The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 16
Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons, in the management of this debate, I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question, as it is laid down; and to make good the charge of Separation,
I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship; but deny constant Communion to be a Duty.
II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful; although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion.
1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship, but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty.
To overthrow this Principle, I shall prove these two things,
1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation.
2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty.
1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation. Which will appear by these things,
First. Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church. This term of occasional Communion, as far as I can find, was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians, who charged them with Brownism: to avoid this charge, they declared, That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful, which they did not; for, said they, we can occasionally Communicate with you; but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary, as long as they upheld Separate Congregations, with whom they would constantly Communicate; and accounted those their Churches, with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body. But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches, they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion; it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches, that they could not joyn as Members with them; and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members, they pleaded for separate Congregations. And so, must all those do, who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all; and not follow Grotius his Example, in suspending Communion from all Churches. Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own.Answ. p. 64. Although Mr. B. declares,Page 24. That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches; Page 62.That he never gather'd a Church; Page 86.that he Baptized none in 20 years; and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years. I desire to know, what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time. For as to our Churches, he declares, That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally; but not as Churches (for he thinks we want an essential part, viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power, as appears before) but as Oratories; and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches; and for other Churches, he saith he hath gathered none, he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years; and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church, he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all. It is true, he hath Pray'd occasionally, and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories, but not as a Member of our Churches; he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations, but he hath gather…d no Church, he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together. So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place, and Preached occasionally in another, but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where. But I wonder, how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach, that Woe was unto him if he did not; and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together; none, to joyn himself as a Member to any Church. Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach; and to think it no fault, not to give the Sacraments to others, nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church? Was there not the same devotedness, in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments, as to Preaching the Gospel? Was not the same Authority, the same charge as to both of them? Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments? Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty, and none at all to the other? Is this possible, to perswade impartial Men, that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws; and yet never thought your self bound to do that, which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other? Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History, that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach, and not without leave from the Bishop, and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too; viz. the African; but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments; so that, if one obligation were stricter than the other, that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in, for 18 years together; and why he might not as well in the other, is not easie to understand. However, Why all this while, no Constant Communicant with any Church? What, no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of? No Obligation upon a Christian to that, equal to the necessity of Preaching?
These things must seem very strange, to those who judge of Christian Obligations, by the Scripture, and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages. To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion; if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church? What was this Communion intended for? The antient Churches at this rate, might easily be capacious enough for their Members, if some never joyned with them in so long a time. But he hath communicated occasionally with us: Yes, to shew, what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with, but not as a Member, as himself declares; and this occasional Communion makes him none.Mischief of Impos. P. 85. For Mr. A. saith, Their occasional Communion with us, is but like any of our occasional Communion with them: or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher; or occasional going to a Popish Chappel; which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations. If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice, or ten or twenty times, as long as they declare it is only occasional communion, it makes them no Members of our Churches; for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion.
Secondly, They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another, are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered, although they may be occasionally present in it. Now, if Men who think our constant communion unlawful, Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations, as Mr. A. speaks, and to choose new Pastors; this is gathering new Churches; and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd. The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter. Such, saith he, of the dissenting Ministers, Page 33.as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches; have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing, and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also. If this be true, as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles, then we see plainly a Separation owned, notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches. For, here is not only a lawfulness, but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations, for Preaching, Hearing, and other Religious Duties. And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches, Pastors, People, and joyning together for Religious Worship, in a way separate from our Assemblies. For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them; yet they are so far from allowing constant communion, that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship; And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held? For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation, which Giffard Answered, they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies; from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation; and then declare, that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants; and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors; with whom they might joyn, in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different, from what must follow from the Principles of those, who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties? And if there be a necessity of Separation, as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold, that seem most moderate, the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion, will not excuse them from the guilt of the other. For, as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained, the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute, and some held one way and some another. And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us, that he looks upon it, but as drinking a single glass of Wine, Page 51.or of Water, against his own inclination, to a person out of Civility; when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else. It seems then, this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches, wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations; but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls, as the other is destructive to their health. So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation.