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
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
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
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