The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 28
Sect. 28. (5.) Lastly, I Argue against this Separation, from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians, to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church. And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men, who it may be will little regard other inconveniences, if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God. Which I now undertake to prove, upon these Suppositions.
(1.) That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church. For it is not possible to suppose, that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men, with plainer Precepts, and stronger Arguments than this is. The places are so many, that it were endless to repeat them; and therefore needless, because this is agreed on all hands. So that violation of the Vnity of the Church, where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it, is a Sin, as much as Murder is, and as plainly forbidden. But it happens here, as it doth in the other case, that as Murder is always a sin; but there may be some circumstances, which may make the taking away a Mans life, not to be Murder; so it may happen, that though Schism be always a sin, yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism; but then they must be such Reasons, as are not fetched from our Fancies, no more than in the case of Murder; but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law. For, he only that made the Law can except from it.
(2.) The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love, but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church. For although the former be a duty, yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian, which is to joyn together, as Members of the same Body. And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together; and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church, it is said, The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship,Heb. 10. 25. and in breaking of Bread,Act. 2. 42. and in Prayers. And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body, by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ.1 Cor. 10. 17. We being many are one Bread, and one Body; for we are all partakers of that one Bread.1 Cor, 12. 13. And by one Spirit, we are all Baptized into one Body; whether we be Iews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The Vnity of the Christian Church, Ephes. 4. 3, 4, 5.St. Paul saith, is to be preserved by the bond of Peace; and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit; and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head, whom he calls One Lord, so they are joyned together by One Faith, and One Baptism. Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds, as well as Internal, that is, One Faith, and One Baptism, as well as One Lord, and One Spirit; so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts; for, How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual; as inward love to the Members of the Body, being present in Spirit, &c? Therefore, the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church, doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church, in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion.
(3.) Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient Reason for it. Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution; and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned, we are to suppose it still to hold, where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear. Although God hath, with great severity, forbidden Killing: yet when himself appointed particularly cases, wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away; we are thereby assur'd, that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden; so in the present case, if it appear that although Separation from the C…mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned; yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions, we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin. But then, as in the former case, no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood, who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice; so here, no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end, will justifie his Separation; for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self. And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this; it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church, which our Saviour prayed for, Joh… 17. 21.and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians; and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere. From hence Irenaeus saith, That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church,Iren. l. 4. c. 62. and rather regard their own advantage, than the Churches Vnity; who, for slight causes, or for any, make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ, and do what in them lies to destroy it. They speak for Peace, saith he, but they mean War: they strain at a Gnat, and swallow Camels. The benefit they hope to bring to the Church, cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism.Chrysost in. Eph. 4. p. …22, Nothing provokes God more, saith St. Chrysostom, than to divide his Church: Nay, saith he, the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it. The Mischief the Church receives by it, is greater than it receives from open Enemies: for the one makes it more glorious, the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies, when it is set upon by its own Children. This, saith he, I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism; and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church. If their doctrine be contrary to ours, for that reason they ought to abstain; if not, foreign, they ought to do it so much the rather. Do no you know, what Corah, Dathan, and Abiram suffer'd? and not they only, but those that were with them. But you say, they have the same Faith, and they are very Orthodox; Why then, saith he, do they Separate? One Lo…d, one Faith, one Baptism. If they do well, we do ill; if we do well, they do ill. If they have the same Doctrines, the same Sacraments, For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours? It is nothing but vain glory, ambition and deceit. Take away the People from them, and you cut off the disease. And after much more to that purpose; I speak these things, saith he, that no Man might say, he did not know it to be such a sin: I tell you, and testifie this to you, that Separation from the Church, or dividing of it, is no less a sin, than falling into Heresy. If the sin then be so great and dangerous, Men ought to examin with great care, what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin.
And I do earnestly desire our Brethren, as they love their own Souls, and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin, Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus, and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us, and set up other Churches in opposition to ours, which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox, and to agree with them in the same Doctrine, and the same Sacraments.
4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation.
First, In the case of Idolatrous Worship. For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry, as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church. Neither be ye Idolaters. Flee from Idolatry. 1 Cor. 10. 6. 14.Keep your selves from Idols. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 1 St. John 5.And to the case of Idolaters, St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians, Matt. 4. 19.Come out from among them, 2 Cor. 6. 17.and be separate; and touch not the unclean thing. Now in this case, where there is so plain a Command, there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation; if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship, without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden.
Secondly, In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true. Heb. 13. 7. 17.For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church; 1 Thess. 5. 12. 13.yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel, or to corrupt the true one; St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them:Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8. and that implies, that they should have no Communion with them, but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body (like putrid Members) lest they should corrupt the rest. St. Paul commands Titus, Tit. 3. 10.when there is no hopes of reclaiming such, to exclude them from the Society of Christians. St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such. The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans; 2 John 10.and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine.Revel. 2. 6. 15.
Thirdly. In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account. And this was the case of the false Apostles, A…t. 15. 2.who urged the Ceremonies of the Law, as necessary to Salvation; and to propagate this Opinion of theirs, they went up and down, and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples, and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians; and to allow none to partake with them, that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation. Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them; and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea, generally observed them; yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them, as necessary to Salvation, then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them,Phil. 3. 3. i. e. to fly their Communion, and have nothing to do with them. These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament, wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed; but there are two others, wherein S. Paul gives particular directions, but such as do not amount to Separation.
1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks; Rom. 14. 2▪some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence, from all Flesh; some for a Iewish Abstinence, from some certain sorts; others for a full Christian Liberty. Now this being a matter of Diet, and relating to their own Families, the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another; but notwithstanding this difference, to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all. For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks; …i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit; but that requires innocency, and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters; which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost; which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians. And he, saith he, that in these things serveth Christ, 18,is acceptable to God, and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace, 19.and things wherewith we may edifie one another. In such Cases then, the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians. It was the same case as to the observation of Days then; for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues; others did not; but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship. And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions; but to shew, that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians, and so the Apostles discourse, Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation, on these and the like Accounts.
2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure. When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth, no wonder if some of them, put the case to them, what they should do, in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives; although the offences were not scandalous, by being publickly known; Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these?1 Cor. 5. 11. To this St. Paul Answers, That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such; If any one that is a Brother, be a fornicator, &c. with such a one, no not to eat. Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians; but if the Scandal be publick, as that of the Incestuous persou, the Church had power to vindicate its own honor, by casting such out: not as though the Church Communion were defiled, Vers. 12. 13,if they continued in; but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it; the preservation whereof, is the true cause of the Churches Discipline. But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion, though such persons still continued in it. For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity, which will not hold as to publick Communion. For our Communion in publick, is a thing which chiefly respects God, and a necessary duty of his own appointing, the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises, and all the communion they have with other Men, is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty: but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with, and a thing of mere choice, and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest, if not imitation of their wickedness. And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable.
The matter of Separation being th…s stated according to the Scripture, there can be no way le…t to justifie the Separation from our Church, but to prove, either that our Worship is Idolatrous, or that our Doctrine is false, or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation; which are all so remote from any color of Truth, that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it. But however, what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined.