The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 4
Sect. 4. (I.) Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation, yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons, as Members of our Church, to be unlawful. For, First Plea, Sect. 9. p. …41.Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace, hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church. And in the same Book he saith, It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism, without the Transient Sign of the Cross, or for want of Godfathers, &c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling.Page 45. Now, if the Church be Schismatical, then those who Separate in these things are not. For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross;Answ. to Serm p. 49. and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers, which they take to be no small sin; Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them? We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things, and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them; And what is this but formal Separation? But for all this, Mr. B. may hold, that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical; for, he saith, Plea for Peace, p. 47.it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practises, and Persons, if those be not such, and so great, as to necessitate our departure from them. But here Mr. B. saith, There is a necessity of departure, and to joyn with other Pastors; and therefore he must hold a formal Separation: And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church, that was never done by the greatest Separatists. For they all held Communion in Faith with it: And even Brown, the Head of the old Separatists, thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship; and others thought, they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion, but not in Acts of Church Communion; others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers, though not in others; and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists. And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful; they must hold a necessity of Separation, or that persons may be good Christians, and yet be no Members of any Church. For, if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church, they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church, or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours. If they declare themselves Members of another Church, they own as plain a Separation, as the old Separatists ever did: if they do not, and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members, then they are Members of no Church at all. So that, if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful; they must either be Separatists, or no good Christians upon their own Principles. Letter out of the Country, &c. p. 9.For, saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country; this were to exchange visible Christianity, for visible (at least Negative) Paganism. Now, that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful, they are more forward to declare, than I could have imagined. In my Sermon I mentioned some passages, wherein it seemed clear to me, that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful: But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me; some declaring in express terms, That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful, and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches, and of joyning to other Congregations. And others saying, Dr. O. Vindication, &c. p. 35.That such a Concession, viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful, taken in their own sense, will neither do them any harm, nor us any service. For, as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. Mischief of Impositions, &c. p. 36.1. Many of them declare so, and many declare otherwise—And it's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful, because many declare against it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, because many declare for it. 2. They d…clare Communion lawful, but. D… they declare Total Communion lawful? The same Persons will tell us, that both these Propositions are …ue Communion is lawful▪ and Communion is unlawful; Communion in some parts of Worship is so, in others not. And, 3. Th…y will further tell us, That Communion with some Parish chu…ches is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the same Doctrines Preached, the same Ceremonies urged, the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And lastly, that occasional Communion is, or may be lawful, where a stated and fixed Communion is not so; and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice, because to hold Communion with one Church, or sort of Christians, exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are some things tolerable, which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake, but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations. Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together.
1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful; and that must be understood of any kind of Communion; for the Second sort, from whom they are distinguish…d, hold total Communion unlawful; and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful. And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's, and the New-England way; and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists.
2. Those that do hold Communion lawful, do it with so many restrictions and limitations, that in practice it amounts to little more than the other. For First, It is only with some Churches; and those it seems must be such, as do not hold to our Constitution; for he saith, The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches, nor the same rigid terms of Communion exacted, i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them, they can Communicate with them, i. e. if they break their own Rules, they can joyn with them. Is not this an admirable way of Communicating with our Churches? But, if our Churches hold to their Rule, and observe the Orders prescribed, then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful. And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England? For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Communion required by it, they will have no Communion with them.
And Mr. A. delivers this, not only as his own Opinion▪ Mischief of Impositions, p. 65.but as the Sense of the Party, That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments, about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship, or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies, where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed, they would flatly deny it. And he goes yet further, when he saith, That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members, and from those Pastors, under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them, to joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches. This is owning a plain and downright Separation, in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohnson or Ainsworth did. For, 1. He makes it to be their general sense, That it is unlawful to communicate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly, or to be Members of our Churches: Which is the same thing which they said. 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours. For he owns other Pastors, other People, and a new Relation between these, by the choice of the one, and the conduct of the other. This is no mincing the matter, as Mr. B. often doth; but he speaks it boldly, and with great assurance; and ushers it in with, I have confidence contrary to his. I think no Man doubts of his Confidence, that ever looked into his Book; but in this matter he is so brisk, that he saith, He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall: as though all who gave their Votes there, had owned these Principles of Separation, for which, many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks, and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers.
(II.) All the difference then that seems to be left, is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion. As to which, these things are to be observed. (1.) That it is practised by very few; especially if Mr. A's. Poll be allowed. (2.) That it signifies little, as to this matter, if Men be fixed Members of other Churches. For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence, and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence. For Communion with a Church, is joyning with a Church as a Member of that Church: And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship, which makes a Man a Member of a Church. I suppose there are many occasionally present at Mr. A's, or Mr. B's Meetings, who renounce all Communion with them. A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, and that frequently too, to hear Sermons, &c. but, Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome? Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad, have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship, at Rome and Paris; but they would think themselves hardly dealt with, to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome. And if they be urged with it, they will plead still, They were of the Protestant Communion; and the Reason they will give, is, because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship; not in adoration of the Host, or Worship of Images; and therefore they remained still of the Protestant Communion, although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Popish Service. And Is it not the same case here, If Men only afford an occasional Presence, at some parts of our Worship? How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church, than the like presence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church? In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign, most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches, in some parts of our Worship; and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church, because they kept their Priests, and had Mass in private, and declared, That though they looked on our Service as tolerable, yet they thought the Roman more eligible; and so having Full Communion with that, and being only occasionally present at our Service, they thought themselves good Catholicks. So, if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eligible, and a better way of Worship; with which they constantly joyn, and alwayes choose to do it, their occasional Presence at our Assemblies, doth not make them Members of our Churches, but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations, if they maintain full and constant Communion with them. And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them, for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship; for they say, That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them; but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches, a Submission to all the Rules and Orders among them. The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Communion, that scruples Infant Baptism, or refuses to be present at the Administration of it; although he be never so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them. For not only openly condemning and opposing Infant-Baptism, but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or purposely departing the Congregation at the Administration of that Ordinance, is liable, by their Laws, to the Sentence of Banishment. And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests together, that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them; so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership. From all this, it appears, that this new Notion of Occasional Communion, in some parts of Worship. exclusively to others, is disowned by all sorts of Churches; and is a late fancy taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Separation.