National Church which we call The Church of England has no Foundation and wants Discipline All being incroach'd and swallow'd up in the Bishops and the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof But this is false for the Presbyters in our Church have as great Power in Ecclesiastical Matters as ever they had in the Primitive Church What Power are they depriv'd of by the Bishops that they had then By the Laws of our Church no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Worship can be introduc'd by the Bishops or impos'd upon any without the consent of the whole Presbytery of the Nation in Convocation who appear either in Person or by Proxy The only Authority that the Bishops of the Church of England have above the Presbyters is Government Ordination and Censures which were all appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops in the Primitive Church St. Cyprian assures us it was so in the African Church in his Third Book Ep. 10. 12. 28. 27. And so it was in St. Augustine's Time See Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 6 7 9 c. But say they the Power of Ordination is taken away from the Presbyters and lodg'd solely in the Bishops and 't is plain say they in the Apostles days the Presbyters did Ordain for Timothy was ordain'd by laying on the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. But Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this Text says That these Presbyters here spoken of who ordain'd Timothy were Apostles That Timothy was ordain'd by St. Paul is most evident for St. Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy ch 1. v. 6. says I put thee in mind that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the
laying on of my hands And the Apostles might then have been likely enough call'd Presbyters for that during the Apostles time Bishops and Presbyters were the same and sometimes us'd the one for the other as appears plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 4. 14. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. In the former Verse St. Paul bids Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in him by laying on the hands of the Presbyters And in the latter he bids him Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the laying on of my hands For while the Apostles liv'd they manag'd the Affairs of Government in the Church themselves and therefore there were few or no Bishops in their days but as they withdrew they committed the Care and Government of Churches to such Persons as they appointed thereto of which we have an uncontroulable Evidence in Timothy and Titus So that although the Apostles left no Successors in Eodem gradu as to those things that were extraordinary in them as the Infallibility of their Doctrine and the writing New Gospels the Extent of their Power c. yet to other parts of their Apostolick Office they had Successors as in Teaching and Governing and such like things that were not extraordinary Which Power of Governing Ordaining c. being given to such particular Presbyters as the Apostles thought fit for it was properly the Episcopal Power And thus these who were but Presbyters in the Apostles days by the accession of this governing and ordaining Power became Bishops after their Decease or Departure And thus will all those seeming Differences between the words Presbyter and Bishop spoken of in Antiquity be reconcil'd And herewith agrees the Opinion of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 270. and many others See King Charles I. his Debates about Episcopacy more fully concerning this Matter But 't is plain that since the Apostles days Presbyters were not Bishops but a distinct Order from them And this is agreed by most Ancient and Modern Writers See among others Ignatius his Epistle ad Trall where he says That without Bishops Priests and Deacons it cannot be call'd a Church And Aerius who declar'd that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter was represented by Epiphanius as a Prodigy and his opinion Madness See Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3. So Ischyrus pretended to be a Presbyter because Coluthus had ordain'd him but Athanasius represents it as a Monster that one shou'd esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordain'd by one who died himself a Presbyter See Dr. Maur. Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 451. And in the Primitive Church if a Bishop himself did Ordain any one against the Canons and Establish'd Discipline of the Church they did not stick at declaring such Ordination void and in some Cases to re-ordain See Can. Nicen. 9 10. 16. 19. and Can. Antioch 73. 10 c. What Sentence shall we think then they wou'd have pronounc'd against our Presbyterian Ordination as practis'd here in England contrary both to the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land too But besides all this the Plea which our Dissenters make for Separation upon this account that the Presbyters are totally depriv'd of their Power of Ordaining is false For by the Canons of the Church of England Four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop in giving Orders and after Examination to joyn in laying on of hands on the Person ordain'd See Can. 31. and 35. But another Objection which they make to the Church of England for want of Discipline is for that the Power of Excommunicating Notorious Offenders is taken away from the Parochial Minister and lodg'd only in the Bishop But sure they who make this Objection never read the 26th Canon which is one of them acknowledg'd to be the Authentick Church Canons For that Canon says expresly That no Minister shall admit any of his Flock to the Lord's Supper who is known to be guilty of any Scandalous Sin until he hath openly declar'd that he has truly repented And in case the Offender continue obstinate he must give an account to the Ordnary within 14 Days who is then to proceed to greater Excommunication for the other is call'd a Penitential Excommunication So then it seems the Pastors are not totally depriv'd of the Power of censuring for Scandalous offences nay they have a greater and more absolute Power than is allow'd them in many other Reform'd Churches for indeed the exercise of Discipline is a Work of so much Prudence and Difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought fit to trust it in the Hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin himself says to do so is contrary to the Apostolick Practice See Calv. Ep. 136. And Beza speaking of the Discipline of Geneva in his Ep. 20. says The Parochial Ministers proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certifie the Presbytery of the City who sit at certain times to hear all Censures relating to Discipline But allowing a Church wants true Discipline does it therefore lose its Being or justify Separation No sure if so there were few Presbyterian Churches to be found in the late times many of them having no Discipline at all among them for many years nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred in some parts of this Kingdom for ten or a dozen years together But now we come to the 4th Objection against the Constitution of our Church which is That the People are depriv'd of their right of choosing their own Ministers Pray let me ask them how this Original and inherent Right as Mr. Baxter calls it of choosing their own Ministers came to be lodg'd in the People Was there not a Church to be form'd in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Authority for that end Where was the Church Power then lodg'd Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And were not then the Pastors invested with a Power superior to that of the People How came they then to lose it or how came the People to pretend an original Right thereto Besides How cou'd the People make choice of Men for their fitness and abilities when at that time their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands for then the Holy Ghost was given to them It seems then that this original and inherent Right was not in the People in the Apostles days nor in the first Ages of the Church for if it had St. Clement St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom c. could not have been ignorant of it St. Clement says in his Ep. 54 55 56 57. the Apostles thought fit to reserve this Power of appointing Officers in the Church to themselves to prevent the Contentions that might happen about it And that all the People had to do was to give
therefore they who differ in these Circumstances do not differ in the act of Worship but in the manner See the Harmony of Confessions where you will find what the Opinions of other Reformed Churches are concerning the Lawfulness and Usefulness of Ceremonies The latter Helvetian Confession saith That there are different Rites and Ceremonies found in the Churches let no Man judge hereby that the Churches dissent And the Confession of Bohemia hath Wherefore those Rites and those good Ceremonies ought only to be kept which among the People of Christ do Edifie therefore whether they be extent or brought in by the Bishops or by the Councils Ecclesiastical or by other Authors whatsoever the simpler sort are not to trouble themselves about that but must use them to that which is good And a little after Although our Men do not equally observe all Ceremonies with other Churches which is not a thing necessary to be done yet are they not so minded as to move any Dissentions for the cause of Ceremonies although they be not judged to be altogether necessary so that they be not found contrary to God's Word And the Augustine Confession has Some Men then may ask whether we would have this life of Man to be without Order without Ceremonies In no wise But we teach That the true Pastors in their Churches may Ordain Publick Rites or Ceremonies And Beza in his 24th Epist agrees herein as has been said before And Calvin in his Book of the True way of Reformation Ch. 16. says He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for decency but those which are Symbolical Let all things be done decently and in order says the Scripture And St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 14. 33. God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the Churches of the Saints But to come home to our Dissenters Mr. Baxter in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 337. speaking of our publick Worship in our Parish Churches says In all the lawful Orders Gestures and Manners of behaviour in God's Worship affect not to differ from the rest but conform your self to the use of the Church for in the Church singularity is a Discord c. See Vines on the Sacrament to the same purpose p. 39. and many more Instances of this kind might be given but what has been said is sufficient to shew that such Ceremonies as serve for Order or Edification and are not directly contrary to God's Law are to be used according to the Opinion of all the Reformed Churches and most Eminent Men both at home and abroad Now How shall we know what Ceremonies are lawful and what not It is to be noted That the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with it and may be lawful and not lawful as that is If a Ceremony be made a substantial part of God's Worship and unalterable or be suppos'd so necessary as that the doing of it would be a thing meritorious or pleasing to God and the not doing of it sinful tho' there were no human Law which requir'd the doing of it Then it becomes sinful because it makes the Scriptures insufficient And this it was that made the Jewish Ceremony of washing before Meat sinful And so it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome But when Ceremonies are injoin'd for the sake of Order and Uniformity in God's Worship according to the general Rules of the Scripture and to prevent the great Mischiefs which we should inevitably fall into if every Pastor and People were suffered to follow their several different judgments in the manner of God's Worship then they are lawful and good But say they If these Ceremonies do not bind the Consciences of Men Why does the Discipline and Censures of the Church force Men to use them I answer The Church does not oblige Men to the observance of these Ceremonies as things that bind the Conscience or which are necessary to be done or not done in themselves but the Reason why Men are forced to observe them and punish'd if they refuse is because they are appointed by the Church and disobedience to the Laws of Church or State made not contrary to the Law of God is sinful Rom. 13. 5. and 2. And for this they are punish'd and also for disturbing the publick Peace And thus we justify our bowing at the name of Jesus at seasonable times and all our Ceremonies since the Church has appointed them we ought to obey unless we can prove them to be sinful which no Man can do so long as the Worship is directed to a true Object to wit the Person of Christ As for the Ceremony of Bowing towards the Altar Note the Canon that appointed it did not oblige any to the observance of it but left them to their liberty As to the posture appointed by the Church of England for receiving the Lord's Supper to wit Kneeling 'T is a Circumstance which may be varied according to the Discretion of the Church In the Primitive Church it was always taken in the posture of Adoration which posture varied according to the Customs of Countries Now Kneeling being the posture of Adoration in these Kingdoms the Church of England has therefore appointed that it be taken kneeling And indeed 't is but very reasonable that so Sacred an Ordinance and so great a Benefit should be received in the most thankful and humble posture that may be and that surely is on our Knees which is also the fittest posture for those high strains of Devotion with which so Sacred a Work ought to be attended at the very instant of taking it The only Objection that I know is made against this posture of Kneeling at the Sacrament is because it is Idolatrous and contrary to Christ's own Practice 'T is strange that they will make us and the greatest part of the Reform'd Churches all Idolaters whether we will or no Does not our Book of Common Prayer at the end of the Communion Service tell them as plain as words can express it That we pay no Adoration to any thing in the Sacrament but Christ himself which is in Heaven and yet will they make us Idolaters for all this Has any of them ever writ so strong against Idolizing the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as our Divines of the Church of England have done And yet will they perswade us we are Idolaters They may as well believe that we Worship the Stones in the Church-Walls when we kneel down to Pray in them And truly I fear many of them do so which makes them use that posture so seldom in their publick Meetings For you shall seldom see in any of their Meetings scarce one of the whole Congregation on their Knees not even at repeating the Lord's Prayer if it happen to be said which is not often Their usual postures of Praying in their publick Congregations are either
who endeavour to inform them but instead of this they fly out into rage and violent Passions against those who offer to remove their Scruples and for their kindness return most reproachful bitter Language both on the Persons tho' never so Eminent and the thing tho' never so Sacred which is visible in all their Books of Controversie And even in common Discourse How difficult is it to obtain from the Zeal of many of our Dissenters so much truce as to hear what one can say to them with patience and civility They tell us in plain terms we may spare our breath and not pretend to teach them they understand their Duty better than we do They are satisfied in their own minds that they are in the right and will not be wheedled out of their Opinion by all that we can say This is truth Mr. Baxter himself has own'd as much in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet p. 81. where he affirms in his own name and the name of his People That he who thinks that his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truly honest Christians in the Land knows so little of Matters or of Men or of Conscience as that he is not fit to be a Bishop or a Priest What will they say now to this will their Scruples of Conscience excuse their Separation and Disobedience when 't is evident they will not use the proper means to satisfie their Consciences Nay farther When they declare 't is needless to go about to remove their Scruples for they are resolv'd beforehand they will not be convinc'd Let no Man say so for shame 't is against common Reason and the Opinion of all learned Men and even of Mr. Baxter himself But we will suppose for once that every particular Dissenter has done his utmost indeavour to satisfie his Conscience and that after all they cannot conquer their Scruples What then Must they therefore proceed to Separation No this was never allowed by Christ nor his Apostles nor by any Christian Church since their time not even by our Dissenters themselves heretofore Our Saviour himself did not separate from the Jewish Church though there were many things amiss in it nor advise others to do so says Vines a Non-Conformist in his Book on the Sacrament pag. 39. In the Apostles days we find there were some who scrupled some things that were enjoin'd but notwithstanding the difference of Men's Judgments and their pretended Scruples of Conscience the Apostles did prescribe Rules of Uniformity and allow'd none to Separate from the Church and frequent Meetings of their own setting up because they could not conquer their Scruples And this very Argument did the Assembly of Divines at Westminster Anno Dom. 1648. use against their Dissenting Brethren the Independents who pleaded for Separation upon the account of Conscience as the Dissenters do now See Papers for Accommodation pag. 111. And when the Independents told them they could not satisfie their Consciences so as to Conform to their Church Government and therefore begg'd That they may be allow'd separate Congregations the Assembly positively refused it and urged them to Conform to their way of Worship c. and charged them with Schism if they did not For say they To desire separate Congregations as to those parts of Worship where they own they can join with us is very unreasonable for tenderness of Conscience may justifie non-Communion in the thing scrupled but it cannot justifie a Separation See the Papers for Accommodation pag. 20 21 22 51 c. For if it should say they it then would make way for infinite Divisions and sub-Divisions and give countenance to perpetual Schism in the Church ib. p. 68 73 c. And then the Assembly justifie themselves in so doing by the practice of the Saints in the Apostles days For they tell them they desire no more of them hereby than what they were confident was practised by the Saints at Philippi namely To hold practical Communion in things wherein they Doctrinally agreed ib. p. 115. So that if the judgment of their own Brethren in a full Assembly may be taken upon the most weighty Debate and serious Deliberation their setting up separate Meetings and forsaking the Church upon the account of some Scruples which they pretend they cannot conquer is Sinful and Schismatical And when the Assembly of Divines was pressed farther by their Dissenting Brethren they desired them to answer in this one thing Whether some must be denyed the liberty of their Conscience in matters of practice or none If none then say they we must Renounce our Covenant and let in Prelacy again and all other ways If a denial of Liberty to some may be just then Vniformity may be settled notwithstanding Men's different Judgments or pretence of Conscience Papers for Accommodation pag. 116. Agreeable hereto is the practice of the Independents themselves where they have the power as in New-England no Separation is there allow'd upon the account of Scruples of Conscience as appears by their Book of Statutes which they have lately Printed and by their telling Mr. Williams a famous Minister among them that if nothing will serve him but Separation because he could not conquer his Scruples The World was wide enough and so away they banish'd them in the midst of Winter From what has been said it appears That though there were some things amiss in the Church of England which our Dissenters could not satisfie their Consciences about yet this would not justifie Separation from the Church though perhaps it might after due pains taken to inform themselves aright concerning them justifie their non-Communion in the things scrupled Now I will shew that there is really no cause to forsake the Church of England upon the account of Conscience And that all those who do forsake the Church and frequent separate Meetings are condemn'd for Schismaticks by the most Eminent Divines of all the Reformed Churches beyond Seas and by Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen Mr. Gifford Corbet and many other of the Non-Conformists themselves heretofore For First they all agree That no Man is obliged in Conscience to separate from any Church that is sound in Doctrine and has the Sacraments rightly and duly administer'd The Scripture allows Separation only in these three cases First In case of Idolatrous Worship Secondly In case of False Doctrine imposed instead of True And Thirdly In case things indifferent be made necessary to Salvation But where these Three are wanting nothing will justifie Separation See Canon Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalced. 17 20 26. Antioch c. 2 5. Cod. Eccles Afr. c. 53 55. Conc. Gangrae c. 6. Conc. Carth. c. 10 11. Cod. Can. Eccles Vniv Can. 65. All these Canons and many more do condemn Separation from a Church that is sound in Doctrine and has the Sacraments rightly and duly Administred So does Calvin in his Inst lib. 4. c. 1. numb 9. where he says That great allowances ought to be made to such