herself. 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 herself, 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 herself from them at home. But if a foreign 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 foreign 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 adhered 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 controlled by any other church.

We say, with St. Cyprian a, 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, bthat "it is equal that every one of them should have a part of the flock assigned to him, which he is to govern, remembering 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 convoa Ad Antonianum, Ep. 52. b Ad Cornelium, Ep. 55.

cation, and then made laws to all the particular churches of this kingdom, by the authority of the sovereign. 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 determine causes, and judge matters of ecclesiastical cognizance, (which yet was seldom done in things of moment without the advice of colleagues when the church had rest from persecution,) and this without allowing appeals to Rome; much more may the bishops of a whole Christian kingdom confederate together to order church matters independently upon the see of Rome, 'especially being required thereunto by their Christian sovereign, to whom they all owe subjection and obedience in all things, saying 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 foreign 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 unlawful to be submitted unto;" since we could not communicate with her without professing doctrines that are plainly contrary to God's 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 these terms. But because catholic 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 further say, that if the corruptions of the Roman church (which God forbid) should ever come to be established in this church of England again by the same authority that has abolished 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 churchcommunion, that if the laws of God be but observed, we are not only ready to comply with what our own superiors imposeupon 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 where. But neither abroad nor at home can we purchase unity of communion at so dear a rate, as to break God's 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 churchcommunion 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 governors, 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 itself 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-worshipping 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 become the duty of Christians to be united in scandalous impieties and damnable errors. And I think nobody 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 man's salvation to be a schismatic.

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 schismatics, that they were God's 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 ourselves 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 enjoined in our church, concerning which some of them say that they are unlawful to be used in God's 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-t -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 the surplice in public 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 chose 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 than 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 choosing, 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