The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 1 – Section 2
Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads. 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church. 2. To the terms of Communion with it. 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters. 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome.
1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church: which are these,
1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution.
2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull.
3. That our National Church hath no foundation.
4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours.
1. I begin with our Parochial Churches; because it is Separation from these, with which we principally charge our Adversaries; for herein they most discover their principles of Separation, since in former times, the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them. But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England, the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it, whatever their principles are, at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches, and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship. This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined. And the main foundation of that way, I said, was, that Communion in Ordinances must be onelyonly in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules, which were onelyonly particular and Congregational Churches. Concerning which I laid down two things. (1.) That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution, this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches, which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them. (2.) That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations.
In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things, (1.) That they do not deny, at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches: but why then do they deny Communion with them? But, he saith, he hopes it will not be made a Rule, that Communion may not be withheld (so the sense must be although not be left out) or withdrawn from any Church in any thing, so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so. This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed.…. But as long as he grants, that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine, or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches, I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them. Not but that I think, there may be a separation without sin, from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church; but then I say, the reason of such separation is, some heinous Errour in Doctrine, or some idolatrous Practice in Worship, or some tyranny over the Consciences of men; which may not be such, as to destroy true Baptism; and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church. And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter.
(2.) He answers, That they do not say, that because Communion in Ordinances must be onelyonly in such Churches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches, but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them, it is the duty of them who doe so, to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation.
To which I reply, that This is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency. For, wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations, when not one of the things, now particularly alleged against our Church, was required of them? But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches, then they are such things, as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches; And then I intreat him to tell me, what difference there is, between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onelyonly to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted; and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches? Is not this the primary reason of Separation, because Christ hath appointed unalterable. Rules for the Government of his Church; which we are bound to observe, and which are not observed in Parochial Churches? Indeed, the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution; but the primary ground is, that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed. Let us then (1.) suppose, that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onelyonly of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation, so qualified; and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church, and choose their Officers, who are to Teach, and Admonish and Administer Sacraments, and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation; And let us (2.) suppose such a Church not yet gathered, but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes. (3.) Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church. (4.) Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members; neither the aëreal sign of the Cross, nor kneeling at the Communion, &c. I desire then to know, whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches, on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church, according to Christ's Institution? Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules, and the Institution of Christ; or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches. If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches, do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation? It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church, which is the true Cause of their separation; but such Reasons as are common to all Churches, that are not formed just after their own model. If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches, those must be observed, and separation made in order to it; and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds, not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us, but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way. But this was a necessary piece of art at this time, to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party, and to make them believe (if they can be so forgetfull) that they do not own separation from their Churches, but onelyonly from ours, the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren, and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days, that they must be forgetfull indeed, who do not remember it. Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments? Hath Dr. O. yielded, that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon, they would give over separation? Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations? And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration, would they not have continued their Separation? Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation, when it is notoriously otherwise; and they did separate and form their Churches, upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches? This is more artificial than ingenuous.
Sect. 2. As to the Second, Dr. O. answers, that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact,…. p. 37. and so necessary from the nature of the thing, that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations, that many wise men, wholly unconcerned in our Controversies, do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute. And for this two Testimonies are alleged, of Iustice Hobart, and Father Paul; but neither of them speaks to the point. All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is, That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity, was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles, and after to other Pastours. Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin, it signifies so very little to the purpose; or rather, quite overthrows his Hypothesis; as appears by these two Arguments. (1.) Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set, were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church; but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set, are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks. And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles, which he calls voluntary Congregations. (2.) Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease, were no particular Congregations in one City; but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks, were such; for he saith, they first submitted to the Apostles, and after to other Pastours. But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City. And therefore, if he consults Iustice Hobart's honour or his own, I advise him to let it alone for the future. As to the Testimony of Father Paul, it onelyonly concerns the Democratical Government of the Church, and I wonder how it came into this place; I shall therefore consider it in its due season.