Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 1
SECT. I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined.
THE Dissenters, with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church, he divideth into two sorts: 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church, lawful; but not total and constant Communion; and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification. 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful, because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful; such as the Liturgy, Cross, &c. This distinction is unhappily stated; for, 1. Non exhaurit divisum. There is a third sort, who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful, but not total and constant, and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful; and because of that Belief, cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon, join in Prayer, without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion, to wit, Ceremonies and Liturgy; but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances; and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications, and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere. 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing; nor total and constant, as to the lawfulness of them. One may have communion with you, and that not only occasionally, but constantly, in God's Ordinances that are kept pure; and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices, and in those Ordinances of God, that ye have so annexed those devices to, that the one cannot be had without the other. And there are some that practise accordingly; they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly, but refuse the rest of your Worship. 3. I think there are few, if any Non-conformists, that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful, and can keep occasional communion with Her, and yet separate for greater purity and edification. If any such be, they make a causeless Separation indeed.
Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness, (which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction) and consider three things; 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties. 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation. 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is. For the first, he saith, There are three things that we cannot deny. And I say, There is not one of the three, but they are to be denied, or at least distinguished, and not admitted, as he setteth them down: The first of them is, That there is no reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church. I do cordially agree with the learned Authors, whom he citeth in the proof of this, p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England, or refusing communion with all Her Congregations, on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church, contained in the 39 Articles; for we assent to them all as true, except those about Bishops and Ceremonies; and we would not separate from the Church, because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things, if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us, that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England, where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught; where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed, and Principles striking at the root of it, are instilled into the Hearers; such as, That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after, that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties, that is in their own power, is but fancy; that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians, but only obedience to his Laws; that, Resting on Christ, Rolling the soul on him, are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians, who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls, do, when such a Minister is set over them? Shall they hear him? That were to sit down to a Table, where Poison is strewed over all the Meat, and it is hard, if not impossible, at the best dangerous, to pick out a wholsome bit. And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice, Prov. 19. 27. Cease, my son, to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge. They who would have such Doctrine heard, but not received, may as well advise to go to the Stews, but not commit Fornication. Should they complain to Superiors, against the erroneous Preacher? But what if they get no redress, and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified, notwithstanding that all this is known to the World, by the Press, as well as the Pulpit? What if such a Case as this, or little less evil, be not rare? Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners, when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly, being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly, when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block?
Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries, that the Dr. setteth down, is, That there is no other Reason of Separation, because of the Terms of Communion, that what was from the beginning of the Reformation. A sufficient refutation of this may be seen, Par. 1. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better, we can tell, and have told of others made to the worse. It may be, Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before; he thinketh it so easie, that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do. But that is no proof. What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered. The Third Concession; That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad. I have before answered this also, shewing, That though some of the Divines, (for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose) in their condescendency, have shewed aversion from our withdrawing, yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles, that necessitate what they are so averse from. Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions, the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her: But it is a frivolous Argument, both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches, but of a private Writer; as also, because the Author of that Book reckoning England, among the Protestant Churches, doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions. What Durel hath said, or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution, and Orders of the Church of Engl…nd, may soon be Balanced by Testimonies, out of the same Reverend Divines, Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery.
Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on, he beginneth, Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters: He saith, some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places, where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants. And this he groundeth on some passages, wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration, that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches. But did ever any of them say, that this was either the only, or main reason of their Meetings? or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration, to blunt the Edge of that Clamour, that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching, by them, who neither could benefit the People themselves, nor would suffer others to do it; whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church, but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures, in other Assemblies? But even that reason might have some weight, ad hominem, against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers: I hope to give better reasons in due time and place, for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching: But I am very free to declare, that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances, this alledged is not sufficient.
Sect. 5. Some, saith he, Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties, and at some Seasons; but not with all. Churches, in all Duties, and at all times. And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery, as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion. But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication? And if none have, it is not Candour so to represent us: We desire not to walk in the Dark, nor are we ashamed of our Principles. We profess then, That in Parishes, where Truth is Preached, and not dangerous Error, and in those Ordinances, to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed, as Preaching and Prayer; and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies, where we have all the Ordinances in purity, as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned, because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them: I say thus, we can join with them; but not otherwise. I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion.
Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove, that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists; which he prove…h of some of the People, out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness: I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author, were sometimes dealt at Random: But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things, and understand not so well as need were, what they profess, will that ruin our cause? Is there no such blame among his Party? Do they all speak Judiciously, and Soberly, and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity. But he will (p. 103.) have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists; for what matter is it, saith he, as to the Nature of the Separation, whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful? whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry? scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors? Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian, or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ? Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful, and theirs unlawful, is, that we withdraw, being put away by the Church, for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion: These left the Church, and would not join with her, even tho' these Terms had not been imposed; looking on the Church as no true Church. Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy, we do not separate because of these; we would join with you for all these Grievances, if you would but suffer us to do it, without sinning against God in that, which is our personal Action. I hope he will not alledge, that the Old Separatists were of that principle.
Sect. 7. But this, to wit, that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists, the Dr. will make manifest: And that, 1. As to the People. 2. As to the Ministers of the Church. As to the People, Sect. 4. he saith, We disown the Old Separation; and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons, as Members of the Church unlawful. This I own, save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term, Members of the Church; let the thing be understood, to wit, that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies; and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these, with the Church; we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves: Yet are ready to worship God with the Church, when they shall please to suffer us to do it, without these Impositions: This, I say, being understood; we matter not much, whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not. Mr. Baxter, he saith, calleth it Schismatical in the Church, to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross, and God-fathers; and the Communion without Kneeling; and that People, in this case, may join with other Pastors, that will otherwise Baptize, and give the Communion. And I say the same: What is this, saith the Dr. but formal Separation. Ans. It is nothing else. And what hath he gained by that Concession? For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England, between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters: But the Question is, Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation; and consequently who are the Schismaticks? whether the Imposers or the Scruplers? I know no way to determine this question, but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause, and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used, and fit to be imposed on them, who conscienciously scruple them, so as no forbearance should be used in them, what ever may follow. If both these can be proved (as I am sure neither of them can) we were the Schismaticks: If not, unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party. If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue, the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared.
Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage, by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter; to wit, It may be Schism to separate from a Church, that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practices, and Persons. If these be not such, and so great, as to necessitate our departure from them, for there is such a Case supposeable; yet we affirm, That the Schismatical Principles, and Practices, and Persons in the Church of England, to wit, the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies, as Terms of our Communion with them, are such as Necessitate our departure: Or rather, they do by these drive us away. The Old Separatists, saith he, did not renounce total Communion with our Church; but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful (so do we with all the sound Christians in the World, tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity) and private Christian Communion (neither is this in the Question) and in some Acts of Worship, as hearing and joining in Prayer, and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists. Ans. They were justly charged with Separation, because their Principles would separate them from a Church, that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions; which ours do not. The Separation Materially is the same; that is, here are two Parties gone asunder, as were there: But not Formally; for their principle was, The Church was no true Church, and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities. Ours is, Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required; and for our Non-submission to these, we are expelled by force. He saith, We must hold a Necessity of Separation. Ans. So we do, as things now stand▪ But this Necessity is not of our making, but of our Brethrens making, and therefore they must bear the blame of it. It no way followeth, which he inferreth, that we must be Separatists: For it is an uncontroverted Truth, That they only are Separatists, who separate without just cause, which we deny to be imputable to us. The medium that he insisteth so much on, p. 104. is but a Quibble; to wit, either we are Members of the Church of England, or of no Church, or of another Church: If the first we must Communicate as Members: If the Second, we are no good Christians: If the Third, we own as formal a Separation, as ever any did. All this hath been before answered, but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us. I say then, there is here foreign. If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England, it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances, that is, her Sin to impose, and were our Sin to yield to. There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times, who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship, and the Groves, and High Places. If we should say the 2d. That we are at present Members of no Church, that understood sano…sensu, might be our Affliction, and not our Sin, for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with, or none that will let him join with them, without he sin against God, he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself: Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church; and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can: But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity, that his Circumstances are such, that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church. If we should say the 3d. it is true, we own a Formal Separation; but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us.
Sect. 9. If any ask, which of these three we do indeed own? I might answer as above, Section 7. that the Question is not very material, and but about words. Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word, Members of the Church, I shall open this a little further. And 1st. I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not, nor never were (most of us) Members of the Church of England; and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her; on what ever accompt we separate: For he asserteth, part 3. p. 350, 351▪ that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, and saying, we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross, &c. doth speak in the name of the Church; and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church: So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England. I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place. I only now consider, seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England, how he can look on us as Members of that Church, who were never so admitted into it: And if we never were Members in it, how can we be blamed for separating from it? But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it; I make no other use of it but ad hominem: And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it. But I come ad rem: The Term Church-member is a relative Term; it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church. Now in all Relatives, there are the two termini, the Things or Persons related, and the Fundamentum Relationis: That which maketh them so to be related one to another; which must be something so particular to them, that it is not common to them with all other persons or things. And this is that we here enquire after. That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism, and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant. That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church, is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church; and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowsh…p, or admitted to the Ordinances in it. This Right and Obligation is either remote, or proximate: A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth, every visible Believer hath; this is a part of the Communion of Saints, that they should join with one another, and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity; and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally, a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the Proximate Right that one hath, and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic & nunc to join with, and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church, is that which doth actually make him a Member of it. And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission, whether it be the Dr's Crossing, or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant, or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end; for these are but the external declarative Signs, not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation: and therefore these are but the Tokens, not the Foundation of Actual Membership. But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned, is ones being so Circumstantiated, that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere; which is determined by his place of residence (not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine, but a Civil Constitution; yet it hath its use for shunning confusion.) And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted, is his being a Visible Believer.
Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church, may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man, unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions; and his right may also be superseded, and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances, by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal. Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish, is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists, willful Deserters of the Church, Atheists, &c. So every one that liveth in a Parish, is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things: As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion, which that Church doth sinfully require: To clear this a little further, consider; that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church; beside his residence, there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person; and that either Explicite, or Implicite: The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person, Word, Sacraments, Discipline: The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth, in ordinary using of, or submission to these. Now where the Church is willing, and the Person is not, and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause, the Person may be charged with sinful Separation, where the Person is willing, but the Church is not. And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal, or by refusal, unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions, the Person is no Separatist; but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation. In this last case (which is our case) the Person is a Member affectu, but not effectu. This is (to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand) we are Members of the Church of England affectu, i. e. Being by providence fixed in England, where Christ's Truth is professed, and his Ordinances administred; we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances; yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu; because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under, to join in the Ordinances, without submitting to sinful Terms: And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinan…es, we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies, for the present distress, where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred; and there we are effectu Members, where we thus ordinarily meet. And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu; for we declare a readi…ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed, that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies, and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast. If after all this, the Dr. or his Party, will charge us, as he doth, with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles; and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice.
Sect. 10. He dealeth, p. 105, 106, 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion, how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful. I have …o fully set down my opinion in this (and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things, tho' many of them may word them better) that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate; especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth, I will not defend. He taketh up part of p. 107, 108, 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies, to be Members of the Church, nor excuse them from Separation. I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs: For it is not Occasional Communion alone, but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her, when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed, that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her, and so maketh us Members so far as we can; and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation.
Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England, and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship, because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles. This he highly derideth, and laboriously refuseth, p. 110, 111, 112, 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch. It is not their (saith he) Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church, as Members of it, that moveth, but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity. Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church; but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations: And therefore by the fault of the Imposers, we have no other way to shew our owning the Church▪ as a true Church, but this Occasional Communion: Let him call it a Romantick Fancy, or what he will; we separate from no true Church, and much less fr…m that where we live, but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again, he argueth from a supposition, That if we were at Jerusalem, where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches; and one should ask us what Church we were Members of. If we should Answer, we are fixed Members of no Church, but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches. Would they take such a Man for a Christian? Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer, as he feigneth for us, for his own advantage. I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with (being at Liberty to choose, and not prelimitted by my habitation) if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion: And then should Answer to the Question, I am here free to join with you, or any tolerable Church, but do Actually join with you as the purest, during my abode here. When I am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly, in the True Protestant Church of England; but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion, which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart, and in that Assembly I am a Member, till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly; where I desire to be a Member. I suppose the Eastern Christians, such as are sober and serious of them, and are duly informed of the State of our Debates, would not think me no Christian for this Answer, nor deny me Occasional Communion for it. I am sure if they did, they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel.
Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is, p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England, and received as Members of it: If then we communicate with it only occasionally, we renounce our membership. Ans. Whereever one be baptized, that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church. If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France, and have his Child there baptized in the English way, or in the French way, Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France, tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England, and there have Education, and continue? The Dr. had not, it seems, when his Book had come this length, hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission, as a Member of the Church of England. Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion, though not by our being baptized in this Church, yet by our residence in it, and owning the same …aith with it, and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation: But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation; for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin▪ and therefore we do not renounce our Membership; but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us. The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion, and it is no wonder, for his Party (forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing) desire none of our communion, as appeareth in excluding us, by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless, and we judge unlawful. But whatever he think of it, it is all that we can do: We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters, but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant.
Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion, p. 111, 112. is pure Trifling, unworthy of so learned an Author; That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life: That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience, concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions, and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church. For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick, when he cannot have it in private, and that often: And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church, which we would not do in a false Church, but rather be without the Ordinances for that time. Again, We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church, in any of Her corruptions; we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those, as he speaketh. These things being considered, the difficult Case of Conscience, that he fansies, hath an easie resolution, That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined, to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick, we should wait on them there, rather than elsewhere; but when that occasion is not offered, we may join with a Church in some things corrupted, in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it.
Sect. 14. His next Argument is, That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations, and less defective ways of Worship, so that there can be no stop to separation in this way. This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs, more than with solid Reasons, which he (but undeservedly) most severely had taxed Mr. A. for; he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over; and going to Anabaptists, and thence to the Quakers; and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church, unless they be secure, that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind, that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it. No…hing here that hath a shadow of Argument, but it is already objected and answered; but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions. I answer; It is not only for purer Administrations, that we withdraw, but to shun sinful Impositions, which, I am sure, neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge. Neither is it the glaring visibility, but the real Scripture-warrant for our way, that condemneth them for departing from us: Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them, but real sinful Terms in our Communion. But that some will without cause separate from us, is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you. Such a way of reasoning, from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty, is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this, had forgotten, it seems, what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith, A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity. Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem, counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for: It is incident even to wise men, Dum vitant vitia; that, in contraria currunt, it is downright for us, and against himself. What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions, as to practice. What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter, is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church, if he intended it against any others, let him answer it. The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England, do not concern us further, than to lament them, unless the Dr. can prove, that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had.
Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection, that he had made, I insist not on, save that I observe his usual way here also, his representing his Adversaries, as if they held, That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship, is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces. We think, the less defective that Worship be, it is the better; but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste: Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness, and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion, a sufficient ground of Separation: Far less do we think, that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground, unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture, or found Reason: And least of all do we think that such apprehension can warrant us to break the Church in pieces. The best grounded Scruples can only warrant our peaceable withdrawing and worshipping God apart, which may consist with the Church's being whole and sound. He doth exceedingly wrong Mr. B. and others, in that he imputeth to them an opinion, That better means of Edification is, by it self, a sufficient ground of separating from a Church. If any have ever asserted that, let them bear their blame. It may be some might mention this as a cumulative inducement to join with other Societies; but none of us ever held, that this alone could warrant a Separation. And yet the Dr. is at a great deal of pains to prove, that neither the old Separatists, nor the New-England-men ever held such an Opinion, which he might have got us to yield to him without his spending five Pages in the proof of it; but some men labour most in that which is least necessary. I know not what name to give to the Dr's Assertion, p. 117. That this (greater means of Edification) is now the main support of the present Separation. Nothing can be spoken with less semblance of Truth.