The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 14
Sect. 14. From hence we find, that, although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest, as to themselves; yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience, the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms, which immediately overspread this City and Nation: which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most …inent Presbyterians of that time. Thence …,Duply to M. S. p. 53. a zealous Scotch Presbyterian, said, That he verily believed, Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies: Yea, I add, saith he, That by consequence, it is much worse than Pop…ry.
Then…e the Scotch Commissioners,Arguments of the Scotch Commiss. p. 3, 4. in the first place, pres…ed Vniformity in Religion, as the only means to preserve Peace, and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles; a thing very becoming the King to promote, according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah; and a thing which, they say, all sound Divines and Politicians are for.
Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons, Serm. Nov. 8. 1641.That our Church was laid waste, and exposed to confusion, under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences: and that, to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity, in God's way, is not to force the Conscience; but to set up God in his due place, and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life.
The Errors and Innovations,Serm. before the Com. Feb. 19. 1645. under which we groaned so much of later years, saith Mr. Case, were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae, Tolerable Trifles, Childrens Play, compared with these Damnable Doctrines, Doctrines of Devils, as the Apostle calls them: Polygamy, Arbitrary Divorce, Mortality of the Soul; No Ministry, no Churches, no Ordinances, no Scripture, &c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience, and such Lawless Separation of Churches, &c.
The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam, Serm. before the Lord Mayor, Jan. 14. 1645.saith Mr. Calamy, Separation from our Churches is Countenanced, Toleration is Cried Vp, Authority asleep. It would seem a wonder, if I should reckon how many separate Congregations, or rather Segregations there are in the City; What Churches against Churches, &c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted, many are hindred from Conversion, and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives. The Lord keep us, saith he, from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration. A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government, bringeth in Confusion, and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism.
Diversity of Religion,Serm. before the Parliament, Sept. 12. 1644. saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen, disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men, and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds, Iealousies, Seditions, Wars, if any thing in the World be; and in a little time, either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church, or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State: i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions, or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars. Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens; and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments.
These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time, concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired.
The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches, and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms, published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves, wherein (as is said before) they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism; declaring, That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches, and our Ministery, as a true Ministery; but yet they earnestly desire liberty, as to the Peaceable practice of their own way.
To this the Presbyterians Answered,
First, Observations and Annotations on the Apologetical Narration, p. 17.That they did not understand by them, in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches.
Secondly, If they did, what Necessity there was for any Separation, or what need of Toleration.
As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches; either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity, as many of our Divines, say they, grant it to the Romish Church; That she is a True Church, as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman; and then they thank them for their Favour, that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome: or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches, and then, say they, Why do ye not joyn with us, and Communicate as Brethren? Why desire ye a Toleration? Yes, say the Dissenting Brethren, we own you to be True Churches, and Communicate with you in Doctrine. To which the others reply'd, If you own it by External Act of Communion, ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments: but this ye refuse; therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation. For where there was such a refusal of Communion, as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own, Sermon at St. Paul's, Feb. 8. 1645. p. 41.there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists. And, as Mr. Newcomen urged them, their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head, and one Faith, doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity, and downright Schism, as long as they hold not one Body, one Baptism. For when Men make different Assemblies, and Congregations, and draw Men into Parties, it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism, as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza. Of which afterwards.
But still they denied themselves to be Brownists, or Rigid Separatists, because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches, and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian, and from our People as no Visible Christians.
To which the other Replyed, That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves, some being more rigid than others; and as to the last Clause, none since Barrow had owned it. But, for the rest, Narrative of New-England, &c. Postscript, p. 52.only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian; and by Ordinances, understanding Church-Ordinances, they own the very same Principles as the others did. And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches; yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists, touching Church-Constitution, Matter, Form, Power, Government, Communion, Corruptions, &c. The consequence must be, say they, that we have no true Churches, and that our Ordinances are all unlawful. And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation,Baylies Disswasive, p. 104. by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches, their Separation is so much the more culpable, and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism. For, it is a greater sin, saith Bayly, to depart from a Church, which I profess to be True, and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving, than from a Church which I conceive to be False, and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God; nor any Blessing from his hand.
So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things.
First, For refusing Communion with those Churches, which they confessed to be true Churches. For, say the Members of the Assembly,Papers for Accommod. p. 47. Thus to depart from True Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing, to declare them not to be such.
Secondly, For setting up different Congregations, where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine.