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
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
my present business I may appeal to all understanding persons who cannot judge of the Learning used on both sides whether that Notion of a Church or of Church-Communion is likely to be true which makes it impossible for the particular Churches of a Christian Kingdom to be United under the Soveraign Authority in the observation of the same Rules advised upon and the same Laws made for the benefit of them all In the mean time I conclude this head with saying that though the Pope has no Authority in this Kingdom yet it follows not that every particular Congregation must be Independent And I challenge any Man to take any one Argument used by any of our Church to prove the Independency of our Church upon the Bishop of Rome and make it hold to prove the Independency of a Congregation either upon a National or Episcopal Church if he can Wherefore supposing the Decrees of the Bishop of Rome to be of no good Authority amongst us and our own Laws in matters Ecclesiastical to want no good Authority the conditions of Communion being otherwise Lawful on both sides then the Separation ensuing upon our refusal to submit to those Decrees would not be Schismatical on our part but the Separation of our Independents and all others amongst us refusing to Submit to these Laws would be so on their part And thus much for the Difference in point of Authority 2. We are to compare the Cases also with respect to the Terms of Communion relating to matters of Faith and Worship And in the first place the Dissenters acknowledge that the Faith professed in this Church is pure and intire and that she does not require the profession of any Doctrine in Order to her Communion which a good Christian has reason to suspect And this makes a great difference between the Terms of Communion with our Church and the Terms thereof with the Church of Rome which requires the profession of Gross and Palpable Errors of all whom she admits to her Communion But the great ossence is taken at our Forms of Divine Service and the Ceremonies thereunto belonging And the offended parties are of three sorts 1. Those that do not directly charge any of our practices in Worship as Sinful but suppose some of them to be Inexpedient and Vnedifying And they that Separate upon this account must acknowledge this Difference in the Case that whereas we separating from Rome forsook an Unlawful Communion for one that was Lawful they Separating from us forsake a Lawful Communion for one that they believe to be better And of these I shall take notice again in a fitter place 2. Another sort are they who pretend something more that is that they Scruple the Lawfulness of the things enjoined and that they ought not to Communicate with us so long as they remain under these doubts And these Men also must confess a great difference between the reason upon which they Separate from us and that for which we Separate from the Church of Rome Since we are past doubting in the case and positively affirm those conditions of Communion with the Church of Rome which we complain of to be in themselves Unlawful And in Consequence hereof they must not deny that there is a great difference also between those grounds upon which they and we pretend against that Church the Unlawfulness of her Impositions and those upon which they suspect the like of ours And that is that the Roman Church is by us attacqued with clear and unquestionable evidence of Reason and Scripture against her but that it remains doubtful whether there be any good evidence in Scripture against us concerning which more will be said under the next head In the mean time it does by no means follow that because Separation is Just and Necessary where some things are required to be done which we certainly know God has forbidden therefore it is Just and Necessary also where other things are required concerning which we do not know but they may be Lawful 3. The third sort are they that pretend these Forms of Worship and Ceremonies which the former either Scruple or judge only Inexpedient to be indeed Sinful and to render our Communion not only suspected and less desirable but plainly Vnlawful And I grant that these are the Men who come up to the point And if they could but make good what they say they would shew their Separation from our Church to be grounded upon one General Reason of our Separation from the Church of Rome which would sufficiently clear us from the Imputation of Schism if no other reason were to be given But I believe a very wide difference of the case will appear when we come to consider 1. The particular Practices themselves which are by us said to be Unlawful in the Communion of the Roman Church and those which by the Dissenters are said to be Unlawful in ours And 2. The way and means by which we pretend to prove those and that by which they pretend to prove these Unlawful 1. Let us Consider the particulars themselves The Dissenters do with us Condemn as Unlawful Prayers in an unknown Tongue the Adoration of the Host Worshipping the Cross and the like Practices of the Roman Church in Her Forms of Worship from which they acknowledge also that we have Purged our Communion But they say we have retained other Practices something akin to these though not quite so bad for Instance Kneeling at the Communion wearing the Surplice Signing with the Sign of the Cross and some of them add the Publick use of Forms of Prayer Now all that I design under this head in Comparing the former and the later particulars together is to shew that the Unlawfulness of the former being supposed the Unlawfulness of the latter cannot be from thence inferr'd And that for this plain Reason because the Questions concerning the one and the other are perfectly distinct from one another For as the Bishop of Rome's having no Authority here in England shall not hinder the Authority which our Bishops exercise in England from being Lawful and Good So to pray in an unknown Tongue may be absurd and contrary to Scripture but for all this Forms of Prayer in a Language understood by the whole Congregation may not only be Lawful but Profitable and in most Cases necessary The Adoration of the Host may be an Idolatrous Practise yet to Kneel in the Act of receiving the Eucharist where such Adoration is disclaimed shall be no such Practise We may Sign the Baptized Insant with the Sign of the Cross and yet not Worship that Sign we may do the former in token of the Obligation which Baptism layeth upon us without Attributing any of that Virtue or Efficacy thereunto which makes the Popish use of it Foolish and Superstitious What Practice is there in the Roman Church which we as Unlawful have abandoned from whence the Unlawfulness of Wearing a Surplice or seeing it worn can with any
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
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
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
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