The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 12
Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times, we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie, by those who were called Independents, and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism, or rigid Separation.
And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation, or the Steps by which it was carried on; and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way; and what the True State of the Difference was, between the Assembly of Divines, and the Dissenting Brethren; and how far the Reasons, then used, will hold against the present Separation.
When those who were called Brownists,Stephen Offwoo… 's Adve…tisement to Jo…n Delecluse and H. May, p. 10, 39. for the f…eer Exercise of their new Church way, withdrew into the Low-Countreys, they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves. A. D. 1582. Robert Brown, accompanied with Harrison a School-Master, and about 50 or 60 Persons, went over to Middleburgh, and there they chose Harrison Pastor▪ and Brown Teacher. They had not been there Three Months, but upon the falling out between Brown and Harri…on, Brown forsakes them, and returns for England, and Subscribes, promising to the Archbishop, To live Obediently to his Commands. Concerning whom, Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words: Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins, which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause. Mr. Brown hath cast us off, and that with open, manifest, and notable Treacheries, and if I should declare them, you could not believe me. Only this I testifie unto you, that I am well able to prove, That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel, as he hath dealt with me. Some of the words of Browns Subscription,Defence of the Admon. to the Followers of Brown, p. 127. were these, I do humbly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment, whose Authority, under Her Majesty, I w…ll never resist, or deprave, by the Grace of God, &c. But, being a Man of a Restless, and Factious Temper, no Promises, or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds; as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered. For, although he promised to frequent our Churches,Page 133. and to come to Prayers and Sacraments, yet, living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years, in all that time he never did it; and when he was like to have been question'd for it, he withdrew into another Parish. Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons,Page 135. but that he accounted no act of Communion; and declared to his Friends, Page 134.That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons; and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do. Page 140.Notwithstanding this, he Preached in Private Meetings, and that in the time of Publick Assemblies, when he thought fit; Which this Author, though a Non-conformist, and Friend of T. Cs, calls a Cursed Conventicle: who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings, and Iesuitical Aequivocations in his Subscription.Page 141. By the Bishops Authority, he said he meant only his Civil Authority; by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God, he understood the Church of his own setting up;Pag. 138, &c. by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law, he meant, the Law of God, and not of the Land: he declared, his Child was Baptized according to Law,Counterpoyson p. 25. Cotton's Answ. to R. Will…ms, p. 122. but then told his Followers, it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton, of New England, hath this passage concerning Brown. The first Inventor of that way, which is called Brownism, from whom the Sect took its Name, fell back from his own way, to take a Parsonage called I…ourc…; God so, in a strange (yet wise) Providence, ordering it, that he, who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England, as no Church; should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them, and it called, A Church. But upon the Dissention at Middleborough, between Brown and Harrison, that Congregation soon broke to pieces. Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissentions between Brown and Harrison, Brown and Barrow, Barrow and Fr. Iohnson; but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs; notwithstanding, Offwood's Advertisement, p. 15.as Dr. O. well observes, We are to distinguish between what falls out through the passions of Men, and what follows from the nature of the thing. But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes notice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions, viz. The Iudgment of God upon them. I do see, saith he, the hand of God is heavy upon them, blinding their Minds, and hardening their Hearts, that they do not see his Truth, so that they are at Wars among themselves, and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness.
There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them.
First, Their Invincible Obstinacy.
Secondly, The Scandalous Breaches which followed still one upon the other, as long as the course of Separation continued; and were only sometimes hindred from shewing themselves, by their not being let loose upon each other; For then the Firebrands soon appear, which at other times they endeavour to cover.
Their great Obstinacy appears, by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood, who being Condemned for Seditious Books, could no ways be reclaimed; rather choosing to Dye, than to Renounce the Principles of Separation. But Penry, who suffered on the same account about that time, had more Relenting in him, as to the business of Separation. For Mr. I. Cotton, Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 17.of New-England, relates this Story of him, from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham, an eminent Non-conformist; That he confessed, He deserved Death at the Queens hand, for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation, from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches, Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of, yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Subjects whom he had Seduced; and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands. These are Mr. Cotton's own words.Ib. Concerning Barrow, he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth, that when he stood under the Gibbet, he lift up his eyes, and said, Lord, if I be deceived, thou hast deceived me. And so being stopt by the hand of God, he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more, either to the Glory of God, or Edification of the People. These Executions extremely startled the Party, and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam; Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Anabaptism, Clifton's Advertisement, p. 22. 26.and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government. In short, they fell to pieces, separating from each others Communion: Way of Congregational Churches cleared, p. 6.some say, They formally Excommunicated each other; but Mr. Cotton will not allow that, but, he saith, They only withdrew: yet those who were Members of the Church do say, That Mr. Johnson and his Company, were Accursed, and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company: and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoided by Mr. Johnson and his. Profane Schism of the Brownists, p. 63.And one Church received the Persons Excommunicated by the other, and so became ridiculous to Spectators, as some of themselves confessed. Iohnson and his Party charged the other with Schism in Separating from them: Ib. ch. 2. p. 9.But, as others said, who returned to our Church; Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson, than for him to refuse and avoid the Communion of all True Churches beside? But the Difference went so high, that Iohnson would admit none of Ainsworth's Company without Re-baptizing them;Page 71. Ainsworth, on the other side, charged them with woful Apostasy: Offwood's Advertisement, p. 43.And one of his own Company said, That he lived and died in Contentions. When Robinson went from Leyden, on purpose to end these Differences, he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People; Which, with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance, was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governm…nt. Schism of the Browni…s, p. 87.Smith, who set up another Separate congregation, was Iohnson's Pupil, and went over, In hopes, saith Mr. Cotton, Way of Congregational Churches, p. 7.to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation; but he was so far from that, that he soon outwent him: and he charges the other Separate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England, viz. (1.) Idolatrous Worship; for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry, See Smith's Reasons in B…nard against Br…nists, ca…led P…ain Evidences, p. 5, 6, 7.in Reading of Prayers; he thought them equ…lly guilty in looking on their Bibles, in Preaching and Singing. (2.) Antichristian Government, in adding the Human Inventions of Doctors, and Ruling Elders: which was pulling down one Antichrist, to set up another; and if one was the Beast, the other was the Image of the Beast. Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches, he began one wholly new, and therefore Baptized himself. For,Smith's Ep. to the Character. he declared, There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists. But this New Church was of short continuance, for, upon his Death, it dwindled away, or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism. And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation; and so in all probability there had; had not Mr. Robinson of Leyden abated much of the Rigor of it; for he asserted, The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer, Cotton's Way cleare…, p. 8.but not in Sacraments and Discipline. The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him. So that the present Separatists, who deny that, are gone beyond him, and are fallen back to the Principles of the Rigid Separation. Robinson succeeded (though not immediately) Iacob, in his Congregation at Leyden, whom some make the Father of Independency. Page 15.But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church, it spread into New England; for Mr. Cotton saith, They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth; and that Model was followed by other Churches there; at Salem, Boston,Page 14. Watertown, &c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth, That Robinson's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches (either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter, or for defect in their Covenant, or for excess in their Episcopal Government) was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State. Page 138.And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams, he hath these words, That upon due consideration he cannot find, That the Principles and Grounds of Reform…tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches, as false Churches; from their Ministery as a false Ministry; from their Worship as a false Worship; from all their Professors as no visible Saints: Nor can I find, that they do either necessarily, or probably conclude a Separation from Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England.R. Williams Answer to Cotton's …. 3…. Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice; for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches, yet by his Actual Separation from them, he shewed, that really he did not; and he adds, that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puritan Principles; saying, That Mr. Can hath unanswerably proved, Page 39.That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies, and profaneness of People professing Christ, and the necessity of Christ's Flock and Disciples, must necessarily, if truly followed, lead on to, and inforce a Separation. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches; but then, he saith, There is no Church Communion in Hearing, Page 43.but only in giving the Seals. Mr. Williams urgeth, That there is Communion in Doctrine, and Fellowship of the Gospel. Cotton's Answer to Williams, p. 129, 132.Upon which, Mr. Cotton grants, That though a Man may joyn in Hearing, and Prayer, before and after Sermon; yet not as in a Church-state. Yet, after all, he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches. But, if they remain true Churches, it appears from the former Discourse, they can never justifie Separation from them; upon the Principles of either Party. So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate, as to some of their Principles, then the old rigid Separatists; yet they do not consider, that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable. The Dissenting Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, to avoid the imputation of Brownism, deliver this as their Judgment, concerning our Parochial Churches. And for our own Congregations, Apologet. Narrative, p. 5, 6.viz. of England, we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World, that all that Conscience of the Defilements, we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them, or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein, did never work in us any other thought, much less opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assemblies, and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the True Churches and Body of Christ, and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery: much less did it ever enter into our hearts, to Iudge them Antichristian; we saw, and cannot but see, that by the same reason, the Churches abroad in Scotland, Holland, &c.(though more Reformed) yet for their Mixture, must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also; which, to imagine, or conceive, is, and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts. Yea, we have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with Defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof; and when our selves had least, yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons, that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren; but then the difficulty returns with greater force; How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful? If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles, all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them; but their truth being supposed, the necessity of Separation followed; whereas now, upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents, though their Principles seem more Moderate, yet their Practice is more Unreasonable. It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day, to justifie the Separation, That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches, and that therein they differ from the old Separatists; It is true▪ in that Opinion they do; but in Separation they agree, which is the more unjustifiable in them, since they yield so much to our Churches. And yet herein, whatever they pre…end, they do not exceed their Independent Brethren, whose Separation themselves Condemned. But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren, and thought, it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism; Anatomy of Independency, p. 18, 19, 20, &c.because (1.) They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government, Which, they say, is inconsistent with the Civil Peace; as may be seen, say they, in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam, and Rotterdam; and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there. (2.) They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches, as the Separatists did, and think such a Confinement Unlawful. (3.) They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members, as the Separatists did: Whereby, say they, they confound the Visible, and Invisible Church, and make the same essential form of both. (4.) They renounce the Ordination received in our Church, but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry, is, by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call, grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant, with such a Man as their Pastor. For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church, after the New Model, at Rotterdam, Ward was chosen Pastor, and Bridges Teacher, but they both Renounced their Ordination in England; and some say, They ordained one another; others, That they had no other Ordination, than what the Congregation gave them.