The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 35
To return to the Author of the Letter. §. 35.The main force of what he saith, lies in this, that those who cannot conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church, p. 4.must either return to the State of Paganism, or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers. This is new doctrine, and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans; for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church, although there were some things they scrupled, and could not conquer those scruples. And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism.
But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us; p. 8.and much more living under some of our Ministers. I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately, and it hath been considered already. And it is a very hard case with a Church, if People must fly into Separation, because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be. But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church, I would fain know, whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others, their Separation be lawful? If it be, it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church; whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent; for this Principle overthrows them all. I will instance particularly in the last, as most favourable to such kind of Liberty. And I need not suppose a case, since such hath already happened several times in New England. R. Williams is one remarkable Instance, who scrupled many things in their Churches, and therefore could joyn no longer with them; and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them; and the People who scrupled as well as he, chose him for their Pastor. What is there in this case, but is every whit as justifiable, as the present separation? But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause? Answ. to Cotton's Letter. Bloody Tenent.so far from it, that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world, of the persecution he underwent for it. Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton, Defence of the Cure of Divis. p 124.an eminent Minister of New England, viz. of a Church that separated from a Church, on the account of their Preachers having human learning; and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them, their answer was, That is your judgement, and this is ours, i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples, and therefore must persist in separation, or return to Paganism. Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance;…. to Magist…a…es Power, …. …. one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth, withdraws from their Communion, and sets up another Assembly in the Town; and upon his obstinate continuance therein, was solemnly excommunicated by them. And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to, time will discover. I would only know, whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod, should proceed to Separation, whether this Separation be justifiable or not? This is certain, that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles; First Principles of New England by I. Mather, 1675.and say, their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees: and if they proceed, those Churches may be broken in pieces, by these principles of Separation. As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys, most of them were by new Scruples, which the People could not conquer; for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members, and carried away many of them. And so they had done in New England, and dissolved those Churches before this time, if this principle had been allowed there, viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples, they may proceed to Separation. No, they tell them, they must preserve the Peace of their Churches, and if they cannot be quiet among them, the world is wide enough for them. So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies; notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians. This I only mention, to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation, because men cannot conquer their Scruples. And upon the same ground, not only Anabaptists and Quakers, but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations. For, I suppose this Gentleman will not deny, but they may have Scruples too, many Scruples, and of long standing, and among great numbers, and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them. And by that time all these have set up among us, shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion?
These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles, that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation, have taken any care to put any stop to it, or to let us know, where we may fix and see an end of it; what scruples are to be allowed, and what not: and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling, and say they cannot conquer their Scruples. Are there no Scruples among us, but only against the sign of the Cross, and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us? Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, saying they are not to be literally understood? Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry? Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations, and say, we can have no true Churches, because we renounce Communion with the Pope? What is to be done with all these, and many more scruplers, who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies, and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers.