Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 4
SECT. IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined, and the Question truly Stated.
THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examined… the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation. Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate; but the Dr. must use his own method, and we must follow him, in examining what he saith. He giveth us, Sect. 15. his Concessions, which I shall say little of, save to make a Remark on one or two of them. And, 1. His third Concession is, He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches, in publick and private Administrations (these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live:) but, What is this, saith he, to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches, to the chusing of new Pastors? It is true, these are two different things; the difference is, the one is allowed by the Church, the other not so. But consider the things in themselves, and abstracted from the Churches pleasure, and there will appear to be as little Vniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship, as between their Parochial Worship, and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters. Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party, seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies, as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies, because they cannot go to the expence of it: And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in pr…vate Baptism, why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters, who cannot for their Consciences use these things, and so shun this Breach in the Church, this denying of Communion with their Churches, and chusing of new Pastors? Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded? or, Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members, as that She will indulge Mens Purses, but not their Consciences; She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure, but not for peoples consciences, when they can shew good reason for what they think and make conscience of? This is wholly unaccountable, and very inconsistent with those high pretentions, that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity.
Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th. Concession, That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England, because they break not off Communion with the Church of England, as they do who were Baptized in it. But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers; if the Ceremonies be necessary, why should the neglect of them be permitted to any? If unnecessary; why should they be forced on mens Consciences, to the Rending of the Church? The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of, may be prevented by this Condescendency; and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin, which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences, and sinning against God; and which they might as easily prevent by shewing us that Favour that they shew to others. I take notice also of his 6th. Concession, That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians, against the will of the Magistrate: But what is this to our Case, where true Doctrine is taught? It is very much to our Case; for the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians—was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship; though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine, and using the Ceremonies; yet we reckon the one to be Sin, as really as the other; and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church, more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end. And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God, when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin, more than the Oxthodox were, who lived under the Arians.
Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question, upon which his whole Book is founded: I see no formal Stating of it (Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversie) except that, he saith, he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was, whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship, where the Doctrine Established, and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God, be a sinful Separation or not? This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation. Two things in it are not sufficiently clear; and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out. The First thing that is not clear, is, That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justifie Separation, but what is in the Established Doctrine; that is, either that which is contained in the Churches confession of Faith, or is setled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine, as may make them that regard their Souls Health, withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended; that is, when gross Errors are commonly taught, contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Publick Confession of Faith, and which is Established by Law: That this is a Case supposeable; yea, that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy, appeareth in that it is most common in England, for Ministers who have subscribed the 39. Articles, to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them; as I observed above: It is no rarity for unconscientious men, to subscribe to whatever is imposed, rather than lose a Benefice; and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription. Now if a Church should become so corrupt, that Heresie is commonly taught, though the Orthodox Faith be Established; ought not People to withdraw from that Church? Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth; ought not People withdraw from such Teachers? Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed, or restrained.
Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear; to wit, That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right, there should be no Separation. What he meaneth by these is a Controversy it self; and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term, Part. 3. p. 334. whither I referr the Debate with him about it. But, what if any part of Worship be unlawful; call it Substantial, or Circumstantial, or what he will? Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God; which is sinful; but yet so peremptorily imposed, as none shall worship God without it? I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate, though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship?
Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy, which were needful to have been minded. As, 1st. To clear what he meaneth by Separation. I have above shewed, that sometimes they that are charged with Separation, are meerly Passive in it; sometimes they are Active: The First is when the Church casteth them out, because they cannot submit to her Impositions. The Second, when they take offence at something in the Church, and therefore leave her; but are not cast out by her, but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances: In the first Case (which is ours) if they causlesly scruple at the Impositions, they may be charged with Ignorance, or Errour of Conscience, or Peevishness, and Willfulness; but how they can be charged with Separation, I know not, more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country. And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions; I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all. 2. He should have shewed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church, more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith; as a Man, or Company that live in Holland, have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France, &c. or a present forbearing of Communion, because of sinful Terms, with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church, when these Bars shall be removed. In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off; in the other not so: It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member; not a disowning it, or casting it off.
Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alledged grounds of Separation, but false Doctrine Established, or wrong substantial parts (as he calleth them) of Worship. He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth, if he knew not that other grounds are alledged; and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them; whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds. It is true, his question may include all the grounds that can be alledged, beside the two mentioned; but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy, should have been mentioned, in stating of the Question. 4. It being confessed on both Hands, that there is a sinful Separation; it should have been one part of his question, where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable; whether on the Imposers, or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation? But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame, and to put the Question only, whether the Dissenters have any blame, or not? 5. It should not have been omitted; to enquire whether the Grounds alledged for Separation lie in things really Evil, or only fan…ied to be such? And again, whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation.
Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done. There are indeed divers questions, on which this question about Separation doth depend; and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question, to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice. It is then, 1. A great part of our Controversy, seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it, and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent, and so unnecessary, That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them, and the Dissenters think them unlawful to be used, and are able to make it appear by good reason, that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think; whether they should impose these on the Dissenters, and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences. 2. It is a part of our Controversie, and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth; whether to worship God by the Liturgy, and with the Seremonies, be a Worship acceptable to him; or such as he will reject. If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship; yea, lawful to be used; all our other questions will cease. 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship, as the Non-conformists believe; and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church, as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church: The question is, whether we should chuse to use them, or forbear the Ordinances with the Church? 4. It is yet another question; supposing the unlawfulness of using them, and impossibility of joining with the Church without them; whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God; or keep separate Meetings, where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions? I deny not but several other questions may fall in, while we are debating these; but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly, though not so fully, comprized all the Controversie in this question; whether we ought to worship God, only according to the Prescript of his Word, or may do it by the Traditions of Men?