The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 17
Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful, Page 50.constant Communion is a Duty. This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence. Mischief of Impos. p. 84.Mr. A. brings several instances to prove, that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful, where constant is no duty; as with other Parish Churches, upon a Iourney, at a Lecture, &c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution; or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church, where he goes to hear a Lecture, &c. but the question is, about the lawfulness of Separation, where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful. For a man is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he is obliged to hold Communion, and yet withdraws from it. And it is a wonder to me, none of my Friends (my Adversaries I am loth to call them) could discern this. It is lawful, saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French, Dutch, Answ. p. 105.or Greek Church, Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty? Yes, if he were obliged to be a Member of those Churches, and thought it lawful to communicate some times, constant communion would be a Duty. But because this seems so hard to be understood, I will therefore undertake to prove it, by these Two Arguments.
First, From the general Obligation upon Christians, to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church.
Secondly, From the particular force of that Text, Philipp. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule, &c.
First, From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church.Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible, saith St. Paul, as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask, If there be not as great an obligation at least, upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church, as with all Men? and they are bound to that, as far as possible, and as much as lies in them. And is not that possible and lies in them to do, which they acknowledge lawful to be done, and can do at some times? What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians? What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles? And cannot these prevail with Men to do that, which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do, towards joyning in Communion with us? This I am perswaded, is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing, what they were convinced they might have done, with a good Conscience. When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority, they refused it; and they have been more and more backward ever since, till now they seem generally resolved, either to break all in pieces, or to persist in Separation. Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments; and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful; and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent: but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this;Mischief of Impos. P. 39. i. e. saith he, They did not enter their several Protestations, nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother; like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them. And so they have been advising and considering ever since, till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it; and the meer necessity of defending their own practices, makes them espouse these Principles. Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith, they had after the Plague and Fire, at which they agreed, That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good. Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy, Ibid.and wronging the Relator, by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence, viz. When it would not do more harm than good. And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good; Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place, he will find, I did consider the force of those words;Plea. p. 240. when I put it, that they resolved it to be lawful in it self; although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it. For they declared, That it was in it self lawful and meet; but the circumstances of that time, did make them think it might do more harm than good; and therefore it is said, They delaid for a fitter opportunity, which makes it clear, they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing. But that opportunity hath never hapned since; and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it; as Mr. A. plainly doth; by such reasons as these. Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good,
1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches, that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable. Mischief of Impos. p, 40.As though Separation were more eligible, than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable; and Schism were not more intolerable, than Communion with a tolerable Church. What will not Men say in defence of their own practice? Was ever Schism made so light a matter of, And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate; that for the prevention of the one, and the preservation of the other, a thing that is lawful may not be done, if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible? As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church, were not fit to be put in the ballance, against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience. Methinks, it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate, than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence, and reason of Mankind.
2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches, i. e. be drawn off from their Separation.
3. When it will harden the Papists. As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more.
4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general. Yes, no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so.
By these particulars, it appears, that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do. Yet at last, he saith, he tells us, as much is done, as their Consciences will permit them. Say you so? Is it indeed come to this? Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy, or to make use of any parts of it, in your own Meetings? How often hath Mr. B. told the World, That you stuck not at Set-Forms, nor at the Vse of the Liturgy, provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it? Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting, publickly, in a Writing on purpose, That they did not meet under any colour, or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner, than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, and were he able he would accordingly Read himself? Is this observed in any one Meeting in London, or through England? Then certainly, there are some who do not, what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us. And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea, That they never made one Motion for Presbytery, or against Liturgies; and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians. And since that, Mr. B. saith, They did come to an Agreement, wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy, Answ. p. 64.with some Alterations, was required. And are we now told, That all that can lawfully be done is done? Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles, in coming to our Liturgy; but Where are all the rest? And, Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies? Do they not hereby discover, that they are more afraid of losing their People, who force them to comply with their humors, than careful to do, what they judge lawful, towards Communion with our Church?