The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 13 – Section 14
Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful, they say, the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate, Plea, p. 42.but on those that do impose such terms; and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers. This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them. But in this case, we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice, or wilful Ignorance, or error of Conscience. That there is a real distinction between these two, is evident; and that it ought to be considered in this case, appears from hence, that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience. As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass, and much more Praying by one, was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time, as Praying by a Form was in point of words; and all Men should be required to begin the publick Worship at such an Hour, and so end at such an Hour; time being a necessary circumstance, our Brethren grant, that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it. Here is then a lawful imposition; and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful; and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed; For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time; On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case? Not on the Imposers, because they grant such an imposition lawful; therefore it must lie on those that Separate, although they judge such terms of Communion sinful. If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power, as the necessary circumstances of time and place, &c. then mens apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side, and not on the imposers. Because it is to be supposed. that where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary care and judgment, satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required. As for instance, when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images, we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion; but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion, Where is the prohibition? In the same Second Commandment say some. I desire them to read it over to me. They do so. Where, say I, are the words that forbid a Liturgy, or Ceremonies? I am mistaken, they tell me, it is not in the words, but in the sense. I Ask, How we should come by the sense, but from the words? Yes, they say, there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments. Are they Divine or Human? Where are they to be found? What are those Rules? One, they say, is, that where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. So say I, there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image. What is there more? Yes, say they, (1.) That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions; now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions▪ But, I say, no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden; but he hath no where forbidden these. And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God; but then (1) They are such inventions which go about to represent God, and so to disparage him; and no other inventions are to be understood, than the Reason of the Law doth extend to, i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God. (2.) They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship, supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. For otherwise all use of mens inventions, as to Preaching, or Reading, or Interpreting Scripture, would be forbidden. And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful, because it is a meer Invention of Men; as much as Liturgies, or Ceremonies.
By this we see, what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be, to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion; And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education, or Reading only one sort of Books, and taking some things for granted which they ought not, before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful: and therefore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side, but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded, and then Separate from our Church upon it. But there is another plain instance in this case, wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side; and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism. Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality, as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies: if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful, On whose side doth the Schism lie, on theirs that require the allowance of it, as a condition of Communion, or not? If on the Imposers side, they must condemn themselves, who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation. And so did Fr. Iohnson, and so did the New-England Churches. From whence it appears, that they do all agree, that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not, the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side, but on those that separate. Therefore, this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful, but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so; but till these are brought forth, which never yet were, or ever will be, they must bear the blame of the Schism, if they Separate on these accounts.
Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches, rather than Communion with them; which I have discover'd to be of that Nature, as leads Men to the greatest Separation.
Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously, and so need the less pains to discover their minds, and those are,
II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful. But there is a difference among these; For,
First, Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies, and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers; but not in the Liturgy, or any proper Act of Church-Communion. This I have shewed, was the Opinion of Robinson, and the New-England Churches; and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye, who Wrote a Discourse about it, and answered all Objections. Yea, he goes so far, as to own the publick preaching, as a great blessing to the Nation; and he thinks, the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent, (as they have liberty and opportunity) the more publick and National Ministry. But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People, to be of another opinion; which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them; and he was a very sagacious Man.
Secondly, Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship. And some are arrived to that height,Rector of Su…to… &c. p. 25. that one of my Answerers confesseth, That they refuse to hear him, because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches. It seems then, they not only think it unlawful to hear us, but to hear those who think it lawful; and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them, that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches.
Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach: and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists; as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal: whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry, and our Ministers Antichristian; which Mr. Nye was so far from owning, that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful, and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian; because the Articles of our Religion, to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions, are Orthodox, and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery.