The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 15
Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down, the State of the present Controversie, as to Separation from our Communion, will soon appear. And any one may now discern,
1. That I do not mean bare local Separation. For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's; Answ. p. 46.Do you think, that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you? No; I do assure him, provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them; and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings, as having a purer way of worship, and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations. Mischief of Impos. P. 48.And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too, who, after his trifling manner, talks of a bellum Parochiale, as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes; but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale, I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it.
2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine, not determin'd by our Church, upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it: And I wonder, who ever did. But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it. To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words: While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination,Tract of Schism, p. 3. went no farther th…n the Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatcht; but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster, and by a pretty art made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet, that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism.
3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live. This is to Answer Mr. B's. Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches; and publick and private administrations of Sacraments. But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner, that they may go off the better with the common people. And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes. Mischief of Impos. p. 48, 49.But what is all this to the purpose? If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London, than he wears in the Countrey, Is he not the same Man for all that? Are not David's Psalms the same, whether they be Sung, or Said? Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune, or as set by a Parish Clerk? That which only looks like Argument (and my business is to mind nothing else; possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing) That I say which looks like Argument is, That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches, Mischief of Impos. p. 53.as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre; and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation. This proceeds upon a mistake, for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms, as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy; and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised. But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules; suppose there are some different Customs among us; What is this, to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches? To the choosing of new Pastors? and sitting down, as he speaks, with purer Administrations? All which this Man owns in his Book, as their avowed Principles and Practices; and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church, with the different Modes of Worship among our selves. He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings, that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner.
4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship, which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy. For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches; but have certain priviledges allowed them, as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came. But what have we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches? Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church, and living under the Rules and Government of it; either renounce the Membership they once had in it, or avoid Communion with it as Members, and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion. Answ. p. 46. 60, 87.Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again; as though their case could be thought alike, who never departed from ours, but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches.
5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion, Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation. For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority, Answ. p. 47.and the Orders of the Church he lives in; yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church, and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edification, I do not charge such a one with Schism.
6. I do not charge those with Separation, who under Idolatrous, or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate. But what is this to our case, where the true Religion is acknowledged, and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves, who break off Communion with our Churches. Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres,Answ. 15, 52, 53, 84. about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors? or the Arian Emperors, or Idolatorous Princes? I hope, he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs; for, What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government, and the Protestant Religion established among us? To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues, Answ. p. 21.and several other unbecoming Insinuations? when God be thanked, we live under a most merciful Prince, and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us, and may have it still continued, if Mens great Ingratitude, as well as other crying Sins, do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it. What need was there, of letting fall any passages tending this way? when I told him in the very State of the Question, that all our Dispute was, Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship, where the Doctrine established, and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God, be a Sinful Separation or not? Why is this Dissembled and passed over? And the worst cases imaginable supposed, in stead of that which is really theirs? If I could defend a Cause by no other means, I think Common Ingenuity, the Honor of our Prince and Nation, and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us, would make me give it over.