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
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
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
with which they agree in the Substance of Faith and Worship and from differing with Authority for the future about things Indifferent The Cause of the Separation as it is managed by themselves is so very Slight that one would hope they should be of themselves something afraid to venture their being Schismaticks upon it and consequently that they should be ready to consider what has been said to shew that there is indeed no Just Cause given them to Separate from our Church and that there is no Reason to call any thing Popery which they dislike in our Communion as some of them have done to the great disadvantage of the Protestant Religion since as much as in them lay they have made the World believe that the Cause of Popery is better than it is and that it doth not consist only of Opinions and Practices that cannot be defended but of some also that may And it is not the least kindness that the indiscreet Zeal of some Protestants hath done to the Church of Rome that they have inveighed against some things which may be easily justified as if they also were Popish Corruptions And the Learned Men of that Church have not been behind hand in making use of this advantage and that by straining their utmost Wit to represent the Protestant Religion under such Colours as if it stood in Opposition to Episcopacy and Liturgy and to all Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions And I am perswaded the Dissenters cannot do the Protestant Religion a greater kindness than by forbearing to give them this occasion for the Future For let a Cause be never so good in it self it is never likely to thrive in their hands who instead of pressing their Adversaries with what they can never maintain are still forward to deny what they are well able to prove As for the Papists amongst us their mistakes in Faith and Worship are so Gross and Foul that if they would give themselves a little time to Consider what has and what may farther be said to convince them I do not doubt but all of them that are endued with a Competent Understanding and an Honest Sense of things would soon feel those palpable Errors into the belief and practise of which they have been hitherto deluded by an unreasonable deference to the Authority of the Church of Rome and no longer stand off from the Communion of the Church of England The bigger any fault is one would think it should be more easily spied Now these Men Separate from us meerly because we have abandoned those wicked Doctrines and Practices which are of themselves a most necessary Cause of Separation from any Church in the World that should Impose them And therefore they of all Men are the most Notorious Schismaticks that can be imagined And I beseech God to open their Eyes to see it and to recover into the way of Truth all such as have Erred and are Deceived that those who have hitherto been obstinate may prove all things and that those who can be perswaded to Consider these things may hold fast that which is good Rom. 15. 5 6. And the God of Patience and Consolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus That We may with one Mind and one Mouth Glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Amen FINIS ERATA Page 18. line 18. for Term read Form p. 15. l. 31. for cppear r. appear p. 25. l. 27. r. l Cor. 14. Ad Antonianum Ep. 52. Ad Cornclium Ep. 55. Case on behalf of Diss P. 5. P. 17. P. 16. 17. P. 9. P. 20. c. Case on behalf of Diss P. 2. P. 3. P. 3. Case P. 29 30. Case in behalf of Dissenters P. 2. P. 3. P. 36. P. 3. Preface to the Liturgy Ad Januarium Ep. 119. Ep. 118. Ad Casulanum Ep. 86. Ep. 86. Ep. 119. Lactant. lib 2. De Origine Erroris Sect. 7. 1 Thess 5. 21.
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
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
Colour of Reason be drawn In a word what Erroneous Doctrine in the Church of Rome or Unlawful Practice confess'd by the Dissenters to be by us rejected can be assign'd from which the Unlawfulness of any of those things excepted against in our Liturgy can be inferr'd Let them take any one Argument used by us to prove such or such a particular Condition of Communion Unlawful which that Church requires and by that Argument prove some Condition Unlawful in ours if they can But perhaps they will say That if they can prove this by other Arguments the Case in general will still be the same This I confess and therefore I proceed to the second Point which was 2. To shew the Difference between the way and means by us used to prove those Conditions of the Roman Communion Vnlawful which we except against and the manner of arguing used by the Dissenters against us Now our way is plain and direct for we prove those particulars in the Roman Worship Unlawful which we Condemn by this Argument that they are forbidden in Gods Word and this we prove by those express and particular places of Holy Scripture to which they are repugnant And if we fail not of producing such Testimonies against the Corruptions of that Church we have the Advantage against the Papists And if the Dissenters charge any Condition of our Communion with Repugnancy to Gods Law and can as clearly shew where he hath forbidden it they have the like Advantage against us Now indeed they say that the things Imposed upon them however weesteem them but Indifferent are by themselves Judged Unlawful Thus the forementioned Author saith Could they Dissenters but look upon the Forms and Rites of our Worship under that Notion of things Indifferent possibly their Contest would neither be great nor long I do not like these words for that which may be may not be and possibly the Contest would be great and long though they should look upon these things as Indifferent However he saies that we suppose those things indifferent which they cannot but Judge Vnlawful as they have often told their Brethren But how do they prove them Unlawful Do they shew where God hath forbidden them As we for Instance produce the second Commandment to tshew that in that Commandment God hath forbidden he Worship of Images so do they or can they produce any such Testimony of Scripture against Kneeling when we receive the Eucharist And as we alledge 1 Cor. against praying in an unknown Tongue can they shew us any Text in all the Bible against praying by a Form of Words No this is not what they pretend to do But then we are apt to Conclude that if these things be not forbidden that they are at least Indifferent and therefore Lawful And which is something more we have their leave also thus to Conclude seeing there is none of them but agreeth with us in our Notion of Indifferent things viz. that they are such things as by the Divine Law are neither enjoyned nor forbidden Things undertermined by the Law of God in Nature or Scripture How then do they prove those things Unlawful to be done in Gods Worship which God hath not forbidden either in the Law of Nature or Scripture To make short Work of it Those particulars in our Communion which they except against are Unlawful because they are not necessary to Worship nor Commanded by any express Law of God Which is as much as to say that though they are Indifferent because they are neither enjoyned nor forbidden by the Law of God in Nature or Scripture yet they are not Indifferent and that because they are not enjoyned So that whilst our Brethren allow the Determination of Indifferent things to Authority they take away with one hand what they give with the other For according to their Principles there is nothing left for Authority to Determin as to the ordering of Gods Publick Worship For one would think that the matter of such Determination should be those things which God hath left to our Liberty But you are mistaken if you think so since for this very Reason that they are left at Liberty it is Unlawful for one Man be his Authority what it will so long as it is but Human Authority to Determin in them for another and it is Unlawful for this other Man to Submit to his Determination For we are told that the Light of Nature directeth us to use the most Convenient Circumstances for the Worship of God and the Law of Nature will enforce Men in doing Actions to use Time and Place For other things such as the Postures of Prayer or Words used in Prayer the Holy Scripture is every where as sufficient to us as the Law of Moses was to the Jews which Commanded as to the Passover the offering a Lamb or a Kid and left it to the Discretion and Conveniency of the Offerer to Determin which So for Standing Sitting or Kneeling at Prayer God indeed hath left the one or the other of them to us not Determined leaving it to our Choice or Conveniency which to use who sometimes cannot use Standing another time cannot use Kneeling He hath Commanded us to pray and that with our Voice as well as our Hearts But that he hath not told us what Words we should always use God hath therefore left us at Liberty what Words to use as he left the Jews at Liberty whether to offer a Lamb or a Kid And Moses might by the same Authority have tied up all the Jews to Offer none but Kids or none but Lambs as Superiors can tye up Inferiours to use none but such or such Words in Prayer And the Jews might every whit as Lawfully have Obeyed Moses in such a Command as we can Obey any Superiors in such a Case That is it had been Vnlawful in the Jews to have Obeyed Moses in such a Case and it would be Vnlawful in the Dissenters and it is Vnlawful in us to Obey our Superiors in any of their Determinations Concerning things in Gods Worship which God hath left at Liberty How this Author hath pursued his Argument is not my business to Consider It is sufficient for my design to shew the vast difference between the grounds upon which we charge the Church of Rome with requiring Unlawful Terms of Communion with her in her Worship and those upon which the same fault is imputed to the Church of England by the Dissenters we prove our charge by shewing that God hath forbidden what that Church requires to be done They prove theirs against us by shewing that God hath left those things at Liberty which are required in this Church We shew that the Church of Rome injoyns Practices that are Vnlawful for any Man to Determin himself to They shew that this Church enjoyns Practices which are not Vnlawful for a Man to choose for himself but for Authority to choose for him The things they except