Chap. VI. T!Je HIS T 0 R Y of the PuRIT ANS. 209 number, to be as fo many receptacles for pious perfons of tender con- K. Charles I. r · · r645. 1C1ences. 1_..,.~ The presbyterians in the next reply, Dec. 23. after having blamed the The pre!by– independents for not going upon a comprehenfion, argue againfl: the terians •·eply. b wfulnefs of a fe·"arat ion after this manner : " that if a pretence of Papers f•; r . accommaaa- '' confcience be a fufficient ground of feparation, men may gather Im- tion. !'• 51, " pure and corrupt churches out of purer, becaufe upon the dictate of "an erring confcience they may difallow that which is pure, and fet up " that which is agreeable to their erring confciences; and .we very much "doubt (fay they), whether tendernefs of .confcience in doubtful points " will jufl:ify a feparation ; it may oblige men to forbear communion, " but not to fet up a contrary practice. If a church impofe any thing " that is finful we mufl: forbear to comply yet without feparation, as " was the practice of the puritans in the late times.--" They then argue from the conceffions of the independents, that becaufe they agree with them in fo many material points, therefore ·they lhould not feparate. " If fay they, you can communicate with our church occqfionally, once lb. p. 56. " or a fecond and third time without fin, we know no reafon why you " may not do it conftantly, and then feparation will be needlefs-As " for fuch a toleration as our brethren defire, we apprehend it will open ,« a door to all fects ; and though the independents now plead for it, their " brethren in New England do not allow it." As to the charge ofJi:bijin they admit, that difference in judgment in Ibid. P· 65, fame particular points is not ji:hifm; nor does an inconformity to fame 73• 74• things enjoined deferve that name; but our brethren defire further to fet up feparate communions, which is a manifeft rupture of our focieties into others, and is therefore a fchifm in the body. This is fetting up altar againfl altar, allowing our churches (as the independents do) to be true churches; for St. Aujlin fays, fchifmaticos Jacit non diverfa fides, fed communionis difrupta jocietas. And we conceive it is the caufo of the feparation that makes fchifm, and not the feparation itfelf; if then the caufe of our brethrens feparation be not fufficient, by what other name can it be called ? To all which they add, that this indulgence if granted, will be the mother of all contentions, ftrifes, herefies, and confu fions in the church; and contrary to their covenant, which obliges them to endeavour to their utmoft an uNIFORMITY. When the committee met the next-time, Feb. 2. I 64 s-6. the indepe~- Anfwer of dents replied chiefly to the point of uniformity, and argued that it was the indepen– not neceffary to the peace of the churches · and ought not to extend be- dents~ Pad I I . h ' . pers 1 or acyon. peop cs 1g t and meafure of underfl:andmg, according to the apo- commodation, ~ol!cal canon, as far as we have attained let us walk by the fame rule, Phi!. p. 86. m. I 5• As for a mere exemption from the cenfure of the claffes, they VoL. II. E e de-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=