The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 10
Sect. 10. But this is not all the encouragement to Separation, which is given to the People, by their power of Iudging, and Withdrawing from their Ministers; For,
2. They insinuate, That the whole Body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such Faults, as the People may lawfully Separate from them; as will appear by these Particulars.
First, They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing; and then tell the People over and over, It is no sin to separate from Scandalous Priests; especially when the Scandal is notorious, as it is in this case.Plea for Peace, p. 108. Mr. B. goes about to prove This, by many Arguments, when he Writes in the name of the Party; now let us see what Judgment they pass upon Conformity. In one place he saith, That the Love of Peace, Sacrileg. desert. p. 43.and the fear of frightning any farther from Parish Communion than I desire (as though such suggestions did not do it enough) do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformity; and that sin which Non-conformists fear, and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old. No doubt of it, if you give such broad intimations as these are, what a horrible scandalous sin Conformity is. Nay, he maketh it an inexcusable sin, when he saith, in the Preface to his Plea, That more like Truth hath been said for the lawfulness of Anabaptistry, Poligamy, Drunkenness, Stealing, and Lying, in case of necessity, than any thing he ever yet read of all that he hath there described, i.e. full Conformity. Answer to Serm. p. 46.He chargeth us downright with Lying, and by consequence with Perjury, Plea for Peace, p. 220. 223, 226, 339.and tells me of 30 tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; among which are Lying and Perjury, and not only that, but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries (by declaring, That the Covenant doth not oblige.) But I do not question, if Mr. B. pleased, he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggravations of the Sin of Separation. For never did any Man lay more load than he, upon whatever he opposes, without considering how it may fall upon himself at last; and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations. And it was well said by one of Mr. B's. Adversaries concerning him,Answ. to Sacril. desertion, p. 13. That be the Controversie what it will, he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ, a Heaven and Hell. Which I have found too true, by my experience in this case, for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of, but only by declaring against Separation, he tells me, That he is so far past doubt, on the other side, as that he thinks I overthrow all Religion, Answ. p. 19.and set up Man in Rebellion against God. But the worst is that he would make me say, which I never said or thought, That all Publick Worship is sinful, when forbidden: and then on he runs with a mighty torrent, Daniel may go to the Lions; the Martyrs, Fathers, Counsels, the Vniversal Church are all foolisher, than the meanest of his Auditors. I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism. For he doth in effect charge me with them; For it follows, It's strange that he can be sure, God's Word is true, and yet be so sure, that Mens Laws are above it, and may suspend it. Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way? I abhor and detest such Principles, as set Mans Laws above Gods. And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation, I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion, between the dissenting Parties and our Church. How then could he possibly infer from hence, that I set Man's Laws above Gods? The Question is not, Whether all Publick Worship be sinful, when forbidden? but whether in a Nation professing true Religion, some publick Worship may not be forbidden? If not, then an universal, unlimited toleration of Turks, Iews, Papists, Socinians, Ranters, &c. must follow. If some may be forbidden, then another Question follows, viz. Whether such Publick Worship, as may have an evil in it, antecedent to that Prohibition, may not be forbidden? viz. such as tends to Idolatry, Sedition, Schism, &c. and if this be allowed, then it comes to this at last, Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults; and if they be, Whether the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them? And this is the utmost that matter can be driven to; which I here mention, to let the Reader understand, what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me; for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more. But the sting of these aggravations follows. If the People think, (though they should mistake) that all the Conformists are guilty of the like, Answ. p. 50.Can you wonder, if they prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with? Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last. Our Conformity is a horrible, scandalous sin with them, and therefore they must choose better Pastors. Is not this just the old Brownists Argument? The Ministry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery, and therefore we must not communicate with them, but choose more honest and faithful Guides: But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true, Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not? If it be not lawful, then he condemns his own practice, and takes away occasional communion; if it be lawful, How comes Separation to be lawful, since, that is never lawful, but when it is necessary? as it will be proved afterwards.