The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 6
Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter, that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow, and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists, and from them to the Quakers.Answ. p. 23. To which Mr. B. Answers; What harm will it do me or them, if any hearers go from me, as you say, to Dr. O. None, that I know. For, as Dr. O. saith,Dr. O. Vindicat. p. 20, Since your Practice is one and the same, your Principles must be so also, although you choose several wayes of expressing them. But, Did the whole force of my Argument lie there? Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers, upon the very same ground? And, Is this a good way of Answering, to dissemble the main force of an Argument, that something may seem to be said to it? I suppose Mr. B's. great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him. But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better; whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose, that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a thing of such great importance,Christian Directory, part 3. p. 739, 741. and Separation so mischievous (as he hath represented it) that the Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship, shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces, and to run into wayes of Separation? Hath not Mr. Baxter represented (and no Man better) the Ignorance, Sacrileg. desert, p. 102, &c.Injudiciousness, Pride, Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion? And after all this, must they, upon a conceit of Purer Administrations, and Less Defective Wayes of Worship, be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces; and run from one Separate Congregation to another, till they have run themselves out of breath, and left the best parts of their Religion behind them? How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People, Cure of Divis. p. 393.and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them? and, Must the Reins be laid in their Necks, that they may run whither they please? Because, forsooth, they know better, what is good for their Souls, than the King doth; and they love their Souls better than the King doth, Answ. to my Letter; p. 23.and the King cannot bind them to hurt, or Famish, or endanger their Souls. But, Why must the King bear all the blame, if Mens Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes? Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter, but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church? Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament? And why did he not put it as it ought to have been, that they know what makes better for their own Edification, than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament, and the Governors of this Church do: and let them make what Law's and Orders they will, if the People, even the rash and injudicious Professors, as Mr. B. calls them, do think other means of Edification better, and other wayes of Worship less defective, they are bound to break through all Laws, and to run into Separation. And, How is it possible, upon these terms, to have any Peace, or Order, or any establish'd Church? I do not remember, that any of the old Separatists, no not Barrow, or Iohnson, did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation, as these are. The Brownists declare, in their Apology, That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions, Apology of the Brownists, n. 36.which may, and will fall out among Men, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. Where a Church is rightly constituted, here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men, although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers, than either Iohnson, or Ainsworth. The ground of Separation with them, was the want of a right constituted Church; if that were once supposed, other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation. Chap. 13.In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England, it is said, That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please, nor without just and weighty cause: Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body.
Those just Reasons are,
1. If a Man cannot continue without sin.
2. In case of Persecution.
Not one word of better means of Edification. For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations, and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences; lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion. So in their Declaration at the Savoy, they say,Order of Congregational Churches, n. 28. That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship, ought not lightly, or without just cause, to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church, whereunto they are joyned.
And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes.
1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin: and that in Three cases.
First, Want of Ordinances.
Secondly, Being deprived of due priviledges.
Thirdly, Being compelled to any thing in practice, not warranted by the Word.
2. In case of Persecution.
3. VponUpon the account of conveniency of Habitation.
And in these Cases, the Church or Officers are to be consulted, and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church. No allowance here made of forsaking a Church, meerly for greater means of Edification. And how just soever the reason were, they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers,Irenic. c. 22. and to tell them why they depart. And Mr. Burroughs condemns it, as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church. Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation; and meer necessity hath driven them to it; for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists, which they are unwilling to do, or find out others to serve their turn; but they are such, as no Man, who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church, can ever think fit to maintain, since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion, as Mr. Burroughs truly observed. But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations? since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches; Answ. to Letter, p. 18.That for his part, he hath seldom heard any, but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London, where he hath been; but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Schol…rs, or judicious Hearers, than to such as need more Practicall Subjects, and a more plain, familiar, easie method. Is this the truth of the case indeed? Then, for all that I can see, the King is excused from all blame in this matter; unless it be a fault to provide too well for them. And, Is this a good ground for Separation, that the Preaching is too good for the People? Some Men may want Causes to defend, but at this rate they can never want Arguments. Yet, methinks, the same Men should not complain of starving, and famishing Souls, when the only fault is, that the Meat is too good, and too well dressed for them. And on the other side, hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preachers? Sacrileg. desert, p. 86.and that he really fears, lest meer Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious, who, by weak Preaching, will lose the reputation of being Iudicious, more than their silence lost it. And again, But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation. To which he adds, But the Grand Calamity is, that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited, and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal, to Censure, Backbite, and Reproach others, as those that know not what they talk of. Let now any Reader judge, whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself, their having better means of Edification, can be the ground of leaving our Churches, to go to Separate Congregations, unless injudiciousness, and self-conceited confidence and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities, and to some purposes, than judicious and well studied Sermons.
This Argument must therefore be quitted; and they who will defend the present Separation, must return to the old Principles of the Separatists, if they will justifie their own practices. And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do; for discerning▪ that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self, he adds more weight to it, and that comes home to the business;Answ. p. 18. viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation, and the very same, which Barrow, and Greenwood, and Iohnson, and Smith, and Can used. Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry; but we are mistaken, if we think they now manage it after the same manner. We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry; but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation, but less fit to justifie it, the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage.