The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 7
Sect. 7. (4.) He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter, p. 42.since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it. But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches, and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world, Evangel. Love. p. 59.are the same, stable and unalterable? Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing? Is it not Dr. O. that saith, that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them, p. 65.but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ? Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them? The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship; for all Parties are agreed therein; but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians? whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self, and unaccountably, as to subordination to any other? How doth this appear from the nature of the thing, and the necessary duties of Christians? I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification: And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things. Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians, in my judgment tends to Edification. Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians: much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter. And here the main Controversie lies, between us and the Congregational Churches. Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter? then it follows as much from the nature of the thing, that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons, every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self, but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace. And I cannot yet see, by all that hath been said, how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound, and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it, can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism, how great and intolerable soever it be thought.p. 43.
As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila, and Nymphas and Philemon, I say,p. 44. that this is to be understood, not of a Church meeting in their Houses, but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say,Reasons against the Instances, &c. p. 83. most of our Divines are of that Opinion: and therefore the Argument holds against them. And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before, what obligation of Conscience can be upon any, when they may serve God in their Families, in opposition to Laws, to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them. For (1.) he grants that a Church may be in a Family; although a Family as such be not a Church. Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church: for a Church, he saith, may consist onelyonly of the Persons that belong to a Family. Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion; especially, when the addition of four more, may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church. (2.) All that he saith, is, that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures, as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families. And what then? the Question is not now whether they be lawfull, but whether they be necessary; for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law; but where is that Command? Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing, and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches, as his great Rule in these cases? But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law? so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families. All that he saith further, as to this matter is,p. 46. that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen, the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution. Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance; which in this case amounts to separation. But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved, before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land; and much more, before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them. All men no doubt that ever broke Laws, if this Plea would be admitted, would transfer the blame upon those that made them. And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party.