The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 15
Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation, between the Divines of the Assembly, and the Independents, I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them.
The desire of the Independents, as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation, Dec. 4. 1645. was this,
That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness, and yet out of tenderness of Conscience, cannot Communicate in their Parishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations.
To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered, Decemb. 15.
This Desire is not to be granted them, for these Reasons.
1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule; as if in nothing it were to be complied with; nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing, which should argue Church-Communion. More could not be said, or done, against False Churches.
2. It plainly holds out, The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches, yea out of such True Churches, which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God; whereof we are assured, there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God.
3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church, still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule, which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away, and those whom they leave; and again, between the Church that should be forsaken, and that to which they should go.
Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons.
To the First Reason, they say, (1.) That gathering into other Congregations such, who cannot, out of tenderness of Conscience, partake as Members in their Churches, for the purer enjoyment (as to their Consciences) of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches, is far from Separation, much less a plain and total Separation. And this is not setting up Churches against Churches, but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment. For, say they, if the purest Churches in the World (unto our Iudgment, in all other respects) should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, any one thing; that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in (as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving, which was the case of Scotland and England) if they remove from these Churches, and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches, to enjoy this and other Ordinances, this is no Separation.
(2.) That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule, unless they Wholly in all things differ, by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution, Worship and Government; but they shall practice the most of the same things; and these the most substantial, which are found in the Rule it self.
(3.) That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches, not only in Hearing and Preaching, but Occasionally, in Baptising their Children in their Churches, and receiving the Lords Supper there, &c.
And, Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism? Not agreeing in the main things? Not owning their Churches to be true? Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them? Let us hear, what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this.
Thus they Answer,
First, That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear, or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular, wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin, yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript, as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God, of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches, to be one.
Secondly, It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule, another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule; in the former case a Man retains his Membership; in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment, touching the very Constitution of the Churches, from and unto which he removes.
Thirdly, If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member, he must forbear to do it, yet without Separation. They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion, to be unlawful, either in England, or Scotland, did not Separate, or Renounce Membership, but did, some of them, with Zeal and Learning, defend our Church against those of the Separation.
Fourthly, The Notion of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State, but by the Word of God.
Fifthly, To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike, when Opposition or Offence offers it self, is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense.
Sixthly, A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation; for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship, and Government with our Brethren; and under this pretence, Novatians, Donatists, all that ever were thought to Separate, might shelter themselves.
Seventhly, If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once, a second, or third time, without sin, we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin; and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless. To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin, seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation.
To the Second Reason, The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers.
1. That it was founded upon this supposition, That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate: Which the Divines of the Assembly denied; and said, It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness, to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches: which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful.
2. That if after all endeavors, Mens Consciences are unsatisfied, as to Communion with a Church, they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion; or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches; or if there be none such to gather into Churches.
To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied.
I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due.
II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England; and they have as just ground to deny it as they.
To the third Reason they Answered.
First, That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches; that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State, nor debated by the Assembly.
To which the others Reply;
That if the word Schism had been left out, the Reason would have remained strong, viz. That this would, give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church, still drawing away Churches from under the Rule. And to give countenance to an unjust, and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion, is not far from giving countenance to a Schism; especially when the grounds, upon which this Separation is desired, are such, upon which all other possible scruples, which erring Consciences may, in any other case, be subject unto, may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence, and so this Toleration being the first, shall indeed but lay the foundation, and open the Gap, whereat as many Divisions in the Church, as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men, shall, upon the self-same Equity be let in.
Secondly, This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification, who cannot otherwise, without sin, enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ; yet so, as not condemning those Churches, they joyn not with, as false; but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints, as Members of the Body of Christ, of the Church Catholick; and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship, which belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able; and if this be called Schism, or Countenance of Schism, it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures, or any approved Authors.
To this, the Divines of the Assembly replyed.
1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church, and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule. For, upon the same pretence, those who scruple Infant-Baptism, may withdraw from their Churches, and so Separate into another Congregation; and so in that some practice may be scrupled, and they Separate again: Are these Divisions, and Sub-Divisions, say they, as lawful as they may be infinite? or, Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences, as to satisfie their Scruples, by allowance of this liberty to them? And, Doth it not plainly signifie, that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism?
2. The not condemning of our Churches as false, doth little extenuate the Separation: for, divers of the Brownists, who have totally separated in former times, have not condemned these Churches as false; though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us, yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches, if not as false, yet as impure, eous que as that in such Administrations, they cannot be by them, as Members, Communicated with, without sin. And when they speak of Communion with us, as Members of the Church Catholick, it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches, as if we were false Churches.
3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this, or that Point, to be Schism, or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism, so that Communion be preserved; or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion, or Worship, ex se unlawful, is Schism: but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion, which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others, and is therefore a Schism in the Body: and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church, wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations, of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes, much more may such Separation as this desired, be so called.
4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating, nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism, which may arise from Errors of Conscience, as well as carnal and corrupt reasons; therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei, will bear it out; and therefore we say, that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism.
5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason, and Experience of all Ages, that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions, Strifes, Envyings, Confusions, and so draw with it that breach of Love, which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism, even in the sence of our Brethen.
6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism, but the breaking off Members from their Churches, which are lawfully constituted Churches, and from Communion in Ordinances, &c. without just and sufficient cause, ex natura rei, to justifie such secession, and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion, either because of personal failings in the Officers, or Members of the Congregation from which they separate, or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience, which hath been called setting up altare contra altare: from which they quote St. Augustin, and Camenon.
Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation, as it hath been managed in former times among us. From whence there are these things to be considered by us, which may be of some use in our following Discourse.
(1.) That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin, notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it. This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse; that those who deny it, may, with the help of the same Metaphysicks, deny, That the Sun shines.
(2.) That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church, to go as far as they were able. This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists, but by the most rigid Separatists of former times, and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves. So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, and thought so to be by the persons who Separate, is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age; but what new Reasons they have for it, besides Noise and Clamour, I am yet to seek.
(3.) That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation, although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled; provided that they have used the best means for a right information.
(4.) That where occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches, and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them. For, say they, to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn, seemeth to be a most unjust Separation.
(5.) That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church, and setting up Congregations for purer Worship, or under another Rule, is plain and downright Separation; as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren.