that account refuse to do them: this persuasion will 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 public order, and (which frequently happens,) in giving occasion to the very worst of men to profane the name of God, and to speak evil and blasphemous things of His Holy Religion. In the case, therefore, of a Particular Church, having a lawful jurisdiction over us, and of which we are Members, nothing can justify a separation from its Com munion, unless that Church profess an error, or maintain an erroneous practice, which tends to subvert the Gospel of Christ; that is, unless it make the terms of Commuuion such, that they cannot be complied with without sin, and danger to our eternal salvation. Thus, the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome rested not on mere errors, but on points essential to the Christian Faith, and highly important to the interests of morality, and to the due advancement of religious knowledge; the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome were subversive of the Gospel, and could not be professed and complied with without sin, and danger to our eternal salvation. Now it is very easy to ascertain whether any Doctrine, or Practice of the Church of England be subversive of the Gospel, because it will be then manifestly opposed to Scripture; but I will prove in the following Chapters that the Church of England does not only not profess any Doctrine or Practice, which is manifestly opposed to Scripture, and subversive of the Gospel, but that her Doctrines and Practices are perfectly agreeable to both, and that, upon all accounts of decency and expediency, every Particular excepted against, so far from betraying any want of judgment in those who prescribed them, that it is an indication of the great wisdom and caution with which they proceeded. It is, therefore, evident that the separation of the Dissenters from the Church of England is a causeless separation, I will now proceed to show that they have schismatically separated in Doctrine, Worship, and Government, from that Church. First, they have set up their Private Judgment in Doctrine against the Public Judgment of the Particular Church of which they were Members, declared in a National Convocation of the Bishops and Pastors of that Church: and by forming their own Doctrines, (many of which are utterly at variance with each other, with Reason, and with the Word of God,*) have through tenaciousness of their opinions, broken Communion with that Church: they have, therefore, incurred the guilt of Schism in Doctrine as a Bond of Church Union. Secondly, the Dissenters have schismatically separated from the Church of England in Worship, as a Bond of Christian Unity; because in their case is not signified Public Worship in Substantials,

* Chap. vi.

and Essentials only, but the established Public Worship of a Particular Church, even the Church of England, not abstracted from, but clothed with its peculiar Modes, Rites, and Ceremonies. In separating, therefore, from her Public Worship, and refusing to join in Communion with her Members, (so far as it is in their power, and where they may, without the violation of any Doctrine, or Precept of Christ,) they divide themselves needlessly from the Body of Christ, and so from all the promises of the sacred and comfortable influence of that one Head and one Spirit. They are, therefore, Schismatics from the Church of England in point of Worship, as a Bond of Christian Unity. Lastly, I will endeavour to prove that our Dissenting Brethren have incurred the guilt of Schism in Government from the Church of England. Now, as I have elsewhere observed, there is no one Scriptural Injunction more forcibly laid down than that of a due deference to the Governors of the Christian Church, for we are commanded to "obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit ourselves, for they watch for our souls, as they that must give an account."* Now, the Dissenters have separated from, and refused obedience to these Governors and Pastors, whose authority in Ecclesiastical Matters is supposed to be of God, and the duty of submission to whom is required in the general precepts of obedience to Superiors. For, let it be remembered, that by such Government I do not mean the tyrannical usurpation of a Foreign Bishop (which the Church of England willingly disowned, and was therefore guiltless of Schism,) but the Government of the Particular Church of their own country, lodged in the Bishops and Governors of that Church, to be administered by them according to such Laws and Rules as are agreeable to those of the Christian Church. Now an English Bishop has indisputable Authority to govern his Diocese, and a Minister his Parish here in England, and yet it may be foolish and unjust in a Foreign (Italian or Roman) Bishop to claim any Authority over the one or the other; and the King of England has good Authority here, although the Pope of Rome has none; and the Laws of the land concerning Religion and the Worship of God bind the con sciences of the King's Subjects 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. Wherefore, supposing the Decrees of the Bishop of Rome to be of no good authority amongst us, and the Laws of the English Bishops on Ecclesiastical Matters to want no good authority (the conditions of Communion being otherwise lawful on both sides,) then the separation ensuing upon the refusal of the Church of England to submit to those Decrees of the Bishop of Rome would not be schismatical on her part, but the separation of the Dissenters, refusing to submit to the Laws of the English Bishops, must

* Heb. xiii. 17. and Quest. 2,

necessarily be so on their part; and especially because, after such separation they erect a new Government, and establish a new order of Priesthood, unheard of in the Christian Church for the space of fifteen centuries after the Apostles,* without making any appeal by miracles to their immediate authority from Heaven for so doing. It is evident, therefore, that the Dissenters have schismatically separated from the Church of England in Government as a Bond of Church Union. If such an act be no Schism, what constitutes Schism? Of this I am well satisfied, either that this is that sin designated by Schism in the Holy Scriptures, or that there is no such sin in the Christian Church; and if there be not, the Apostles and Primitive Pastors of the Church either were sadly deceived themselves, or strained themselves to deceive others. From what, then, has been urged upon this subject, we cannot doubt but that in separating from the Church of England the Dissenters have “ voluntarily and causelessly separated from a Christian Church of which they were Members, in Doctrine, Worship, and Government ;" and, conse: quently, that they are guilty of Schism in their separation from that

Church.

Because it has been proved that the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was a just and lawful separation, but that the separation of the Dissenters from the Church of England was an unjust and unlawful Schism ; therefore, the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome does not justify the separation of any Dissenter from the Church of England. Moreover, because it had before been proved that it is not possible for any one who has schismatically separated from the Church of England to continue a Member of the Church of Christ, that is, all those who have separated from the Church of England are no longer Members of the Church of Christ, and cannot properly be called Christians; and because it has been since proved that the Dissenters have schismatically separated from the Church of England, therefore, the Dissenters are no longer Members of the Church of Christ, nor can they, with strict propriety, be denominated Christians.dt.” to “

* Chap. iii. + See preceding "Iuferences." p. 52. Il Quest. 10. The subject having been hitherto argued a posteriori, the truth of the last inference must necessarily depend solely upon the success with which the objections of our Dissenting Brethren will be refuted in the succeeding Chapters; because if I fail in establishing the excellency of the Church of England in every Particular excepted against her, the Dissenters cannot have separated causelessly, and, therefore, not schismatically, from her Communion

CHAP. II.

NATIONALITY AND REGAL SUPREMACY

OF THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

"Our Laws made concerning Religion take originally their essence from the power of the Whole Realm and Church of England, than which nothing can be more consonant unto the Law of Nature, and the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ." Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book VIII.

"Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the People; and Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy nursing Mothers." Isaiah, xlix. 22, 23.

16

་

OBJ." I object to the general Constitution of the Church of England, as National and Established; which of itself alone would oblige me to dissent from her Communion, even though the Doctrines preached in her be the Doctrines of the Gospel, and her Ministers practised what they preached. For a National Church is an Institution fundamentally unlawful and abstractedly sinful; it has not only no sanction either in the Old or New Testament, but we find that it was decidedly opposed to our Blessed Saviour's intentions, because he declared that 'His Kingdom was not of this World."

Q. 11.—What reasons have you for supposing that a National Church is not an Institution fundamentally unlawful and abstractedly sinful?

To disprove the notion of a National Establishment being unlawful and sinful, it will be necessary to examine the arguments upon which its unlawfulness must necessarily depend. Now it is evident

that if it were an unlawful Institution, it would have been discountenanced by the Almighty; that our Lord Jesus Christ would have positively warned His Disciples against it; that His Apostles would have expressly, forbidden it; that the Early Fathers who lived near the Apostolic Ages, would have protested against the first innovation; that the unlawfulness of the Practice would have been discovered by those Presbyterian Divines on the Continent who protested against many points of Discipline in her Communion apparently less objectionable, and by the old Puritan Divines who on other accounts seceded from her Communion; and, finally, that Divine Providence would never have interposed in its preservation. But on the contrary, we find that the Almighty did not only not discountenance a National Establishment, but that He Himself first instituted it by blending indissolubly the Church and State in the Israelitish polity: that our Lord Jesus Christ did not only not warn His Disciples against such an Institution, but that He constantly sanctioned by His Sacred Presence the National Church Establishment of His native land, and preached in its Temple, (as on the great day of the Feast,) the words of eternal life that His Apostles did not only not expressly forbid the interference of civil Governors in the concerns of Religion, but that they invariably lead us to suppose from their writings, that “ Kings should be the nursing Fathers, and Queens the nursing Mothers "* of the Christian Church, being the very character and duties assigned them in Scripture; we find, moreover, that the Early Fathers who lived near the Apostolic ages, did not protest against the first innovation; that the unlawfulness of the practice was never discovered by the Presbyterian Divines on the Continent, or by Knox in Scotland, whose only complaint, as well as that of the old English Puritan Divines, was that the existing Governments of their respective Countries were hostile to a pure Form of Religion, and not that if such hostility ceased, it would be abstractedly unlawful to conform to, and obey them: and, finally, we find that Divine Providence has not only not refused to interpose in the preservation of a National Church, but that it has very frequently interposed in the preservation of the Nationality of the Church of England, which sufficiently indicates that her Establishment is lawful; her narrow escapes from destruction in the reigns of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth; the violent assaults made upon her by the cruelty of Mary, which she outlived; her astonishing deliverance from destruction in the reign of James the First; her distressed condition under Charles the First, and Restoration under Charles the Second her perilous state from the Popish Superstition of his brother James, and uninterrupted prosperity after the Revolution to the present period; circumstances which sufficiently prove that the hand of God alone has kept the National Church of England alive

Isaiah xlix, 22, 23.