The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 16
Sect. 16. From all this it appears, that the present practice of Separation can never be justified, by the old Non-conformists Principles; nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former is clear from undeniable Evidence, and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries.Baxter's Answer, p. 89. Dr. O. p. 50. For, although they endeavour all they can, to blind the Readers Judgment, with finding out the disparity of some circumstances, which was never denied; yet not one of them can deny, that it was their Judgment, That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship, where there was an agreement in Doctrine, and the substantials of Religion, was Vnlawful, and Schismatical. And this was the point, for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon: and it still stands good against them. For their resolution of the case, doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time, but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches; which must have equal force at all times, although there happen a great variety, as to some circumstances. For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded, as to one circumstance, or another, the general case, as to Separation, is the same: whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required, or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline; if they be such as they pretend to, a necessity of Separation on their Account; it comes at last to the same point. Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations, as the Dissenting Brethren did, because of some Scruples of Conscience in them? and is it not equally unlawful in others, who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead, although they relate to different things? I will put this case as plain as possible, to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions. Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now, should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations, on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience; one of them pleads, that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy: another saith, His People do not scruple that, but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross, or Kneeling at the Communion; a third saith, If all these were away, yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted, as to matter and form, they must have a Congregation of their own; a fourth goes yet farther, and saith, Let their Congregation be constituted how it will, if they allow Infant-Baptism, they can never joyn with them; nor, saith a fifth, can we, as long as you allow Preaching by set forms, and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses, and such like Human Inventions: Here are now very different scruples of Conscience; but, Doth the nature of the case vary, according to the bare difference of the Scruples? One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit, is Separation on that account lawful? No, say all other Parties against the Quakers; because their scruples are unreasonable. But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism? No, say the Presbyterians and Independents, that is an unreasonable Scruple. Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches, although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship? No, saith the Presbyterians, this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions, if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation: and if they can joyn occasionally with us, they are bound to do it constantly; or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little: No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism. If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves, they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei, and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience. But, at last, the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England, and if they do not, either they must desire a separate Congregation, on the account of their Scruples, as to the Ceremonies, and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them. (For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable, as they do those of the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers,) Or else they declare, They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church, but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship; and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them, with respect to our Church, as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren, with respect to themselves. For no disparity, as to other Circumstances, can alter the nature of this Case; viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull, it becomes a Duty, and Separation a Sin; under what denomination soever the persons pass. For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances, but in the nature of the Act; because then Separation appears most unreasonable, when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful. As will fully appear by the following Discourse. Those Men therefore speak most agreeably to their present practice, although least for the honor of the Assembly, who confess,Mischief of Impos. p. 58, 68, 69. That they were transported with undue heats, and animosities against their Brethren; which deserve to be lamented, and not to be imitated; that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said, nor to be concluded by their Determinations: …etter out of the Country, p. …8.that it is to be hoped, the Party is become wiser since. This is plain dealing, and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren; and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side. But hereby we see, that those who justifie the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists; as to this point of Separation.