Works › The Unreasonableness of Separation
Work #1480 · Mid-career period

The Unreasonableness of Separation

Stillingfleet's 1681 sermon-treatise against Nonconformist separation from the Church of England

Edward Stillingfleet · 1681 · English · Sermon-treatise (printed)

Tradition: Latitudinarian Anglicanism / Restoration church-controversy

Stillingfleet's 1681 sermon-treatise against Dissenting separation from the Church of England

Originally preached as the sermon 'The Mischief of Separation' (1680) and expanded into 'The Unreasonableness of Separation, or an Impartial Account of the History, Nature, and Pleas of the Present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England' (1681), this work is Stillingfleet's most controversial intervention against the Nonconformists. It argues that the post-Restoration Dissenters' separation from the established Church lacks adequate scriptural, historical, or rational justification. The work prompted sharp replies from John Owen, Richard Baxter, and other Nonconformist divines, and is a defining text of the post-1660 Latitudinarian-Anglican attitude toward dissent.

Author

Editions cited

  • The Unreasonableness of Separation (London, 1681); Works (1710), vol. 2
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Anglican Broad-Church · 30%
Rationalism · 18%
Scholasticism · 15%
Christianity (Generic) · 12%
Natural Theology · 13%
Realism · 12%
Anglican Broad-Church 30%

Major Restoration-Anglican statement against Nonconformist separation.

"To separate from the Church established without sufficient cause is a sin." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, part I)
Rationalism 18%

Rational-theological methodology applied to ecclesial-political controversy.

"Separation, like all church controversies, must be tried by reason and Scripture together." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, preface)
Scholasticism 15%

Scholastic-distinguishing methodology in church-controversy.

"We must distinguish separation tolerable from separation sinful." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, ch. 1)
Christianity (Generic) 12%

Confessional-Christian framework throughout.

"The Christian religion requires church-communion." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, ch. 2)
Natural Theology 13%

Natural-law arguments about lawful church-authority.

"The lawfulness of church-government is established by the light of reason." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, part II)
Realism 12%

Realism about historical and ecclesiological fact.

"The historical account of separation must be impartially given before judgement." (The Unreasonableness of Separation, preface)

Internal Tensions

Stillingfleet's most controversial church-political intervention; prompted multiple Nonconformist replies.

⧖

I. Time

1681 — post-1662 Act of Uniformity, anti-Dissenter context.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Both Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

London — Restoration church-political setting.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Single sermon-derived treatise.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Stillingfleet as Latitudinarian-Anglican controversialist against Dissent.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Limited
⚡

V. Energy

Controversial-polemical energies of post-1662 church politics.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Single volume with sermon plus extensive ecclesiological-historical apparatus.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Edward Stillingfleet

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

100%
Edward Stillingfleet
34/34
100%
Frederick Copleston
34/34
100%
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers
34/34
100%
John Bramhall
34/34
100%
Michael Servetus
34/34
100%
Pelagius
34/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

75%
Catholic/Thomistic
24/26
75%
Zoroastrianism
24/26
75%
Jewish Philosophy (Maimonidean)
24/26
75%
Christian Personalism
24/26
75%
Liberation Theology
24/26
75%
Christian Existentialism
24/26
73%
Manichaeism
23/26
70%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity
22/26

How The Unreasonableness of Separation resolves each dilemma

31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 26 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
On this view, the cosmos has limits; the obligation to future people is real but cannot exceed what the limits allow. The categorical worry about owing the impossible doesn't arise: the limits bound the asking. Ethics within a created or bounded order is the only …
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible. (15%)
3 mainstream positions
How much weight do future people deserve? Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. 47% Is regret rational? The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. 47% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. 47%
3 unaligned
Are addicts responsible for their addiction? Schools split: 69% / 10% / 9% — Do you really choose? Schools split: 69% / 10% / 9% — Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? Schools split: 69% / 10% / 9% —
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 28% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 28% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 28% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? — — Are the dead morally present to the living? — — Are there indivisible units of experience? — — Can prayer for someone far away affect them? — — Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? — — Could an AI have a mind that matters? — — Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? — — Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? — — Does history have a direction or meaning? — — Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? — — Does prayer change God's mind? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? — — Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? — — Is memory stored or reconstructed? — — Is reality fundamentally digital? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — What happens to "you" when you die? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — What makes someone the same person over time? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. 39% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. 39% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. 39% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. 39%
← #1479 A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion All Works #1481 A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity →