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
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
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
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
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