The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 19
Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider, whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation; or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith, Government and Worship, be the more likely way to promote Religion, to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church.
Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason, as to these ends.
In the Congregational way, there may be as many Religions as Churches. I do not say there are, but we are arguing now upon what may be, from the nature of the thing. Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self; what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians, another of Papists, another of Arians, another of Quakers, another of Anabaptists, &c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind. But if they be, it is meer chance and good hap; there being no obligation upon them to have any more than mutual forbearance towards each other. Let now any rational man judge, whether it appear probable, that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is, should answer the obligation among Christians, to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians? But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds, that the Preacher is accountable to superiours; that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith, and promise obedience; that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace: here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us. And that this is no meer theory, appears by the sad experience of this Nation, when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government, there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us, that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it. And in New-England, two or three men, as Williams, Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government: which being very material to this business, I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them. Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem, and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him:Williams his Answer to Cotton's Letter, p. 1. he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches; but being a thinking man, he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit, for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer, or taking an Oath; and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions. &c. These Doctrines, and some others of his not taking, he proceeded to Separation from them, and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs; this gave such a disturbance to them, that the Magistrates sent for him, and the Ministers reasoned the case with him. He told them, he went upon their own grounds, and therefore they had no reason to blame him. Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them; Mr. Williams replied, this would return upon themselves; for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England? In short,Cottons Answer to R▪ Williams, p. 57. after their debates, and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches, a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates, and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches. For these are Mr. Cotton's words, That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private, to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances, and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations, provoked the Magistrates, rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country, to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country. This Mr. Williams told them, was falling into the National Church way, which they disowned; or else, saith he, why must he that is banished from the one, be banished from the other also? And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way; … p. 46.and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly, to live in the same air with them, if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised. Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before: and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches, confesseth that by the Laws of the Country, Cobbet's Answer to Cla…ks N…rrative, p. 40, 47.none are to be free men, but such as are members of Churches. I now appeal to any man, whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches? why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they? why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them? Because these ways would disturb their Peace, and distract their People, and in time overthrow their Churches. Very well: but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation, the mean while? Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth? The plain truth is, they found by experience, this Congregational way would not do alone, without civil Sanctions, and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches. For when Williams, and Gorton, and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People, they besti…red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt, and their persons banished. This I do onelyonly mention, to shew, that where this way hath prevailed most, they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion, and of Peace and Vnity among themselves. And in their Synod at Boston, 1662, the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Con…eciation of Churches, in case of divisions and contentions; and for the rectifying of male-administrations, and healing of errours and scandals, Synod of New-England. p. 30. Defence of the Synod, p. 1…2.that are unhealed among themselves: For, Christ's care, say they, is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons. Of which Consociation they tell us, that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death. Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not, in such cases? If not, why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government, for which they have no Command in Scripture? If there be a Command in Scripture, then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches. It is but a slender evasion, which they use, when they call these onelyonly voluntary Combinations, for what are all Churches else? OnelyOnly, the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty; and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions, will make such Consociations a Duty too. And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches; which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together. Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine, and Rules of Worship and Discipline, are the National Church representative; and these being owned and established by the civil Power, and received by the Body of the Nation, and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship; these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion, make up the compleat National Church.