The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 1 – Section 2
Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversie, it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things.
1. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation, yet, no such thing was then practised, or allowed, by those who were then most zealous for Reformation.
2. That when Separation began, it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church, and wished for a farther Reformation. And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then, it will appear, that the Principles owned by them, do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us.
In the making out of these, I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie about Separation from the Communion of our Church.
I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised, or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation. By Separation we mean nothing else, but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edification. By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on, by those who pretend to justifie these Practises; and those are such, as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful. And not one of all those, which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by, but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation. For our Church stands on the same Grounds; useth the same Ceremonies (only fewer;) prescribes the same Liturgy (only more corrected;) hath the same constitution and frame of Government; the same defect of Discipline; the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers; and at least as effectual means of Edification, as there were when the Reformation was first established. And what advantage there is, in our present circumstances, as to the Number, Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers; as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies, and the Explication of the meaning of others; as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation, do all make it much more unreasonable now, than it had been then.
Sect. II. It cannot be denied, that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation; but they were such things, as are the least scrupled now.Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap, and Tippet, &c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours. Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits, but he submitted afterwards to the use of them. Bucer, and some others, disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth, which were Corrected in the Second: So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church; at least, as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation. For we read of none, who refused the constant use of the Liturgy, or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained, as the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling at the Communion, which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion, and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions; as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies.Mischief of Impositions Preface. Now we are told, That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation, and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion. By Whom? At what Time? In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created? Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion, or alter'd the Old Ones? No: the same Author saith, It is perpetuating the old Conditions, and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom, wherein it must certainly misc…rry.
Not to insist on his way of Expression, in calling the Reformation, An Old Worm-eaten Bottom; which ill be…omes them, that would now be held the most Zealous Protestants. I would only know, if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs, and other Reformers, and which are only continued by us, do, as this Author saith, Create a Necessity of Separation; how then it came to pass, that in all King Edward's dayes, there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them?
And even Dr. Ames, who searched as carefully as any into this matter,Fresh suit against Ceremonies, p. 467. can bring no other Instances of any differences then, but those of Rogers and Hooper: he adds indeed, That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper. Wherein? What, in opposing our Ceremonies, when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled? No, but there was a perfect reconciliation between them, before they suffered. And what then? Is there any the least colour of Evidence, that before that Reconciliation, either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists, or that Ridley ever receded from his stedfast adhering to the Orders of this Church? This is then a very mean Artifice, and disingenuous Insinuation. For although Ridley, in his Letter to Hooper, out of his great Modesty and Humility, seems to take the blame upon himself, by attributing the greater Wisdom to Hooper in that difference; yet he doth not Retract his Opinion, but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth. Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Subm…ssion, to which he was so earnestly perswaded, both by Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer; and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness, Pet. Martyr, Epist. Theolog. Hoopero, Buc. r. Script. Anglic. p. 708.and saith, That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith, Mr. Bradford might have been added, who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets, Antichristian Pelf and Baggage. Suppose this were true, it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple, and such as is thought so by our Brethren themselves at this day. But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this? Did he set up separate Congregations, because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him? No, he was a far better man than to do so. But if the whole words had been set down, the seeming force of these words had been taken away, for they are these; The cogniza…ce of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps, Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319.Tippets, shaven Crowns, or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf, but in suffering for the Lords sake; i.e. it is more a Mark of Gods Service to suffer Martyrdom as a Protestant, than to be at ease as a Romish Priest, for he puts them altogether, Caps, Tippets, and shaven Crowns. And what is this to the Impositions of our Church, or Separation on the account of them? Dr. Ames knew too much, to pretend to any thing like that in those times; For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of, on the account of these dividing Impositions. Some furious Anabaptists it may be, or Secret Papists then had separate Meetings, Ridiey's Articles of Visitation, 1550.of which Ridley bids Enquiry to be made, in his Articles of Visitation; but no Protestants, none that joyned in the Articles of our Fait…, and Substantials of Religion with our Church, as Dr. O. speaks,Vindicat. of Nonconf. p. 13. did then ap…ehend any … of Separation from it; not for … of the A… Sign of the Cross; nor Kneeling at the Communion; nor the Religious Observation of Holy-days; nor the constant use of the Liturgy; nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith,P. 35. 37. makes our Communion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary. How come these Terms of Communion to be so unlawful now; which were then approved by such holy, learned, and excellent men as our first Reformers? Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments, or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel, that men in our Age are come to? Is it credible, that men of so great integrity, such indefatigable industry, such profound judgment, as Cranmer and Ridley, who were the Heads of the Reformation, should discern no such sinfulness in these things, which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon, as unlawful? Is it possible, that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves, and made use of the best help from others, and begg…d the Divine Assistance, should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men? Could not Latimer, or Bradford, or such holy and mortified men as they, discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times, which others espy such Beams in now? What makes this wonderful difference of eye-sight? Were they under a cloudy, and dark, and Iewish Dispensation; and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Separation reserved for our times? Did they want warmth and zeal for Religion, who burnt at the Stake for it? Doth God reveal his Will to the meek, the humble, the inquisitive, the resolute Minds? And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth, and so resolved to adhere to it? If Diocesan Episcopacy, and the Constitution of our Church were such an unlawful thing, as some now make it, it is strange such men should have no suspition of it, no not when they went to suffer? For as H. Iacob, Iacob's Answer to Iohnson, p. 20, 21.the old Nonconformist, saith, in answer to Iohnson the Separatist, Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Arch-Bishop still, and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed, and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it? Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death? Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishoprick of London though ready to die? Latimer, though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Ministery, and never repented him of it. Philpo… never disliked his Archdeaconry: yea, when he refused bloody Bonner, yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester. The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar. And generally, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelats Ordination, they never renounced it, though they died Martyrs. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason.Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Bradford, Hooper, and Bale against the Hierarchy; But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford, which are, The time was when the Pope was out of England, but not all Popery; which he would have understood of the times of Reformation, under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expresly of King Henry's days. And it is not credible, Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful, who (as it is generally believed) had the Administration of two Bishopricks at once.Bradford's Confer. with the B…. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII. his time; and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy, for he was after a Bishop himself. But H. Iacob answers to them all, That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy, it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation: Iacob's Answer, p. 82.Seeing for all that, they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians. And that not only occasionally and at certain seasons, but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it.