Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 6
SECT. VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered, in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians.
FRom Sect. 21. and forward, the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism, against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful; to wit, in partaking of the Ordinances with them; who deny them (tho' true Churches in some sence) to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of, and therefore must keep separate Meetings, which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches. He aimeth I suppose, especially at the Independents; I am not of that Perswasion, and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are. Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians, I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book; but I shall answer his Arguments so far only, as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice.
Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments, I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church, and that of the Independents. 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we; and consequently, more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church, than is to bring us to it; for we withdraw, as they also do, because of the Liturgy, Crossing in Baptism, Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper, observing of Holidaies: If the Church will either remove these, or bear with us in them, we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion. But besides these, they s…parate, because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members, want of a right Discipline, faults in the election and ordination of Ministers: Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not, they would still separate, as they do from the Presbyterian Churches, where these are not. 2. They separate, because these are used; We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to Communion. They separate, because the Church is polluted with these; We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them. If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these, we think the fault of other men (I mean in things of that nature) no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church; so that, in effect, they go away from the Church, We are driven away by the Church.
Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church, is, It weak…neth the C…use of the Reformation. This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines, and he beginneth with Calvin, whose words (too long here to be transcribed) do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful, because of lesser Impurities or great Faults, while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted. But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church, because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her: yea; he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it; for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions (even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181, 182.) and being anathematized, for not complying with these Corruptions, a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome, which is parallel to our case. But (saith the Dr.) he doth not mean indifferent Rites. Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites, but sinful Ceremonies. And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of En…land with that of Rome, as …o causes of Separation, yet here there is a likeness; the one rejecteth some of her Members, because they will not sin with her, and will force her Impositions on their Consciences; and so doth the other. Another Author he citeth is Daillie, giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome; and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them. And, what need was there to mention them, when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on? But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly, if the differences had been such, as we might safely have yielded to, then Separation had been rash and unjust. So say we, for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship, as we cannot to that which is greater, to wit, idolatrous Worship.
Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus, who saith, If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church, beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism, and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion, they had still continued in Her Communion. Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England, for these and such-like faults: We refuse the use of these, and because of that, the Church casteth us out of Her Communion. And if Amyrald us say, That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema, we leave him to his own Sentiments in that, but are of another opinion. It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies, when they are compared with these Romish Abominations; but when we consider them by themselves, and compare them with Scripture, we cannot think so of them. The Dr. further urgeth us, with the Answers given by Claude, Paion, and Turretine, to the Book entituled, Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes: That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies; this is both false and inconcludent: It is false; for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had, to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church, because of their Ceremonies. One of the chief Objects (saith he) that presented it self to our Fathers, was that of the great number of the Ceremonies; which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship, making it look partly like Judaism, and partly like Heathenism: He saith, It was, without doubt, a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and much more to that purpose. What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head, I know not, for I have not seen them. This Argument is also inconcludent, because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery.
Sect. 5. One passage he citeth, p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine, that no tolerable superstitious Rites, that do not infect the Conscience, are sufficient grounds of Separation. And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi, (as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by f…lse Doctrine.) To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent; for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation: And I deny not, that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable; to wit, where men will use them, and do not impose them on others: They that are left to their liberty, may well tolerate others in the use of them; but I do not so well see, that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience; for Superstition is Sin, and no Sin is tolerable in that case. To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer, That it is absolutely false; and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof; for, (that I may not deny, as he asserteth, without reason) 1. A Superstitious Ri…e is one of the Traditions of Men, in the Worship of God, and that the Scripture doth simply condemn, without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition. I know not what false Doctrine the Pharis…ical Washings were enforced with, but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness, Mat. 15. 6, 9. but of this afterward. 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Ri…e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will, make it to defile the Conscience, as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine? If this Doctrine were true, men might impose what they will in the Worship of God; they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used, or Papists either, if they keep but orthodox mind, and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites, but only sic volo, sic j…beo. To what purpose he citeth le Blanch, shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists, I see not, but that many Names of Authors make a shew, and it argue…h great reading; for he saith not one word of the …eremonies; and we all know, that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England, but those of Rome it self, yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds.
Sect. 6. It was needful, that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations, home to his purpose, which every Reader could hitherto hardly …iscern how it should be done: Wherefore, p. 185. he telle…h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us, if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by, but the things that we now scruple. And he telleth us, how we would be laughed at, all over the Christian world, and how the Papists are hardened, seeing no end of Schism. To all this I answer, 1. I know Rome, and some others too, will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing; but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do, we are unconcerned in their censures. 2. That there is no cause, for their triumphing, appeareth, because the Dr. and his Party, (who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion) have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us, as to make them triumph. 3. If by the Christian World, he mean the Protestant part of Christianity, (for the rest, we are less m…ved by their Judgments) I hope they will not laugh at us, who scruple nothing, but what most of them have condemned, as Additions to the Word of God, and Corruptions of His Worship; for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done. 4. If the Papists be hardened, as seeing no end of Schism, they are to be blamed; for we can shew them, and others, a good end of it; to wit, ordering the worship of God by his Institution; or, at least, imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church.
Sect. 7. His Second Argument is, Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are. This he proveth, because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies, yet these Churches are thought true, and fit to be united with, by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton, 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies. So doth the Confession of Poland, and that of Ausburg, and Strasburg; also Crecius, and the Transilvanian Divines. Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated. We allow no Separation for these Rites; and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned, disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons, nor injoineth using of them. We do not separate because the Church useth them; but She driveth us away because we cannot use them. What he citeth out of Amyraldus, p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them, I have said somewhat to above. I deny not, but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremo…y, that is built on it; but I cannot assent, That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship. He citeth Davenant, giving three Reasons that may hinder Union; and the first is, Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience; let but this be removed, and our Separation is at an end; for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of, and can prove their sinfulness of this blame. That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we, he supposeth, p. 198. but doth not prove; the Calvinist Churches have not; and if the Lutheran Churches have, that is, impose them with such rigour, we cannot but, eatenus, condemn them: Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them, as he insinuates; we can have Union with them as Sister Churches, but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship.
Sect. 8. His third Argument is, that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church; and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others: But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour, to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him, by setting aside (from their Pleas for Separation) Ceremonies, Liturgy, and Holidays, which are the things we insist upon. I say no more on this Argument, but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis, asserting, That these are common to our Church, with all other Christian Churches, for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church, and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false, for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete, great degeneracy of the Roman Church; I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy, whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop, or, may be, in the Council of Trent: But he shall never prove, that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church; nor that they were used by all Christians, even before the greatest deg…neracy. For the Second Part of his Assertion, it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it; for he cannot be ignorant, that these are not continued in all, nor most of the Reformed Churches, but disowned in their Confessions, and by their Practice. But some mens confidence, or pretence to it, runs highest, when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb.
Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument, Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless. He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages, by shewing the evil of Schism, p. 197. reprov…ng Mr. A. for making too light of it, p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick lo…g Oration, in the excuse of it, p. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism, p. 204, 205, 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation. All which I shall pass by, as not against the cause that I maintain, and only briefly answer his Argument, (if either his Party, or any pretended to be on our side, will not keep within that Boundary, let them answer it) That Separation will soon be at an end, if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture, and if People refuse nothing, so as to separate for it, but what they can shew Scripture-ground, that it were their Sin to own it or do it.
Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church. To enforce this Argument, the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths, but such as none of them, nor all of them, conclude against withdrawing from the Church, when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed; as, 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty. 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient reason for it. What is all this, to make up an Obligation to sin against God, rather than separate from the Church? But a fourth thing he insisteth on, may be, will help him better. He telleth us of three cases, wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation; to wit, Idolatrous Worship, False Doctrine, mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation. That this is not a sufficient enumeration, I prove; 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are. May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their Communion, tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation? and where-ever we must sin or separate, Separation is allowed by the Scripture, which tieth us to live peaceably with all men, if possible, and so far as in us lieth: It is not in our power to sin, for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus. 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent, as so dangerous to the Soul, that Separation is, no doubt, rather to be chosen than the use of them; and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation: Therefore I conclude, against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book, that we are not obliged to prove against his Party, either Idolatry or false Worship, or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation. It is enough, if we prove, that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you, and that it is unlawful for us to use them; for hence it plainly followeth, that we must either live without the Ordinances, which were our Sin; or meet apart, for worshipping God, which is our Duty, as your Impositions and Severities have stated us.
PART III.
IN this Third Part of his Book, the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England, and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church. The Dissenters, as they are of different p…rswasions, so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways. I shall not take the defence of them all; but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book, I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth, and fix upon what I shall own.