the rules of those Churches, to which they originally belong; and that without any danger of schism. For a bare variety of ceremonies makes no schism between Churches, while they live in communion with each other. Now every particular National Church has authority over her own members to prescribe the rules of worship: but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance, so she may allow the same liberty to the members of such foreignChurches, when they live within her jurisdiction. For though all true Churches are members of each other, yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction; and therefore for the Church of England to allow foreigners to observe their own rules, is not to allow separate communion, but to leave them to the government of the Church, to which they belong. So that distinct congregations of foreigners, who own the communion of our Church, though they observe the customs of their own, are not schismatical. But though two Churches may be in communion with each other, and yet not actually communicate together, because distance of place will not permit it; yet it is impossible that two Churches, which, from a professed dislike, renounce each other's communion, or at least withdraw ordinary communion from each other, should still continue in communion with each other: because they are opposite societies, founded upon contrary principles, and acting by contrary rules, and pursuing contrary ends, to the ruin and subversion of each other. Those again are separate Churches, which do not own each other's members as their own. The Christian Church is but one household and family; and whoever makes two families of it, is a schismatic. If Christians in the same kingdom hold separate assemblies under distinct kinds of government and different governours, and condemn each others' constitution and modes of worship, and endeavour to draw away members from each other, they cannot be thought to

be one Church. Indeed we may as well say, that several sorts of government in the same nation, with distinct governours, distinct subjects and distinct laws, that are always at enmity and war with each other, are but one kingdom; as we may say, that such congregations are but one Church. See Bennet's Abridgment of the London Cases, ch. 1. §. 1.

APPENDIX, No. 18.

Nothing less than sinful terms of communion can justify our separation from the Church whereof we are members; for otherwise there would be no end of divisions, but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies altered. It is true a particular Church may be so corrupted, as that its members may be obliged to disunite themselves from it. For every man is obliged, by virtue of his being in any society, not to agree to any thing which tends to the apparent ruin of it. So that if any act that is apparently sinful, be enjoined by the particular Church whereof we are members, as a necessary condition of our communion with her, we are bound to abstain from it, for the sake of the general end of Christian society, which is the honour of God, and the salvation of souls. For instance, suppose the Church whereof we are members, require it as a condition of our communion, that we should transgress any just law of the commonwealth whereof we are subjects; in this case we are bound rather to desert that Church's communion, than live in wilful disobedience to the civil authority. Again, supposing one National Church to be subject to another, that which is subject is bound to refuse the communion of that which is superior, if it cannot enjoy it without complying with impositions that are apparently sinful. This is evidently the case between us and the Church

of Rome, supposing that de jure we were once her subjects and members: for had we been so, we should doubtless never have separated ourselves from her, could we but have separated her sins from her communion; could we have professed her creed without implicitly believing all her cheats and impostures, or submitted ourselves to her guides without apparent danger of being misled by them into the pit of destruction, or joined with her public services without worshipping of creatures, or received her sacraments without practising the grossest superstitions and idolatries. But when she made it necessary for us either to sin with or separate from her, we could have no other honest remedy but only to withdraw. And if in this our separation there had been a sinful schism on either side, we could have appealed to heaven and earth, whose the guilt of it was; theirs that forced us upon it, or ours that were forced to it. But yet the case of our separation from the Church of Rome is very different from that of the separation of private members from their own particular Churches. For we affirm that the Church of Rome is but a particular Church, whose authority extends no farther than to its own native members, and consequently has no more power to impose laws of communion upon us, than we have upon her; our particular Church being altogether as independent of her, as she is of ours.

The case of private members, whether of our or any other particular Church, is vastly different. For if we will allow particular Churches to be so many formed societies of Christians, (as we must do, or else degrade them into so many confused multitudes,) we must necessarily allow them to have a just authority (even as all other formed societies have) over their own members. That they have such authority, is evident, not only from the nature of the thing, but also from Scripture, where the Bishops and Pastors of particular Churches are said to be constituted by the Holy Ghost overseers of their particular flocks; which word both in sacred and

profane writings denotes a ruling power. Accordingly these overseers are elsewhere called ruling elders, (1 Tim. v. 17,) and the subjects and members of their Churches are required to "obey them, as those that have the rule over them." It is true in some cases, as I hinted before, withdrawing from the communion of a Church may be so far from being a rebellion against Christ, that it may be an act of duty and obedience to him. For where Christ who is our supreme Lord, and our Ecclesiastical governours who are in authority under him, command things that are directly inconsistent, we are doubtless bound to obey him rather than them; yea, though their commands are not inconsistent in themselves, yet if we are fully persuaded they are, it is all one to us. For when we do what we falsely believe Christ has forbidden, we are in will as much rebels against his authority, as when we do what we truly believe he has forbidden. And by not complying with our spiritual governours, out of an innocent mispersuasion that what they command is unlawful, we formally and in will as much obey Christ in so doing, as if it were really unlawful. So that in short, when the governours of the Church whereof we are members, impose as the conditions of our communion, things that are either unlawful in themselves, or that, after due examination, we verily believe are unlawful, we are bound in obedience to the authority of Christ, rather to desert that communion, than to comply with the terms and conditions of it. But since to desert the communion of a Church is a matter of great moment, it ought not to be done without the greatest caution and tenderness. he that rejects sinful terms of communion without just inquiry and sufficient examination, is formally as much a schismatic, i. e. he is as much a rebel in will against Christ's spiritual authority in his Church delegates and vicegerents, as he that rashly rejects innocent and lawful ones. For had it been only the sinfulness of the conditions that displeased him, he would have made conscience before he presumed to reject it, duly to

For

inform himself whether it were sinful or no; but by thus rejecting it at a venture, without a due inquiry into the nature of it, he plainly shews that it was not so much the sin that displeased him, as the authority that imposed it; and that it was not his conscience that took offence at it, but his humour; and consequently that he would have had the same dislike of it, though it had been lawful and innocent. For conscience, being an act of the judgment and reason, cannot be offended without reason either real or apparent; and without making a due inquiry into the nature of the thing we are offended at, we can have no reason that will either warrant or excuse our offence. Wherefore, before we reject the conditions of our Church's communion as sinful, we are obliged, under the penalty of wilful schism, impartially to inquire what is to be said for, as well as against them; and where we are capable of judging, to peruse those arguments that make for the one side as well as the other. For unless we do so, it is plain that we are biassed by a factious disposition, and that we have a great inclination to separate from the Church's communion.

If the matters which she imposes are such as a plain and illiterate communicant cannot judge of, nor comprehend the force of the reasons that make for or against them, such persons in such cases are obliged humbly to acquiesce in the Church's authority, and not blindly to separate from her, they know not why. For instance, suppose the matter imposed should be such a form of government, or such modes of discipline, or rights and circumstances of Divine worship, as carry no such apparent evil in them, or express contradiction to any command of our Saviour-in such matters as these, where he cannot judge for himself, what must an unlearned communicant do? Why he knows very well, that in all lawful things, it is his duty to submit to the governours of his Church, and reverence Christ's authority in them; but whether