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
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
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
the one side as on the other And that is the Plea of Conscience The Dissenters say that they Separate from us being perswaded that they ought so to do And I must needs say that some Degree of Integrity is implyed in this Plea if honestly it be made and such a Degree it is as without which no Man can be an honest Man And therefore instead of going about to make it questionable whether indeed it be out of Conscience that they generally Separate from us I shall here admit it adding only that it stands every one of them in hand to be as sure as they can be that there is this Reason at least for their Separation from us And I hope none of them will take this admonition in ill part since I charge my self and desire all the People of our own Communion to be careful that we be fully perswaded in our own minds that in Duty to God we are bound to Separate even from the Church of Rome and that we do not either chuse one Communion or refuse another for Carnal and Worldly Interest For we say the very same thing viz. That in Conscience we are perswaded that to forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome and of every Church in her Communion as the Terms of her Communion now stand is a necessary Duty But then if we had no more to say for our selves then this comes to we should make but a very Weak Apology for our Separation from the Roman Church and have some Reason to be ashamed of it For to deal plainly this is no more then what a Turk or a Jew may say for refusing to become a Christian and no more then what he may truly say too that is that his Conscience will not let him be a Christian since he is verily perswaded that Christianity is not from God so far as it is contrary to the Religion by him professed Now this if it be truly said shall make him a more honest Turk or Jew than another that is in his Conscience convinced of the Truth which with his mouth he denies yet it shall not make that which he professes to be more true in his mouth than it is in the mouth of a Hypocrite And I suppose no Christian will say that his pretence of Conscience though it be not meer pretence will acquit him of Sin in rejecting the Gospel of Christ when it 's offered to him with reasonable Evidence From whence I think it follows that the Misinformation of his Conscience or his Erroneous perswasion is his Sin And therefore though it be true that we do Separate from the Roman Communion out of Conscience yet whether we do well upon the whole matter in this or not must be judged of by those reasons upon which we are perswaded that so we ought to do and not meerly by our perswasion it self For otherwise we should lay down a principle that would Vindicate a Man in the greatest Errors that can be profess'd and justify him in the most Wicked things that can be done under an Erroneous perswasion that those are not Errors and that these are not Wicked Things Wherefore I beseech all those that forsake the Communion of the Church of England upon a general and loose perswasion of which they are able to give little or no particular account that they do well in forsaking us and that they should Sin in Communicating with us I beseech them I say to lay this to heart and a most evident truth it is that if their perswasion be Erroneous they are notwithstanding their perswasion guilty of Schism And withal that if they are perswaded this is no great matter as I plainly perceive they are for the most part yet if Schism be a very great and aggravated Sin neither will their Ignorance acquit them of guilt proportionable to the heinous Nature of the Sin For my part I should not envy their safety could I believe they had reason to be secure upon giving this account of their Separation and that honestly too that they are satisfied in Conscience about it and there is an end But I have reason to warn them of the Danger of such Presumption since many of the Jews and Heathens that delivered up the Servants of Christ to be Killed for their profession were doubtless satisfied in Conscience that they did God Service in so doing And for ought I know some that have served the ends of the Bloody Church of Rome may have been so perswaded too But do you think that God will give them thanks for what they did because of their good meaning And if you do not think so you have no reason to conclude that you shall be acquitted from your Separation if a Sin it be and a great one too meerly because you do not believe it to be a matter of any great Consequence or indeed any fault at all but rather a Duty I do not know to what purpose Divine Truth is made known to us by Nature and by Scripture and the Laws of God are Written upon our Hearts and these and more Laws besides Written in the Gospel if we might yet be safely Ignorant of our Duty as we are Men or as we are Christians and of that Truth which is necessary to the performance of that Duty To what end hath God made known his Will and given us the means of knowing it and a Reasonable Nature to make us capable of using those means if Ignorance might still be Pleaded in our Justification For my Part I cannot tell and let him that cannot look to it that no Prejudice nor Passion nor Laziness nor Worldly Interest lye at the bottom of his Heart either to hinder his searching or if he searches to hinder his finding out that Divine Truth which is the Rule of his Duty I say this the rather because no body will deny that it is well said But it fares with this as it does with many other good Sayings it is still by all acknowledged to be good but it is by few well applied But thus far at least I may desire those of the Separation to apply it to themselves that if they Vnnecessarily Divide themselves from the Communion of this Church the perswasion of their Conscience that they are bound to divide from us will by no means bring them off in so doing from the Condemnation that belongs to that Sin To break the Communion of Christians is quite contrary to the Ordinance and Institution of Christ who made his Church one Body and the Consequences of it are very Destructive of all the great ends of Christianity and in such Cases the blame is very great wherever it lies and I will be bold to say it could not be very great if it were hard for an honest and unprejudiced mind to find what ought and what ought not to be done to maintain Vnity of Communion amongst Christians And therefore it concerns every Man as he tenders the Salvation of
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
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
from her because it is most necessary not to deny the Truths or break the Laws of God Therefore also by saying that we Separated for greater purity we mean not that we have forsaken but some Corruptions only of the Roman Worship as if our Communion were now indeed purer then theirs though not so pure as it ought to be This is not our meaning For we contend that this Church hath purged away all those Practices and abolisht all those Rules relating to Gods Worship which are contrary to his Word and by Consequence that there is no Impurity left in the conditions of our Communion so that any Man whose Conscience is rightly informed may Communicate with us without Sin Wherefore this comparative expression of Separating for greater purity from the Roman Church respecteth the State of that Church supposing indeed that all the conditions of that Churches-Communion were not impure but withal implying that some of them and those truly not a few were so And therefore that her Communion was not pure enough for any Christian to join in it with a good Conscience Thus I have shewn what we understand by Separating for greater purity and how we maintain this Plea in Answer to the Church of Rome Now therefore although the Dissenters use the same Plea in Words in Answer to us yet if they do not understand the same thing by it that we do nor attempt to make it out by shewing wherein our Communion is Corrupted with such conditions as oblige the Members of this Church to do what God hath forbidden or to neglect what he hath Commanded them to do or to contradict what he hath revealed This Plea I say if it be not made out by such particulars as these is by them weakly brought to justify their Separation from us by our example in Separating from Rome And though the general pretence may serve to delude Injudicious People who have not learnt to distinguish between Reasons and Colours yet it will neither acquit them before God nor in the Judgment of Wise Men who can easily discern and will Impartially consider the Difference of the Case It is indeed a plausible Colour for their Separation from us that we Separated from Rome for greater purity and but a Colour unless they could shew wherein our Communion is Impure or which is all one what are those conditions thereof which be Sinful or Repugnant to the Laws of God But what is it that they mean by this greater purity of Worship for which they Separate Wherein doth this purity consist Let Reasonable Men Judge Extemporary Prayers are more pure than Forms of Prayer To Receive the Communion Sitting or Standing is more pure than to Receive it Kneeling To omit the Sign of the Cross after Baptism is more pure than to use it And the Ministers Praying in a Coat or a Cloak is more pure then to Pray in a Surplice But till they can shew that our way in any of these instances is forbidden by God either they cannot justly pretend that it is Impure or at least they must confess that they mean by Impurity something else when they charge it upon us than what we mean by it when we charge it upon the Communion of the Romish Church and therefore that they do not use the same Plea against us that we produce against that For with us Impurity is Sin and an Impure Communion is a Communion in which we cannot Communicate without Sin i. e. without transgressing the Law of God But as far as I can see Impurity with them must go for something else that is either for doing things that God hath not forbidden or for the omitting of things that he hath not Commanded And if the Church hath Power in Indifferent things and that be pure against which there is no Law their pretence of Separating for greater purity is altogether groundless unless they can prove that they cannot have Communion with us without neglecting to do what God Commands or doing what he forbids Therefore the former discourse concerning Terms of Communion shews that there is a vast difference between this Plea as it is used by us and as it is used by the Separatists against us For we do not Separate from the Communion of the Roman Church upon this principle that the Church hath no Power to make Orders for the Worship of God in matters that are left to our Liberty or to prescribe Rites and Ceremonies that are not contrary to Gods Word But upon this principle as far as we can Judge do the Dissenters Separate from us and the main controversie we have with them is whether it be within the compass of Human Authority to prescribe in things of this sort and consequently whether it be part of the Duty of Christians to submit unto and in their Practice to comply with such prescriptions They will not deny that we shew the Church of Rome where the Scripture forbids what that Church requires and this through all those instances of their Corruption in Worship for which we pretend it necessary for us to depart from her Communion Now if the Dissenters can shew the like of any condition in our Communion I promise to recant all that I have said in behalf of the Church of England under this head of the purity of her Communion and instead of Vindicating my Defence of our Church as to this particular to depart from her Communion in that thing whatever may come of it from this time forwards And I trust that through the Grace of God I should not for the sake of any Worldly Interest either resist the Evidence of any clear Argument tending to my conviction or act in contradiction to a convinced conscience and judgment in a matter of this high nature But to deal plainly the Dissenters seem to be very sensible of the uncasiness of this task that is of proceeding in the same method to convince us of Vnlawful Terms of Communion which we use against the Church of Rome They go another way to work and it would make an Indifferent Man suspect their cause to see what shifts they use to make good their pretence They demand of us where Scripture Commands or what need there is of those things which our Church requires They pretend that the Liberty of Christians does in great part consist in this that they ought not by Man to be determined to any practice in Gods Worship to which God or the Nature of the thing has not determined them They say that the appointment of Significant Rites and Ceremonies is a derogation from the Royalty of Christ and the sufficiency of the Scriptures And to give some countenance to these pretences they would perswade us that the Scripture it self intimates some such thing as if nothing were to be done in Gods Worship but what is by God himself Commanded excepting always those circumstances necessary to action the choice whereof must yet be left to every Man and as
we are now taught Authority must not so much as meddle with them To this purpose we are told of the Pattern in the Mount of Strange Fire that was not Commanded and of the Unlawfulness of adding to or diminishing from the Law of Moses As if these places of Scripture made all impositions concerning the Order of Divine Worship as Unlawful as the express Word of God shews so many particular practices of the Roman Church in her Worship to be But leaving these attempts of theirs to be examined in the more particular Controversies Who sees not what a wide difference there is in the particular management and application of this general Proposition that we must not Communicate with any Church in Impurity between the Church of England against the Papists and between the Dissenters against the Church of England For we are secure against all just accusation from the Church of Rome if this one Proposition be true That it is not in the Power of any Church to dispense with the Laws of God or to absolve us from our Obligation to keep them But the Dissenters cannot avoid the Justice of our charge against them unless this proposition be true also That the Church hath no Authority in things of an Indifferent Nature to prescribe such in Divine Service as shall be thought most agreeable to the general Rules of Reason and Scripture and most Sutable to the great ends of Chrstianity Now if what we say in these things will hang well together that is if the former Proposition be true and if the Truth thereof shall not hinder the latter from being false then with very good Reason may we pretend that it was necessary for us to Separate from Rome for greater purity or for the avoiding of Sin But the Dissenters will have no just ground from our example to pretend the same in their Separation from the Church of England And I think the Difference is plainly enough confess'd by those of the Separation that hold occasional Communion with our Church to be Lawful that is who think it Lawful to Communicate actually with us upon occasion though they are all the while Members of Separate Churches For if our Communion is polluted with Sinful conditions how comes it to pass that this occasional Communion as they call it should be more Lawful then Constant Communion Unless they will say it is Lawful sometimes to break Gods Commandments but not Lawful to do it ordinarily But I know they will not say so And therefore when they say that they cannot without Sin become Members of our Churches though without Sin they can sometimes join in our Publick Worship they seem to suppose that the way of Worship in the Separate meetings is more perfect than ours in respect of those things which do not fall under any particular Law of God but may be ordered better or worse as Men are more or less prudent or as they take greater or less heed to the general Rules of Reason and Scripture concerning things Indifferent And withal that there is so much more gravity Decency Simplicity and Tendency to Edification in the outward mode of their Worship that it would be a Sin to let it fall or in practise to prefer ours before it But by this I think any body may see what a Difference there is between what we and these Men mean by the same pretence of refusing to Communicate where it cannot be done without Sin For our meaning is that there are such conditions of Communion in the Church of Rome that as the Case stands it would be a Wickedness to Communicate with her at any time But they mean no such thing against us since without Scruple they can sometimes Communicate with us only they suppose they have set up a more perfect Communion and they do not forsake our Communion as Unlawful in it self but they think it their Duty to prefer a better before it So that in this pretence for Separation these Men do not understand purity in opposition to Sin or breaking any of Gods Commandments but purity in opposition to a less Convenient or Prudent ordering of the outward mode of Worship That is they do not understand the same thing by Separating from the Communion of a Church for greater purity that we understand by it Nor can they urge that pretence for Separation from us as we do urge it against the Church of Rome And consequently our Reason of Separating from that Church for greater purity does not hold to justify their Separation from us Upon consideration of the whole matter I hope the Papists will find no Protestant of our Church easy and silly enough to be deluded by such Superficial Colours as these are You see say they what is become of leaving the Communion of the Church for greater purity The Protestants at first forsook the Catholick i. e. Roman Church for greater purity And do not the Presbyterians forsake the Church of England for greater purity And so do the Independents set up their Congregations for greater purity And the Anabaptists for the same reason depart from them And the Quakers from them All And there is no end of breaking Communion upon such pretences as these are which are as good against your selves as they are against us And therefore you may choose whether you will return to the Church from which you first brake away under pretence of Reformation or whether you will follow your Principle till you are Refined into Quakers or it may be into a more absurd and mad sort of People than the Quakers themselves are It is a lamentable thing to see Men of Common understanding couzened by such Palpable Fallacies as these are though it is not to be wondred at that the Agents of the Roman Church make the best use of them they can since a Foul Cause must be beholden to such Artifices as these to blanch it over But I pray might there not be such Corruptions in your Church that we with good Reason might pretend it necessary to forsake your Communion for one that was purer and yet there may be none in ours to give any Man Just Cause to leave us upon that pretence Is it impossible that it should ever be just and necessary to depart from the Communion of a Church upon the account of her Corruptions because every Man that has a mouth and can speak may say if he please that he Separates for greater purity though there be no reasonable Cause to say so Or does it follow that because our Dissenters are mistaken in Believing that we have given them sufficient cause to deal by us as we have done by you that is to forsake our Communion for greater purity as we have forsaken yours upon the same account that therefore we also must needs proceed upon mistakes in so doing What if some of them are Erroneously perswaded that they ought not to submit to Human Orders in the performance of Gods Worship if
there be no particular Warrant in Gods Word for them may not we for all this be sure that your Church requireth Men to do things which God hath particularly forbidden And if we be sure of this upon the plain Grounds of Reason and Scripture should we be afraid to reject your Communion in these things because another sort of Men are so unreasonably wilful as to reject our Communion for the sake of things that are nothing like to these What if they conceiving that our Forms of Prayer are not so Edifying that our Rites and Ceremonies are not so expedient but rather Vnlawful as being Human Inventions what I say if they lay so great a stress upon these things as to set up a Communion which they Fancy to be more refined and unexceptionable May they not be to blame in all this and yet the Church of England not be liable to blame but worthy of commendation for departing from you in your Latin Service your half Communion your Praying to Dead Men and Women your giving Divine Honors to a Wafer and your other Gross Superstitions and Idolatries Although our Church had not ordered her publick Worship so discreetly and carefully but that in sundry things it might be reformed to good purpose it might yet by no means be necessary for any of her Members to forsake her Communion but it would on the other hand be their great fault so to do so long as she holds forth all the necessary means of Salvation and requires nothing to be professed or to be done that is contrary to Gods Word But yet it would be necessary to renounce the profession of your Impious Errors and to forsake you in all things wherein your selves have departed from the plain Truths of Reason and Christianity and contradicted the plain Word and Laws of God Though it may happen that a Man may do so Foolishly as to run himself upon great inconvenience in forsaking his Habitation because there is some petty Disease reigning thereabouts which is known to endanger no Mans Life yet it may be Wisely done by another Man to run his Country when the Plague is raging in every corner of it especially if he could know that it were impossible for him to escape if he should tarry there any longer And yet I suppose you will not deny but the one as well as the other may pretend that he left his dwelling for the sake of better health and more safely But I hope you will grant that the later pretends this like a Wise-Man though the other does it like a Fool. The case we are upon is much what the same From you it was necessary to depart for the sake of greater purity but so it is not necessary for you or others to depart from us and yet others may take the same Plea into their mouths against us and we may not be able to help it though we can well shew that they have no good reason for it And thus much for the Difference of the Case with respect to Separation for greater purity 2. I proceed next to consider the Difference with respect to that common Question Who shall be the Judge The Church of Rome arrogating to her self an Infallibility in determining all Questions of Faith doth in pursuance of this claim deny private persons the Liberty of examining her Definitions by the Holy Scriptures and requireth them to acquiesce therein without more ado as there is great reason they should if indeed they have reason to believe her Infallible The Church of England pretendeth not to Infallibility But we say that she is not deceived in those points which she propounds to be believed as necessary to Salvation nor in rejecting those other Articles which the Roman Church propounds under that notion And agreeably to this pretence she hath Translated the Holy Scriptures into plain English which are the best means whereby to Judge if what she says be not true she not only alloweth the People to Read them but exhorteth and requireth them so to do and causeth them to be Publickly Read to the People in all Religious Assemblies By this means she traineth up her Members to an Ability of Judging according to their several Capacities not only concerning All that she teaches them to believe but also concerning All that she teaches them to do as their Duty to God or Man so that she does not bring them up as the Church of Rome Educates her Children to an Implicit Faith and a Blind Obedience But yet the Superiors of our Church do challenge a Right to Judge in some things for the People commited to their charge and will not allow that in those things they should Judge for themselves and they are All things that relate to Publick Order and which may without Sin be determined one way or another but are capable of a better or worse Determination that is All Indifferent things We say that things of this nature being determined by a Competent Authority ought without farther inquiry into the Reasons of such Determination to be done by all that are under that Authority As for the Peoples Faith in God and their Obedience to him in doing what he hath Commanded and avoiding what he hath Forbidden our Church does not resolve that into her own Authority but into those very Reasons upon which they that are in Authority do build their own Faith and Obedience which Reasons are included in the Holy Scriptures But as to her Appointments and Orders in all things neither injoined by God himself nor by him forbidden she expecteth Submission to them upon the Account of her own Authority and alloweth not us to Judge of the Expediency or Inexpediency of them before we will Conform our Practice to them All which is so to be understood that still her Authority in these things is supposed to be of God and the Duty of Submitting thereunto required in the general precepts of Obedience to Superiors But if any Man ask Who is to be Judge of things Indifferent as to a Mans practice whether his own Conscience or his Superior I Answer that as to a Man 's own practice himself is to be Judge what things are Indifferent and which consequently come within the compass of Human Authority to Determin For it is plain enough that by the same Rule which sheweth us what is Duty and what is Sin we come to Judge of what is Indifferent And therefore when we grant to Private Persons a Judgment of Discretion concerning Sin and Duty we cannot deny them the right to Judge what is neither Duty nor Sin but Indifferent which is the Sum of what the Author of the Case in behalf of Dissenters hath said upon that matter But then how can Authority pretend to abridge private Persons of Judging as to their own practice concerning Indifferent things To this I Answer in the Words of the same Author where he acknowledges his Adversary to have said well to those
Indifferent and Things Commanded and Forbidden are not Things which we Fancy but which indeed are so If the Light of Nature and the Holy Scriptures are a Rule of what is Duty and what is Sin they are a Rule also of what is Indifferent And the same Light that shews what is necessary to be done and what is necessary not to be done does withal shew what is Lawful to be done or to be forborn And as an Erroneous perswasion that something is Lawful which God hath forbidden will not acquit any Man that hath the means of better Information from Sin in doing according to his Perswasion of the Lawfulness of what he does So neither will any Mans Erroneous Perswasion that his Superiors require him to do what is Vnlawful when the thing it self is Lawful acquit him of the Guilt of Disobedience in following that Perswasion In what degrees this or that Mans Ignorance in these things is culpable God only knoweth for the most part and therefore he only can Judge the World in Righteousness But more or less culpable it is in All that have means of Knowledge And it concerns every one of us as we love our own Souls to consider Impartially what God hath Commanded and what he hath forbidden in his Word and consequently what he has left to our Liberty and that because his Word is a Rule sufficiently plain as to these things For if those to whom God hath given Authority being corrupted in their Judgments by Passion or any Worldly Interest take those things to be Lawful which God hath forbidden and impose them upon All that are subject to their Rule their Perswasion shall not hinder their being grievous Sinners against God nor Exempt them from being answerable to him for abusing their Authority and for all the pernicious consequences thereof in drawing some Men into Wicked Practices and in punishing others for well doing And by like Reason if Subjects not rightly attending to the Rule of their Duty are grown to a Perswasion that those things are Vnlawful which their Superiors injoin them to do whereas indeed they are Indifferent and thereupon refuse to do them This Perswasion shall not acquit them before God nor hinder them from being answerable for Abusing their Liberty and for all the pernicious Consequences of their Disobedience in Setting a bad Example in Breaking the Peace of the Church in Disturbing Publick Order and which very often happens in Giving occasion to the worst of Men to profane the Name of God and to speak Evil and Blasphemous things of his Holy Religion I say Ignorance will help no more in this later case than in the former because it is as easie for the Subject to know what is Indifferent as for the Ruler to know what is Vnlawful These considerations I confess do more properly belong to the last Plea of Conscience but it was very convenient to touch upon them here where we have been inquiring what things they are in which Authority is to over-rule private Judgment and to determine the Practice of Inferiors and withal how great a difference there is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in Answering this Common Question Who shall be the Judge 3. I come now to the last Difference consequent upon the two first respecting Authority and Terms of Communion and that is the Difference of the Principles upon which each side Separates as to their tendency either to maintain or to overthrow one Communion amongst Christians This will fall under a double Consideration 1. That of maintaining one Communion amongst Christians in this Kingdom 2. That of maintaining one Communion with Forreign Churches I shall begin with the First 1. As to Vnity at home The Romanist pretends that upon the grounds of our Reformation Divisions and Separations will be endless amongst us We also pretend that the principles of the Separation from the Church of England tend to the same But with what difference of Reason on each side it is easy to Judge by what has been said already We have Reason to think there would be no end of Divisions if a Competent Authority injoining nothing but what is Lawful to be done in the Communion of Christians is not to be obeyed And certainly this may be very true although it be false that to Submit to the Authority of the Roman Church and that too in things Unlawful to be done by any Christian or by any Man is necessary to prevent Divisions We say farther that there can be no need of an Ecclesiastical Tyranny on the one hand and a blind Obedience on the other to keep those Christians together in one Communion that live within one Jurisdiction if a due use of Authority in Lawful Superiors on the one hand and a Dutiful Subjection of Inferiors thereunto on the other would do the business as most certainly it would But if some Men will be Stubborn we cannot help that any more than we can hinder other Men from being Tyrants But we are sure it concerns both the one and the other as much as their Salvation concerns them not to be so And if this consideration will not keep them within bounds and make them Wise and Honest they must Answer it to God one day And in the mean time Subjects that Suffer Vnjustly for refusing to Obey the Wicked Commands of their Superiors must bear it as patiently as they can and by their Prayers to God and their Meek Obedience to their Rulers in all Lawful things endeavour to recover themselves into their good Opinion And Superiors that are vexed with Froward and Disorderly Subjects who break Christian Communion when no just Cause is given them must do what they can to lay the Truth before them and if this be to no purpose they must use their Authority as Prudently as they can to prevent the Evil Example from going farther We are sensible what advantages the Papists make to themselves against our Reformation by the examples of Dissenters and the Dissenters by the Papists When the Papists have Men and Women of weak understandings to deal with they tell them that the Reformation is run out into several Sects and Parties and no Man can tell where Separation will end If therefore you Love Vnity return to the Church of Rome where we are all of one Faith and Communion The Separatists on the other side set off their claims to an unrestrainable Liberty of choosing in what Communion to Worship God by shewing to their Proselytes the Tyranny of the Roman Church Now we of the Church of England are as much against the Tyrannical Vsurpations of that Church as the Dissenters and as much for Vnity against causless Separation and for Obedience to Lawful Authority against Stubbornness as the Romanists And both these upon principles that consist well with one another We say on the one side that a Foreigner should not affect an Authority over us and that those who have the Authority ought
to require nothing in the Communion of Christians but what is agreeable to Gods Word and Lawful to be done And on the other side that in such things we ought to do what is Commanded and by no means to run into a Separate Communion Upon these principles we departed from Rome and stick where we are and I trust that through the Grace of God we shall neither go back to Rome nor run after the Separation there being no need either of the former to preserve Vnity or of the later to avoid Tyranny To draw to a conclusion of this matter The main Reason of our Separation from Rome was this that we could not continue in her Communion without doing things that God hath plainly forbidden The Reformation of our Church was at first effected by and hath all along stood upon Good and Just Authority She does not only hold forth all necessary means of Salvation but she requires nothing to be done in her Communion that is contrary to Gods Word And therefore we hold our selves bound under the pain of Schism to continue in her Communion Now I do not understand how upon these principles Men must run into Endless Separations unless it be impossible for us whatever we pretend to know who are our Lawful Governours and to know what God hath Commanded and what he hath Forbidden us to do And I must confess if these things be Impossible to be known 't is a Foolish thing for any Man to trouble his Conscience with Cases of Communion and Separation As for the Dissenters to omit the Independents whose Churches are in their very Constitution inconsistent with Submitting to a Common Authority in matters of Worship they have forsaken us for nothing but because the Forms of our Worship or our two or three Ceremonies in it are not Commanded in Gods Word and because in things left otherwise to our Liberty we are determined by the Authority of our Superiors Or because these things might be better ordered and because the Communion which they have taken upon them to set up in Opposition to the Church of England is purer than ours though ours be a Lawful Communion Now these principles do indeed tend to Endless Separations unless these Men could tell us either how we could be United in one Communion though all of us believed it Vnlawful to Obey a Competent Authority that should presume to determin any Indifferent things relating to Gods Worship or what particular Communion that is from which it would be Vnlawful to Separate even upon this principle That there is no Obligation to Communion where there is any thing possible to be mended in the outward mode of Gods Worship In a Word they that Separate upon Just and Necessary cause as the Church of England hath done from the Church of Rome and stop there are not to be charged with the consequence of their practice who Separate without such Causes as the Dissenters do from our Church And if they have proceeded farther than they are able to justify themselves by the principles of our Reformation they must Answer for it themselves 2. The principles of our Reformation do not obstruct our Communion with any true Church of Christ abroad where there are no Unlawful Terms of Communion But so do the principles of the Dissenters Separation By the same reason that our Governours determin one Common order of Worship and Discipline for the Churches over which they have Authority The Governours of other Churches also may determin in these things according to their Prudence for the People subject to their Authority And we who blame the Church of Rome for interposing her Authority amongst us with whom she has no more Right to meddle than any other Forreign Church has must in all things that come within the Liberty of Christians leave other Churches that are as Independent upon Vs as we are upon Rome to their Authority and Liberty And this is what our Church has expresly declared In these our doings we condemn not other Nations nor prescribe any thing but to our own People only for we think it convenient that every Country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of Gods Honor and Glory and to the reducing of the People to a most Perfect and Godly living without Error or Superstition and that they should put away other things which from time to time they perceive to be most abused as in Mens Ordinances it often chanceth diversly in divers Countries In pursuance of which excellent and truly Catholick Declaration I would not only Communicate with Foreign Churches who differ from us in nothing but matters of From and Ceremony but if I were amongst them I should observe their Establish'd Modes and Forms of Worship and though I thought our own way at home worthy upon all the accounts of Order and Decency and Tendency to Edification to be preferred before theirs yet I should not only conform to their way but Religiously abstain from creating any prejudice against it in the minds of Christian People in those places and rather do all that Honestly I could to bring those to a favourable Opinion of it who were prejudiced against it This is that Rule which St. Austin thought should take place not only in respect of those Orders which were Establish'd by Synods of Bishops but in respect also of those Customs which had crept into particular Churches though it was hard to tell why or how they came in In things of this Nature saith he there is one most wholesom Rule to be observed That wherever we see any of them obtain which are neither contrary to Faith nor good Manners and have some tendency to Edification we should not only abstain from finding fault with them but Commend and Practise them our selves And yet he complains in this very Epistle of the multitude of Ceremonious Observations in which particular Churches differed from one another and wishes that a Reformation were made by Authority Thus in the foregoing Epistle speaking of the different observations of divers places for Instance that some fast upon the Saturday and some do not c. and of all other things of this kind which are to be accounted Indifferent Nothing says he does more become the Gravity and Prudence of a Christian then to do after the manner of that Church into which he shall happen to come Then he relates St. Ambrose his celebrated Answer to Monica about things of this sort When I am at Rome I Fast on the Saturday when I am here at Milan I do not Fast And so when thou comest into any Church observe its Customs if thou wouldest neither give just Cause of Offence nor take Offence without Cause This advice St. Austin magnified highly and the more he thought of it the better he liked it For says he I have often with great sorrow considered how the minds of Weak Christians have been disturbed by the
his Soul to look to it that the Cause of his Separation be Just For this is one of those Cases wherein a meer Perswasion of Conscience will not secure a Man acting according to it from sinning against God And from hence it is evident that this Plea that we cannot in Conscience hold Communion with the Church of Rome may in our mouths be a very good Plea against the Papists as without question it is if our Consciences are rightly informed as to the Points controverted between them and us But the same Plea in the mouths of the Dissenters against the Church of England may not be good as most certainly it is not if they are perswaded that our Church hath given them just Cause for their Separation when there is indeed no such matter And therefore we may at least hope that they will all of them now seriously apply themselves to consider the merits of the Cause between them and us which they are now in an especial manner bound to do since the Charity of the Ministers of this City hath made the doing of it easie to all Persons that will be at the Pains to Judge for themselves and that by bringing down the particular Questions in Controversy between them and us to the Capacity of Ordinary Christians And if they will not use this Opportunity that is given them to Consider these things they will have the more to Answer to God and they most of all that disswade them from it To conclude this Point whereas the Papists declaim against our Separation from them under pretence of Conscience as if this had shewn the way to all sorts of Sectaries to Separate from us upon the same pretence We hope that all Persons who are not willing to be deceived will be able to Distinguish between a misguided Conscience on the one hand and a well Informed Conscience on the other and then proceed to examine the Reasons of our Separation whether they be not Just and Necessary and if they find them so to be that they will acquit us from all their blame who Separate without such Reasons For it is very Foolish and unjust not to allow the pretence of Conscience to be good in any Case because it is not so in all Cases Surely if one Mans Conscience tell him that he may and ought to Rebel while himself does not believe that 't is Rebellion he is going about this hinders not but another Man may Lawfully and justly pretend Conscience for his Loyalty and Duty to the Government And though in some Places of the World there are Sovereign Princes who extend their Authority for the maintaining of Damnable Errors and the suppressing of Gods Holy Truth and all the while believe that they use their Power as they ought to do yet this shall not hinder but that Princes who believe and profess the true Religion and withal protect and encourage it with their Authority as much as they can being fully perswaded that so they ought to do that they I say shall for this receive Gods thanks and rewards while the former shall go without them In like manner Conscience may be pretended for Disobeying the just Laws of that Authority which God hath set in the World and in the Church but this shall not hinder his Plea from being good who pretends Conscience for refusing to Commit Idolatry though all the Powers under Heaven should require him so to do Men may by mistake think they do God good Service in murdering his Servants For this has been done by you of the Church of Rome And if in such Plain Cases as these your understandings have been so foully Corrupted it is not so greatly to be wondred at that the Judgments of other Men are so perverted by Interest and Passion as to believe themselves Countermanded by God in things required by their Superiors but in which it would not be their Sin but a Performance of their Duty to obey And yet I hope this Answer whether it be better to Obey God or Man Judge ye was once Truly and Pertinently made and may be so again And so much for the Difference of the Case with respect to Conscience which was the last thing to be considered And now I know that all this will signify very little to any Man that brings not an honest mind with him to Consider it or who had rather take his Opinions in these things upon Trust than be at the Pains to Judge for himself But why should a Man disparage himself so much as not to use that Understanding which God hath given him in matters that Concern his Salvation Why should he be such an Enemy to himself as not to let go a Dangerous mistake when he may enjoy the Truth instead of it if he will use Reasonable Diligence to Consider what is said on both sides Give me leave to put you in mind of your Duty in this Case in the Words of an Ancient Christian Writer In all matters of Practice and Duty it Concerns every Man to use his own Judgment and Discretion in searching for Truth and in weighing what is fit to be done rather then to be betrayed into Error and Sin by such a Credulous reliance upon others as if himself had not the Reason of a Man and were incapable of Consideration God has given to every Man his share of Wit both to find out some things by himself and to weigh those which he hears from others 'T is Natural to all men to love Wisdom and to desire the Knowledge of the Truth And they make Fools of themselves who without Discretion take the Words of their Leaders for all that they say and follow them more like Beasts than like Reasonable Creatures which words are not so to be taken as if it were Dishonourable or Dangerous to any Man to make use of the help of others in Learning the Truth For this were to destroy the use of the Ministry in the Church of Christ and to take away the benefit of mutual endeavours to lead one another into a right Understanding of our Duty But for all this it may be a very Foolish and Unmanly part and it may betray us into very Dangerous Errors not to use our own Judgment at all in matters of Sin and Duty and in Opinions leading to the one or the other but instead thereof to rely altogether upon their Authority whom we have taken for our Guides This is what we say both to the People of the Popish and of the Dissenting Party that if they would apply themselves with Ordinary Diligence and with a sincere mind to find out the Truth in thse Cases they would not meet with any great Difficulty to Perplex them in the way especially if they whose Authority they very much rely upon would speak as plainly and clearly to the Points in Question as without Vanity I may say we have hitherto done We do not desire them to stop their Ears against those
with which they agree in the Substance of Faith and Worship and from differing with Authority for the future about things Indifferent The Cause of the Separation as it is managed by themselves is so very Slight that one would hope they should be of themselves something afraid to venture their being Schismaticks upon it and consequently that they should be ready to consider what has been said to shew that there is indeed no Just Cause given them to Separate from our Church and that there is no Reason to call any thing Popery which they dislike in our Communion as some of them have done to the great disadvantage of the Protestant Religion since as much as in them lay they have made the World believe that the Cause of Popery is better than it is and that it doth not consist only of Opinions and Practices that cannot be defended but of some also that may And it is not the least kindness that the indiscreet Zeal of some Protestants hath done to the Church of Rome that they have inveighed against some things which may be easily justified as if they also were Popish Corruptions And the Learned Men of that Church have not been behind hand in making use of this advantage and that by straining their utmost Wit to represent the Protestant Religion under such Colours as if it stood in Opposition to Episcopacy and Liturgy and to all Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions And I am perswaded the Dissenters cannot do the Protestant Religion a greater kindness than by forbearing to give them this occasion for the Future For let a Cause be never so good in it self it is never likely to thrive in their hands who instead of pressing their Adversaries with what they can never maintain are still forward to deny what they are well able to prove As for the Papists amongst us their mistakes in Faith and Worship are so Gross and Foul that if they would give themselves a little time to Consider what has and what may farther be said to convince them I do not doubt but all of them that are endued with a Competent Understanding and an Honest Sense of things would soon feel those palpable Errors into the belief and practise of which they have been hitherto deluded by an unreasonable deference to the Authority of the Church of Rome and no longer stand off from the Communion of the Church of England The bigger any fault is one would think it should be more easily spied Now these Men Separate from us meerly because we have abandoned those wicked Doctrines and Practices which are of themselves a most necessary Cause of Separation from any Church in the World that should Impose them And therefore they of all Men are the most Notorious Schismaticks that can be imagined And I beseech God to open their Eyes to see it and to recover into the way of Truth all such as have Erred and are Deceived that those who have hitherto been obstinate may prove all things and that those who can be perswaded to Consider these things may hold fast that which is good Rom. 15. 5 6. And the God of Patience and Consolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus That We may with one Mind and one Mouth Glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Amen FINIS ERATA Page 18. line 18. for Term read Form p. 15. l. 31. for cppear r. appear p. 25. l. 27. r. l Cor. 14. Ad Antonianum Ep. 52. Ad Cornclium Ep. 55. Case on behalf of Diss P. 5. P. 17. P. 16. 17. P. 9. P. 20. c. Case on behalf of Diss P. 2. P. 3. P. 3. Case P. 29 30. Case in behalf of Dissenters P. 2. P. 3. P. 36. P. 3. Preface to the Liturgy Ad Januarium Ep. 119. Ep. 118. Ad Casulanum Ep. 86. Ep. 86. Ep. 119. Lactant. lib 2. De Origine Erroris Sect. 7. 1 Thess 5. 21.
they would Submit to our Bishops and by their Conformity contribute to uphold the Order of this National Church But then the Independents indeed must in Consequence of their Principles deny that Bishops singly or jointly whether with the Civil Authority or without it have any right to prescribe to their Congregations in matters Ecclesiastical since in these things they hold their Members to be accountable to no Authority under God but that of the Congregation to which they belong And now I shall compare the two Cases of Separation with respect to three things which will I conceive Comprehend all the forementioned Pleas on both sides that is with respect 1. to Authority 2. To Terms of Communion and under this head to the Common pretence of Separating for greater Purity 3. To the Plea of Conscience 1. With respect to Authority We are divided from the Church of Rome as one particular Constituted Church from another neither of which has any Authority to prescribe to the other in matters Ecclesiastical And therefore as I said before tho the Terms of the Communion of that Church were not Unlawful yet if She would have no Communion with us unless we would be govern'd by Her Laws And if our Church Governours should use their own Liberty and Authority to prescribe to us what they Judged more Sutable to the General Rules of Scripture and more Conducible to the great ends of Christianity The Separation ensuing upon that Churches affecting an Usurpation over us could not be Schismatical on our Part who are not the Subjects of the Bishop of Rome but upon the Part of that Church it would be so for Her exercising an Authority where She has no right so to do But the Case of the Dissenters is far otherwise who Separate from this National Church in which they were Born and Baptized and where they live For by thus doing we say that they withdraw their Obedience from their Lawful Governours from whom if they Divide especially if they set up a Communion distinct from that of their Superiors and of the Congregations under them they are guilty of manifest Schism unless the Terms of Communion be Unlawful For it is by no means sufficient to clear them of this fault that those things which fall within the Compass of Church Authority are not well order'd because although this were true yet in these things their practice is to be Determined by that Authority For we think it very Evident that no Society can be united and maintained without this Principle that a Lawful Authority is to be Submitted unto and Obeyed by Inferiors in all Lawful things and that the mere Imprudence or Inexpedience of its Determinations cannot absolve them from their Obligation to comply therewith Now that it is a Lawful Authority upon which the Constitutions of this National Church stands I think no Man can deny that will grant a National Church it self to be but a Lawful Constitution For there is the Concurrence both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors to give them force The Bishops and Presbyters first agreed upon the same Rule and Order for Church Government and Worship which being afterward approved by the Lords and Commons in Parliament was then made a Law by the King so that if the Confederation of the particular Churches of this Kingdom to govern themselves and to serve God in Religious Assemblies by the same Rule and according to the same Term can become the matter of a Law obliging all Christians amongst us to Conformity here is no Auhority wanting to induce such an Obligation And it is to be Consider'd that every one who Separates from that Parochial Congregation where he lives and betakes himself to an Opposite Communion had been guilty of Schism in so doing although the Churches of this Kingdom had not been United as they are into a National Form but each Bishop with his Presbyters had made Rules for Religious Assemblies Independently upon the Rest But now the fault of such Separation is heinously Aggravated as the Case stands by these two Considerations 1. That those Orders or Impositions upon the account whereof he Separates from the Parish where he lives were made by the Common advice of the Pastors of Christs Flock in this Kingdom and that for a Common Rule to them All Which method was a most proper means to Unite their particular Churches more closely one to another and to Edify and Strengthen them by such Union Therefore that Separation which would have been blameable of it self is so much the worse as it tends to break so profitable an Union and to expose the Authority of so many Church Governours to Contempt as contributed towards it by their Advice and Consent 2. That since the Rules thus agreed upon are made Laws also by the Soveraign Power such Schism is aggravated farther by Disobedience to the Lawful Commands of the Civil Authority under which we live and to which all particular Churches in this Kingdom do owe Obedience in all Lawful things And now I believe our Presbyterian Brethren will grant that upon these accounts there is a vast difference between the Cases of Separation from the Church of England and from the Church of Rome in point of Authority But then I must confess the Independents are likely enough to say that these Impositions are as truly Usurpations upon particular Congregations as if they had been enforced upon this Kingdom by a pretended Authority from Rome And if there were no difference between saying and proving we might here be at a considerable loss However this must be granted that an English Bishop may have good Authority to Govern his Diocess and a Presbyter his Parish here in England and yet it may be foolish and unjust in a Forreign Bishop to claim any Authority over the one or the other And I hope they will not deny that the King has good Authority here though the Pope has none nor that the Laws of the Land concerning Religion and Gods Worship do bind the Consciences of the Kings Subjects something more than if they had wanted the Authority of the Legislative Power at home and came to us from abroad with nothing but the Seal of the Fisherman to recommend them i. e. that in this latter case we might have refused them as wanting Authority but not so in the Former but that the matter of them being supposed to be Lawful they ought to be complied with And whereas the Independents suppose the Independency of their Congregations to be of Divine Right both in Opposition to Episcopal Superiority and to National Church-Government this we must leave to the merits of the cause between them and us And I may as well take it for granted that their pretended Right to Independency has been as clearly argued of Novelty and Weakness as the Popes pretended Right to Supremacy has been argued I say of more Novelty and almost as much Weakness But to step a little out of the way of
who cannot comply with some things required in the Liturgy and can say no more then that they think them not Decent not Expedient not Orderly for says he no Private Person is a Judge of these things Which is an excellent saying but so directly contrary to the main principles of his Book that I wonder how it fell from him We are then to Judge whether the things required by Authority be Indifferent that is Lawful and then to Judge no farther as to our own Practice But for the Decency and Expediency and Orderliness of those things to leave our Superiors to Answer to God for that Our doing them is Warranted by our Rule which is to obey Authority in all Lawful things Now it is things of this sort only and with respect to Order and Decency and Prudent Determination of what is most likely to Edify that our Superiors pretend to Judge for us what is and what is not to be done so as to allow us no right to Judge for our selves about them They claim Obedience to their Constitutions in these things upon the Account of their Authority which when the matter is Lawful should without more ado conclude our Practice Indeed they Judge also what Faith we are to profess what Worship we are to offer up to God and what Life we are to lead in order to our receiving the benefit of Church Communion and by consequence they do take upon them to Judge in our behalf what are the Articles of the Christian Faith what is the true Christian Worship and what it is to lead a Christian Life For otherwise it were impossible that the Ministers of Christ should discreetly and honestly use that Authority which he hath left them to take into the Church those that are duly qualified for it and to turn out those that are no longer fit to be continued in it But still there is a great difference between their Judging for us in those things and in the matters aforementioned For they suppose that the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Commandments of God are the same that ever they were from the beginning of the Church and that it is not in the Power of Man to make any alterations in these standing Rules of Christianity and that Obedience is not due to any Authority of Man going about to make such alterations From whence it follows that Private Persons should be able to Judge wherein true Christianity consinsts as well as their Superiors that they also may offer up unto God a Reasonable Service To which end the Bible is put into all Mens hands the meaning of the Scriptures is opened in our Religious Assemblies the People are trained up to understand the particulars of Christian Faith and Obedience with the Reasons and Motives thereof that as we said before they may be able to resolve their Faith into the same grounds of Divine Authority upon which the Bishops and Pastors of the Church do themselves believe And we do Unanimously acknowledge that if this Church makes the profession of false Doctrine or the braking of any of Gods Commandments a condition of her Communion they that upon this account Separate from her Communion are before God clear of the Guilt of Schism in so doing And here she makes all Private Persons Judges for themselves whether she doth this or not and that by training them up the best way she can to be able to inform themselves in these matters But the case is otherwise with respect to Indifferent things relating to Gods Worship For though our Superiors profess that they are not to meddle in adding to or taking from the Faith and the Commandments of God and though they appeal to Private Persons that they do not in Fact usurp an Authority to this purpose which they profess to disclaim yet in these Indifferent things they claim a Power to add or diminish or to make such expedient alterations as they shall think fit to be made and this without being any way accountable to the People for their discretion in so doing before their Orders be obeyed And we say that whoever they are that will not be concluded by Authority in these things but upon any pretence whatsoever taken from them do break away from the Communion of the Church they are Guilty of Schism in so doing And this must be truly said if what that Author himself hath said be true that no Private Person is Judge of those things And now I think any one may see a vast difference between the claim of the Church of Rome to be the only Judge of what she imposes upon her Members and the claim of the Church of England to the same with reference to hers that in the former case it is unjust and unreasonable but in the later very equal and necessary and which no Man that is not over-ruled by a fit of passion and prejudice but must allow to a Competent Authority Whereas therefore we have considered the points in Question between the Dissenters and our selves with respect to Prudence Expedience and Better Edification We say withal that this is more than we were bound to do in order to the Conviction of Dissenters that it is their Duty to conform to the Liturgy and the Laws of the Church And that because the Authority by which they are Establisht obligeth us to Submission if there be nothing in them to make our Communion with the Church Sinful though we should be so arrogant as to think we could have ordered these matters with more discretion if our Advice had been taken But if setting aside the consideration of Authority we have moreover shewn that upon all accounts of Decency and Expediency Forms of Prayer are to be preferred before Extemporary Prayers and that the particulars now excepted against are so far from betraying any want of Judgment in those that prescribed them that they are Indications of the great Wisdom and Caution wherewith they proceeded we have not I say performed this believing it necessary to prove the Separation to be Vnjustifiable but intending to shew thereby that it is more Inexcusable And although it was no part of our Design to render those of the Separation more Inexcusable by this performance yet I beseech them to take care that it happens not so in the Event If after all it be asked what an Inferior is to do that Judgeth those things to be Vnlawful which his Superiors in full Perswasion that they are Indifferent at least require him to do I Answer as all Men that have a Sense of Honesty will Answer That whilest he is perswaded that they are Unlawful he ought to forbear them But then as no Man of Understanding will deny he is yet a Sinner before God for refusing that Obedience to a Lawful Authority which he ought to perform since in order to the performance of it he might and ought to understand his Duty better than he does For as the forementioned Author says Things
Quarrelsom humour and Superstitious Niceness of some of the Brethren who upon very slight grounds of Reasoning or being addicted to their own Customs at home or fond of what they have observed abroad raise such Wrangling Disputes about things that cannot be clearly Determined either by the Authority of Holy Scripture or the Vniversal Tradition of the Church Catholick or by the Consideration of what is best for Reformation of Life that they seem to reckon nothing well done but what they do themselves I shall add no more but that plain Rule he gives elsewhere to this purpose As to things in which the Scripture defines nothing certain one way or the other the Custom of the Church and the Decrees of our Ancestors are to be held for Law Now by this and much more that might be produced we may see what the true Notion of that Liberty was which the Ancient Church allowed in matters of Indifference Not that there was no Rule in the particular Churches for the Ordering and Regulating of things of this sort For we find the Bishops did use their Authority in these things over their charges as St. Ambrose's Words to St. Austin's Mother about the forementioned case do plainly imply Resist not thy Bishop in this matter but what he does that do thou without any Scruple or Dispute And besides those particular Customs the Variety and Multitude of which St. Austin complains of there were the Determinations of Episcopal Synods concerning things not Determined in Scripture which he does not complain of But their Liberty consisted in this that the Rules of this sort establisht in the Communion of any Church were not imposed upon Foreign Churches and Catholick Communion was not broken upon the account of different Rites and Customs For though St. Austin was sorry to see the minds of some Weak Christians troubled about Questions of this kind yet I do not find that he had any occasion given him to complain that Communion was broken upon these accounts as before his time it had been by Pope Victors rashness in presuming to Excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for observing Easter upon the fourteenth of March had not Irenaeus and other Wise and Moderate persons seasonably interposed To apply all this to the matter in hand Since the Church of Rome has made such things conditions of Communion with her as are in St. Austin's phrase contrary to Faith and Good Manners our Separation from her upon this account does not at all hinder us from Communicating with any true Church in the World that does not bar us out by Unlawful Terms of Communion For in things that God hath left at Liberty this Church persumes not to interpose her Authority abroad nor refuses the Communion of those Churches whose Customs and Observations are different from ours meerly because they are different Nay let the Church of Rome her self make an end of Imposing False Doctrines and Wicked Practices and there will be an end of our Separation from her Let her give over Commanding things that God hath Forbidden and makeing Articles of Faith of things that are not revealed but are indeed contrary to Sense and Reason and she may for us use her Authority at home in things Indifferent and though she be guilty of great Abuses even in this kind which need a Reformation yet I for my part should not break Communion with her for these things if she would throughly Purge her self from the other In the mean time we are of one Communion with all Foreign Churches that presume not to change the Faith nor to contradict the Laws of God and this we should demonstrate by actual Communion with them if we had occasion to go abroad amongst them But this makes our case very Different from that of the Dissenters who Separate from the Church For so long as they withdraw from our Communion for the sake of Ecclesiastical Order that are not contrary to Gods Word and Separate from us upon this principle that every thing is Unlawful in Gods Worship which is not Commanded in Scripture but enjoined by our Superiors only they must not upon those principles have Communicated with any Church in the Primitive times when there were far more Vncommanded Rites and Vsages Establish'd for the regulating of Worship than now there are in our Church And upon these principles they must not Communicate with any Reformed Churches abroad since how different so ever the External Mode of their Worship may be from ours yet some they all have and that consisting of Rules not Determined by Gods Word but by the Law or Custom of Man To New England they must not go hoping to find a Communion there Lawful to be embraced upon these principles The Nonconformists to our Liturgy and Discipline that are there will stand to their own censures concerning Worship and Discipline and will make out by their Church Authority such as it is what they cannot shew Chapter and Verse for Our Separatists if they go thither shall find no other use of their Liberty allowed there but Conformity and Compliance with that way of Worship and Government which there obtains It is a plain case that they who Separate from our Church upon the account of Unommanded Rites and Practices in Gods Worship are something more obliged by this principle to avoid Communion with all Foreign Churches if Rules for Customs concerning things Indifferent are to be found amongst them all as most certainly such Rules more or fewer all of them have For in the former case our Separatists are disobedient to their proper Governours and Pastors whose Authority over them is some thing more clear and indisputable than that of the Governours of other Churches where they might happen to go And therefore if they will not in things of this Nature be Determined by an Authority at home there is less reason to believe their Consciences will suffer them to be Determined therein by one abroad I conclude therefore that though our Reformation leaves usfree to Communicate with all Churches abroad that do not require Sinful Terms of Communion as the Church of Rome does yet the Separation of the Dissenters from us proceeds upon grounds destructive of Communion with any Church in the World Indeed I believe most of our Dissenters would Communicate with several Reformed Churches abroad but in so doing they must depart from the principles upon which they Separate at home unless they can find a Reformed Church which exerciseth no Authority in Forms of Prayer nor in any Indifferent things for the external Regulation of Publick Worship But where such a Church is to be found I am yet to be informed And thus much concerning those Differences of the Case that are Consequent upon the Difference in point of Authority and of Terms of Communion 3. I come now to consider the last Plea I propounded which I confessed was not only Common to both sides but which also may be as truly alledged on