for Ecclesiastical Matters It is the joyning together in the Ordinances of God which makes a Church a True Church as Mr. Brinsley saith in his Arraignment of Schism pag. 31. And it 's the joyning together in them according to the Laws established amongst us that makes such a Church to be the Church of England I must profess Sir to you That I can hardly forbear to expose that Book of Sacrilegious Desertion that as much abounds with Ill-nature Self-conceit Confusion and Self-contradiction as any that I have met with of that kind but because the Author hath been in many things of good use to the Church of God I shall not treat him with that rigour such a Book deserves and shall therefore proceed to shew That this Church is a True Church He indeed pag. 43. of that Book when it had been objected against the present separation That their Members are taken out of True Churches replies How many Bishops have written that the Church of Rome is a True Church c. and must no Churches therefore be gathered out of them Her it should be thereby disingenuously insinuating That the Church of England is no otherwise a true Church than that of Rome and may as safely be separated from Now how the Church of Rome is said to be a true Church Mr. Brinsley will inform us pag. 26. of his Arraignment of Schism There is a twofold Trueness Natural the one Moral the other In the former sense a Cheater a Thief may be said to be a true Man and a Whore a true Woman and till she be divorced a true Wife yea and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies yet a true Spirit And in this sense we shall not need to grutch the Church of Rome the name of a true Church if not so why do we call her a Church A Church she is in regard of the outward Profession of Christianity but yet a false Church true in Existence but false in Belief c. not so a true Church but that she is also a false Church an Heretical Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue But whether the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion hath the same thoughts of the Church of England let pag. 76. shew where he saith As I constantly joyn in my Parish-Church in Liturgie and Sacraments so I hope to do while I live if I live under as honest a Minister at due times And he would by all means have their Assemblies accounted onely as Chappel-Meetings pag. 15. with respect to the Publick Now God forbid that all this should be and that in the mean time he should think that the Church of England is no more a true Church than the Church of Rome and not more to be held Communion with But the contrary is evident from him and so his abovesaid Insinuation the more blame-worthy But however let him think as he pleaseth it is very obvious that the constant Opinion of the old Nonconformists was That the Church of England was a true Church and what as such they thought that they were oblig'd to hold Communion with So Mr. Baxter in his Preface to the Cure of Church-Divisions saith of them The old Nonconformists who wrote so much against Separation were neither blind nor Temporizers They saw the danger on that side Even Brightman on the Revelation that writeth against the Prelacy and Ceremonies severely reprehendeth the Separatists Read but the Writings of Mr. J. Paget Mr. J. Ball Mr. Hildersham Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Bains Mr. Rathband and many such others against the Separatists of those Times and you may read that our Light is not greater but less than theirs c. So Mr. Crofton in his Reformation not Separation though several of them he evidently wrongs that were far from any disaffection to the Order and Discipline of the Church as Ridley c. pag. 43. Tindal Hooper Ridley Latimer Farrar Whitaker Cartwright Bains Sibbs Preston Rogers Geree J. Ball Langly Hind Nicols c. groaning under retained Corruptions c. yet lived to their last breath in constant Communion with the Church And this they did upon the supposition of this Truth Nay so far were they persuaded of this that they did prefer it to most Churches in the World So the Letters betwixt the Ministers of Old and new-New-England published by Mr. Ash and Mr. Rathband 1643. If we deny Communion with such a Church as ours there hath been no Church this thousand years with which a Christian might lawfully joyn When the Wars began there were those indeed that talked otherwise and then they would persuade the People that there was no difference betwixt that and Rome as Mr. Marshal in his Sermon upon the Vnion of the Two Houses Jan. 18. 1647. All Christendom except Malignants in England do now see that the Question in England is Whether Christ or Antichrist shall be Lord and King Then those that were suspended before the Long-Parliament time were the Witnesses that were slain and the Prelacy was an Antichristian Power and the taking away of that and the Ceremonies was the tenth part of the City falling as Mr. Woodcock did expound it in his Sermons of the two Witnesses 1643. pag. 83 86. Then they were the Amorites and there was the cup of abomination amongst them as you may find it in a Book called The Principal Acts of the General Assembly convened at Edinburgh May 29. 1644. pag. 19. But when the Tide began to turn and Presbytery was opposed and in great danger of being run down by Independency they changed their Tune and began to plead for the Truth of it and their Propriety in it Thus we find Ordination according to the Church of England maintained by the London-Ministers in their Vindication pag. 143. We do not deny but that the way of Ministers entring into the Ministry by the Bishops had many defects in it But we add That notwithstanding all the accidental corruptions yet it is not substantially and essentially corrupted By Dr. Seaman in his Answer to the Diatribe by Mr. Brinsley of Schism page 31. by Mr. Firmin in his Separation examined page 23. Then we are told That Preaching and Prayer were kept pure in the Episcopal days by Mr. Firmin ibid. pag. 29. And to shew you how reverendly they spoke of this Church I will onely quote it from one that must be thought to speak out of no affection and that is J. Goodwin in his Sion College visited pag. 26. Doubtless the real and true Ministers of the Province of London having such abundant opportunity of converse with Travellers from all Parts cannot but be full of the truth of this Information That there was more of the truth and power of Religion in England under the late Prelatical Government than in all the Reformed Churches besides But you will say All this may be granted and yet nothing said for the Case is altered the Church of England not being now what it was then This I acknowledge the Author of
of Discipline than from the allowance or neglect of the Church it self If you would see more of their Opinion formerly as to this case I refer you to Mr. Brinsley in his Arraignment of Schism pag. 32. to Mr. Firmin in his Separation examined pag. 28. the Confutation of the Brownists published by Mr. Rathband pag 18. and Mr. Vines on the Sacrament pag. 22. 6. We must not separate from a Church as long as Christ holds Communion with it So Mr. Jenkin here pag. 36. saith Separation from Churches from which Christ doth not separate is Schismatical So Mr. Vines on the Sacrament pag. 242. If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances and his Grace and Spirit we are not to separate It would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother while his Father owns her for his Wife Now whether Christ holds not Communion with our Church I refer you to the several Marks given in this Sermon by Mr. Jenkin p. 32. such as the having the Gospel of Salvation preached in an ordinary way c. which you may compare with what is said in the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly pag 141. And so much is expresly granted by T. P. or rather D. as Mr. Crofton unriddles it in his Jerubbaal wrote in answer to Mr. Crofton 1662. pag. 18. The Essentials constitutive of a True Church are 1. The Head 2. The Body 3. The Union that is between them Which three concurring in the Church of England Christ being the professed Head She being Christs professed Body and the Catholick Faith being the Union-bond whereby they are coupled together She cannot in justice be denied a True though God knows far from a pure Church So much is granted by the Author of Nonconformists no Schismaticks pag. 13. who having started an Objection viz. You own the Church of England to be a true Church of Christ and if so Christ is in it and with it and why will you leave that Church from which Christ is not withdrawn Replies after this sort We acknowledge the Church of England to be a true Church and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them but it 's one thing to leave a Church and another thing to leave her external Communion To leave a Church is to disown it and cease to be a Member of it or with it by ceasing to have those Requisites that constitute a Member of it as Faith and Obedience I will not quarrel at this time with the distinction but I do not understand what service it can be of to them when after all the accuracy of it such that have nothing more to say will notwithstanding that be Schismaticks if his own Definition of Schism hold true for pag. 12. he saith That Schism is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another in external Communion Now if the Church of England is so a Church that Christ holds Communion with it and they Members of that Church as he acknowledgeth then they that leave her external Communion are guilty of Schism and then it 's no matter whether there be any difference betwixt leaving a Church and leaving her external Communion when the least of them makes those that are guilty of it to be Schismaticks To sum up now what hath been said Though there be Errors in a Church if not fundamental though there be corruption of Manners mixture in Communion though there be not a perfect Constitution and Order and other Churches may be thought better yet if it hath the Scripture-Characters of a true Church upon it and Christ holds Communion with it it is not to be separated from and Separation from it is Schismatical So that as far as the Negative part holds we are secure 2. For what Reasons may a Church be separated from and Persons be justified in it Dr. Manton on Jude pag. 496. saith The onely lawful grounds of Separation are three viz. Intolerable Persecution Damnable Heresie and gross Idolatry To which Mr. Jenkin doth here pag. 23. add unjust Excommunication and a necessary Communion with a Church in its Sins All which I shall now consider and enquire whether they are Causes existent at the present amongst us and what they of the Separation have reason to plead 1. Damnable Heresie This I have before sufficiently acquitted our Church of and therefore conceive that I may without more ado proceed 2. Gross Idolatry I find those that deny the lawfulness of hearing the established Ministers are most forward to charge this upon us With this the confident Author of Prelatique Preachers none of Christs Teachers that he might possess the unwary Reader betimes thought safest to begin his Book viz. The Idolatrous madness of the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath of late been made so manifest to all the Houshold of Faith in this Nation As if it was a thing so certain plain and notorious that he must not be one of the Houshold of Faith that doth not discern it and abhor the Church for it With the like boldness are we assaulted by the Author of A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Compliance or the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of the Church of England pag. 55. printed 1664. An Author of great forwardness but of intolerable ignorance or malice that tells you pag. 44. That our Church doth own that Men ought to be made Ministers onely by Lord Bishops And then what a breach is made upon our Church by the Bishop of Soder in the Isle of Man that takes upon him to Ordain without that Title That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Choristers Organists Commissaries Officials c. is not onely accounted by us lawful but necessary to be had in the Church And pag. 45. That Women may administer Baptism And pag. 94. reveals a further Secret That the Reformed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by vertue of it to the Charge of Souls Now do you not think that such as these are able Champions and fit to enter the Lists of Controversie that take up things by hear-say By this you may guess to what Tribe they belong and you may learn it from Mr. Baxter in his Cure pag. 193. It is an ordinary sound to hear an ignorant rash self-conceited Person especially a Preacher to cry out Idolatry Idolatry against his Brothers Prayers to God But what occasion hath our Church given for this Out-cry Is it for the Matter or the Form of its Prayers Not the Matter for Mr. D. in his Jerubbaal pag. 35. doth thus say of it Most of the Matter I grant to be Divine And Mr. Crofton in his Reformation no Separation pag. 25. speaks more universally I confess their Common-Prayer is my Burden yet I must confess I find in it no Matter to which on a charitable Interpretation a sober serious Christian may not say nay can deny his Amen Not for the
THE Present Separation SELF-CONDEMNED And Proved to be SCHISM As it is Exemplified in a Sermon Preached upon that Subject by Mr. W. JENKYN And is further attested by divers others of his own Persuasion All produced in Answer to a LETTER from a FRIEND MANTON on JAMES pag. 404. True Wisdom as it will not sin against Faith by Error so not against Love by Schism LONDON Printed for Edward Croft at the Seven Stars in Little Lumbard street 1678. SIR UPon the Discourse that passed not long since betwixt you and me concerning the present Differences amongst us in this Nation and the Difficulties you then pressed me with about the Nature and Reasons of Schism and the Side which the Sin of it would lie upon I began to consider of it and forthwith resolved to see what I could meet with of that Subject amongst that Party you so boldly charge with it especially before their exclusion when they might be supposed to speak impartially And amongst the rest having procured of a Friend the Notes of a Sermon long since preached by Mr. Jenkin I diligently read it over and thought it a Discourse very well calculated to bring this matter to an issue betwixt us for which end having compared it with and corrected it by what he afterward printed upon that Text I did resolve to send it to you This I confess I the rather pitched upon as he is yet alive and is able to justifie it and because you also urged me with some Objections offered in particular against him and his proceedings in the case and did affirm That he with the rest of his Brethren durst not now own what they had formerly preached or preach what they formerly did about Separation lest they should revive what they hope is by this time forgotten and disquiet the Ashes of the old Nonconformists whose Followers they profess to be but herein as you said widely differ from I must confess my self not to have been a little disturbed at those Passages that you produced out of some of them and could not but transcribe that from Mr. Calamy in his Apologie against an unjust Invective pag. 10. viz. What will Mr. Burton say to old Mr. Dod Mr. Hildersham Mr. Ball Mr. Rathband c Did not these Reverend Ministers see the Pattern of Gods House And yet it is well known that they wrote many Books against those that refused Communion with our Churches he means the Episcopal and were their greatest Enemies And I cannot forget another you shewed me out of the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government pag. 135. published by the Provincial Assembly of London 1650. of whom you told me Mr. Jenkin was one viz. There were many godly and learned Nonconformists of this last Age that were persuaded in their Consciences that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England in receiving the Sacrament kneeling without sin yet did they not separate from her Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew but yet so as that they held Communion with her in the rest being far from a negative much more from a positive Separation Nay some of them even when our Churches were full of sinful Mixtures with great Zeal and Learning defended them so far as to write against those that did separate from them I do acknowledge that I am not able to reconcile all things of this nature and that it is very hard to shew where the difference lies betwixt now and then and to find out what the People have to scare them from Communion with the Church of England now that they had not in those Times and why what Mr. Cartwright Mr. Dod c. wrote then in defence of it will not still so far hold good But I hope you easily conceive that the Case is not the same with the Ministers as the People For the People it is confessed and you gave me an undeniable Proof of the general Belief of the present Nonconformists in this matter viz. That when by the late Act of Parliament every one that was in any Office of Trust was required to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the usage of the Church of England they that amongst them were concerned were generally advised to it by their own Pastors and few if any were found to refuse it which doubtless they would have done if either they or their Pastors had thought that they had sinned in so doing and their own Interest or the capacity they might be in of doing better Services in their Places than out of them would not have made it lawful if it had not been thought lawful in it self And therefore I do very readily grant this But withal I hope you do perceive that there is a great difference betwixt the People and their Ministers betwixt the Peoples Communicating with and the Ministers Officiating in the Church for the Ministers are in order to this required to renounce the Covenant and to assent and consent to the use of the Liturgie And therefore though the People may now Communicate upon the same terms that the People did before the Wars when Separation from the Church of England was proved to be Schism by the great Nonconformists of those Times as is abovesaid and the Ministers may now Communicate upon the same terms as the People yet they cannot do it as Ministers and what reason is there that they should degrade themselves who are as Mr. Jenkin saith on Jude pag. 21. Church-Officers betrusted with the ordering of the Church and for opening the Doors of the Churches Communion by the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline and be no more than private Christians that have no power in these matters as he there observes Is this nothing to be from Rulers of the Flock turned down amongst the common Herd and from being keepers of the Keys to be brought under the power of them But supposing that they could thus far condescend yet do you make nothing of the Apostles necessity and woe is me or think you it fit after so sacred a Character as that of Ordination that they can clear themselves if they neglect it Consider what is written in a Book called Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministry rebuked pag. 30. viz. Is a Vow and Dedication to preach the Gospel no reason to preach it elsewhere when it 's forbidden in your Assemblies Is the alienation of Consecrated Persons no Sacrilege You told me indeed That supposing they were under the like necessity which you said they were not yet that as St. Paul's necessity did not so neither did theirs confine them to any particular Place Time or Number that Preaching was not more so when it was to many than to few in publick than in private in London than the Countrey and that as the Law did permit them to preach to Five besides their own Family so it did not forbid them private Conference elsewhere a way that the Nonconformists do so much recommend that one of them
jealous of your Hearts when Contentions begin stifle them in the Cradle Paul and Barnabas separated about a small matter the taking of an Associate 7. Beware of Pride the Mother of Contention and Separation Love not the preheminence Rather be fit for than desirous of Rule Despise not the meanest say not I have no need of thee All Schisms and Heresies are mostly grafted upon the Stock of Pride The first rent that was ever made in God's Family was by the Pride of Angels ver 14. and that Pride was nothing else but the desire of Independency 8. Avoid Self-seeking He who seeks his own things and profit will not mind the good and peace of the Church Oh take heed lest thy Secular Interest draw thee to a new Communion and thou colour over thy departure with Religion and Conscience Thus have we spoken of the first viz. What these Seducers did viz. separate themselves 2. The Cause of their separation or what they were in these words sensual not having the Spirit This I will onely give the Breviate of still keeping to his own words leaving it to his Commentary on Jude since printed By the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle seems to me to make their bruitish sensuality and propensions to be the cause of their separation as if he had said They will not live under the strict Discipline where they must be curb'd and restrain'd from following their lusts no these Sensuallists will be alone by themselves in Companies where they may have their fill of sensual pleasures and where they may gratifie their genius to the utmost The Apostle seems to add this their sensuality and want of the Spirit to their separating themselves not onely to shew that sensuality was the cause of their separation and the want of the Spirit the cause of both but as if he intended directly to thwart and cross them in their pretences of having an high and extrordinary measure of spiritualness above others who as these Seducers might pretend were in so low a Form of Christianity and had so little spiritualness that they were not worthy to keep them company whereas Jude tells these Christians that these Seducers were so far from being more spiritual than others that they were meer Sensuallists and had nothing in them of the Spirit at all c. Observations Obs 1. Commonly sensuality lies at the bottom of sinful separation and making of Sects Separate themselves sensual c. Obs 2. It 's possible for those who are sensual and without the Spirit to boast of Spiritualness Of these before Obs 3. Sanctity and Sensuality cannot agree together Obs 4. They who want the Spirit are easily brought over to Sensuality To his Worthy Friend H. N. SIR I Heartily thank you for putting me in mind of our late Discourse and for giving me so fair an opportunity to pursue it by the Sermon that you sent me which I greedily read and had no sooner run over but I bless'd my self to find that you should put the Cause upon this Issue and to appeal to that for the justification of the present Separation I look'd again and thought that you might be mistaken and had sent me a Sermon against Mr. Jenkin rather than one for him It was a Discourse that I do acknowledge my self not to be altogether a Stranger to and what I then retained some remembrance of but yet wholly to undeceive my self I sent for the Book which you say you compared it with and to my no small satisfaction found them as to what concerns the matter of our Dispute honestly to agree and that you may as well bring the one to vouch for the credit of the other as he himself may if there were occasion Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism from whence he hath borrowed the substance of this Sermon in the justification of what he hath said here upon that Subject And now Sir I am glad that I have brought you thus far for I desire no better advantage than what this Sermon will afford me and shall decline the Order that we observed in our Discourse on purpose to comply with it You may remember that I then undertook to shew 1. That the old Nonconformists did themselves hold Lay-Communion with the Church of England and accounted those that did not guilty of Schism as by their Writings yet extant doth appear 2. That the present Nonconformists who are Presbyterians did plead their Practice and use their Arguments against the Independents and others that did in the late Times separate from themselves 3. That Lay-Communion with the Church of England is the same in our Times that it was in the Times of the old Nonconformists and that the Church of England hath as much to say for it self now as it had then 4. That therefore the new Separation doth not in reality differ from the old and is truly Schism if either they or the old Nonconformists spoke true Now this I look upon as a very covenient Method to bring the Case to a Decision but because I will shew how willing I am to meet you and how confident I am in the goodness of my Cause I shall take that course which will more readily lead me to make use of the Sermon though in the pursuing of that I shall also say what will serve for the proof of the Propositions before laid down In the first place it will be necessary to shew what Schism is Now that as may be collected from Mr. Jenkin here is a perverse or undue separation from Church-Communion pag. 21 22. or a voluntary and unnecessary dividing and separation from a true Church pag. 31. And upon this Definition I shall proceed and shew 1. That the Church of England is a true Church 2. That there is a Separation from it 3. That this Separation is voluntary and unnecessary 4. That therefore the present Separation is schismatical 1. That the Church of England is a true Church But here we are put to it to tell what the Church of England is by the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 35. We are told saith he of Schism from the Church of England when I would give all the Money in my Purse to make me understand what the Church of England is I might here without any more ado refer him to Mr. Baxter for resolution of whom Mr. Hickman saith in his Bonasus Vapulans printed the same Year pag. 138. That he has Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances who cannot but certainly know what that Church is or else how can he hold Communion with it But because there is so great a Profit like to attend it and in compassion to him that hath there raised so much dust that he cannot see his own way I shall for once tell him what it is by Wise Men thought to be viz. That Company of Persons in this Nation that doth joyn together in the Ordinances of God according to the Laws established amongst us
Firmin is so pestered with that he answers it after this sort in his Separation examined pag. 28 29. But this Objection hath no place in these Churches for Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments yea Discipline they had in the Episcopal days c. As if that were sufficient to vindicate what they wanted in theirs The Case then was plainly thus That they were some Years without any setled Constitution That though the Province of London was by an Ordinance 1645. divided into Twelve Classical Elderships yet after all the Ordinances about it the very Form of Government was not ordered to be published till 29 Aug. 1648. nay nor the Articles of Religion agreed to be printed till about a Month before And yet notwithstanding then the Cry was Independency a great Schism and worse than Popery as Adam Steuart in his Zerubbabel to Sanballat p. 53. and Separation from them Schismatical Now if it must be so when no body knew what the Church was nor they themselves knew what Foundation to lay it upon if J. Goodwin in his Sion College visited pag. 10. or J. L. in his Plain Truth pag. 6. are to be believed and as Mr. Brinsley pag. 49. doth not deny then what must it not be when it is from a Church that is established and whose Articles Constitutions and Orders are and have been time out of mind setled as ours is If in 1647. there was a Church and a Church of England as the Ministers sent by the Parliament in that Year to Oxford did maintain and as the Form of Church-Government to be used in the Church of England printed by Order of Parliament 1648. doth acknowledge then certainly such a thing there is now to be found To conclude this If the old Nonconformists thought the Church of England to be a true Church and what they did think themselves obliged to hold Communion with If the present Nonconformists when time was did declare as much If the Church of England doth not now differ from what it was when they so thought of it and that it is much more a Church than what that was that the Independents were accounted by them Schismaticks for withdrawing from Then I hope their Separation from us will be allowed to be unwarrantable And now I know not what can be said unless with the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 33. it be said that this is onely local distinction not separation But that is the second thing I shall proceed to shew 2. There is a Separation from the Church of England If there was no more to be said in this Case than what Adam Steuart in his Zerubbabel to Sanballat wrote against the Independents 1644. it would be sufficient viz. If ye be not separated from us but entertain Union and Communion with us what need ye more a Toleration rather than the rest of the Members of our Church The pains the Nonconformists took to compass and the joy which they expressed at obtaining a Toleration shews that they were not of its Communion But what credit can we give to such a Declaration For alas as Mr. Brinsley pag. 28. saith in the same case what meaneth the lowing of the Oxen and the bleating of the Sheep I mean the confused noise of our lesser and greater Divisions Divisions not onely without Separations Sects and Factions but Divisions of an higher nature amounting to no less than direct Separation and that not barely to a negative but to a positive Separation to the setting up of Altars against Altars Churches against Churches That it is so de facto I think it will not it cannot be denied For if Mr. Baxter and some others shall profess That they meet not at the same hour with the Publick under any colour and pretence in any Religious Exercise than according to the Liturgie and yet in the mean time use it not the Dividers will not see as the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion saith pag 20. the different Principles on which they go while their Practice seemeth to be the same But if we should grant this to those that are willing to hold Communion with us yet these are very few to what do wholly decline and deny it Mr. Jenkin here saith pag. 22. That Separation appears in the withdrawing from the performance of those Duties which are both the Signs of and Helps to Christian Vnity as Prayer Hearing Receiving of Sacraments c. And that Schism is negative when there is onely a simple secession c. without making head against that Church from which the departure is or positive when Persons so withdrawing do so consociate and draw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church Now I dare appeal to all that know them whether Mr. Jenkin and the far greater part of his Brethren have been ever seen in our Congregations unless at some times the more adventurous of them have thrust their Heads in at the Door when if they heard all as it is usually but very little of the Sermon that they have patience to hear Mr. Brinsley will tell them That as for Occasional hearing it is agreed on all hands it is not properly an act of Church-Communion pag. 35. And I will appeal to your Eyes whether they do not constantly keep up their Meetings in opposition to those of the Church But what need I go so far about when this is not onely acknowledged but defended See Mr. Wadsworth in his Separation yet no Schism Epist to the Reader where he puts the Case of the Nonconformists thus There are some hundreds of true Ministers of Jesus Christ and there are many thousands likewise of visible Professors of Christianity do willingly hear and joyn with these Ministers in the Worship of God and in a participation of Sacraments These meet in distinct Congregations separate from the legallyestablished Congregations in the Land with whom they will not because they cannot hold Communion And now it is out and what you see is plainly avowed So that I have leave to pass to the next Head 3. That this Separation is voluntary and unnecessary The sin of Schism will all say is very great and what cannot be blotted out with the blood of Martyrdom as Mr. Jenkin here saith pag. 26. one spoke very well But as he observes from Musculus pag. 31. There is a double Schism the one bad the other good the bad is that whereby a good Vnion the good whereby a bad Vnion is broken asunder And of what sort the present Separation is comes now to be tried which I shall do by making my Observations from what this Sermon will afford and by shewing from thence when a Separation is justifiable and when not From all which if it appears that the Reasons produced by them fall within the compass of the Negative but hold not as to the Affirmative it will appear That their Separation is voluntary and unnecessary Now there are Six Cases as may be collected
his Separation examined p. 42. once said of the Presbyterial is true of the Episcopal That there are many Ministers that have as few wicked at that Ordinance of the Lords Supper as ever were in the Church of Corinth I must confess that I was pleased with the ingenuous acknowledgment of the Author of The Cry of a Stone in 1642. who saith pag. 39. I freely acknowledge that there are many in the Parishes of England which are of a very godly Life and Conversation and some that go as far therein as ever I saw any in my life And if I should prefer any of the Separated before them in Conversation I should speak against my own Conscience but in the Church-state and Order I must prefer the other And I question not but that the State of the Church is still as good in that respect as it was then and might have been better had those kept in it that are run away from it and that by their Divisions in Religion make many to question whether there be any such thing in the World Certainly were our endeavours rightly placed and united there is scarcely any Church in the World whose Temper would promise more success than that of ours And if we would deal fairly as J. G. in his Cretensis pag. 5. once said in comparing them together and not set the Head of the one against the Tail of the other but measure Head with Head and Tail with Tail I will not say of our Church as he did of Independency That if that hath its Tens Presbytery hath its Thousands of the Sons of Belial in its Retinue but I will say That even the separated Churches as they now stand are not without them as well as we And if they would as well look out the Extortioner and Unjust and Covetous and Railer not to speak of others amongst themselves as they do pick out the Fornicator and Drunkard that are as they insinuate with us they would find their own Churches not so good and others not so bad as they imagine But supposing that such are in the Communion of our Church as it is not to be altogether denied yet is not the Church presently to be blamed Hear what Mr. Brinsley saith in his Arraignment of Schism pag. 39. Supposing such unwarrantable Mixtures have been and yet are to be found yet it cannot properly be put upon the Churches score What her Ordinance was touching the keeping back scandalous Persons from the Sacrament they which have read her ancient Rubrick cannot be ignorant And Mr. Vines of the Sacrament c. 19. p. 233. speaking about the Power which the Minister hath of keeping off unworthy Persons from the Lords Supper saith I as little doubt of the Intention of the Church of England in the Rule given to the Minister before the Communion in the case of some emergent Scandal at the present time The Church hath provided for the correcting of Offenders and perhaps there may be as good reason why the Censures of it are not now executed as there was in the late Times Mr. Crofton once told the Independents in his Bethshemesh clouded p. 110. The continuance of our disordered Discipline is the fruit of their disordered Separation from us I would fain be resolved in what Adam Steuart in his Zerubbabel to Sanballat pag. 70. puts to the Querie I would willingly know saith he whether it were not better for them that aim at Toleration and Separation to stay in the Church and to joyn all their endeavours with their Brethren to reform Abuses than by their separation to let the Church of God perish in Abuses Whether they do not better that stay in the Church to reform it when it may be reformed than to quit it for fear to be deformed in it If they had taken this course and had given us their help in stead of withdrawing from it doubtless the Censures of the Church would have signified more and the Members of it have been in a much better condition than now they are I shall conclude this with what is said by a well-experienced Person in his Address to the Nonconformists pag. 161. If in stead of this Separation each Christian of you had kept to Parochial Communion and each outed Minister had kept their Residence among them and Communion with them as private Members in the Parish-way and had also in a private capacity joyned with those Ministers which have succeeded them in doing all the good they could in the Parish I nothing doubt but that by so doing you would have taken an unspeakable far better course to promote the Power of Religion in the Nation than by what you have done It 's they that have in great measure weakned if not tied our Hands and then complain that we do not fight If all things therefore were considered I believe that they would have as little reason to condemn our Churches for Corruptions in this kind as I am sure if they will be constant to themselves that they have none to separate from us upon account of them 2. Separation is not to be allowed for slight and tolerable Errors which are not Fundamental and hinder Communion with Christ the Head as may be collected from pag. 28. 37. of this Sermon So also say the old Nonconformists in their Confutation of the Brownists published by Mr. Rathband pag. 4. We desire the Reader to consider that a People may be a true Church though they know not nor hold not every Truth contained in the Scriptures but contrarily hold many Errors repugnant to them This was the Primitive Opinion and Practice say the Provincial Assembly in their Vindication pag. 139. All such who professed Christianity held Communion together as one Church notwithstanding the difference of Judgments in lesser things and much corruption in Conversation And now that the Church of England doth hold no Fundamental Errors I appeal to themselves What it was before the Wars let the Author of Church-Levellers printed for Tho. Vnderhil 1644. speak When it was objected That the Presbyterians whilst persecuted by the Bishops did hold forth a full Liberty of Conscience he answers This is a Slander the difference between them and the Prelates being not in Doctrinals but Ceremonials And therefore after the Covenant was taken whilst the Lords had the Power of Admission to Benefices all Persons presented were to read the Articles publickly and profess their consent to them And that it is the same still is confessed So Mr. C. in his Discourse of the Religion of England pag. 43. The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Law established is heartily received by the Nonconformists So Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 45. We differ not at all from the Doctrine of the Church of England till the new Doctrine about Infants was brought into the new Rubrick And certainly that is if an Error no dangerous or fundamental one So Dr. Owen in his Peace-offering 1667. p. 12. The Confession of the Church of
may continue there without being guilty of the Sin of them How far the first of these is and ought to be acknowledged I have shewed above at pag. 62. And how far the latter you may see in Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism pag. 50. Though toleration of some unwarrantable mixtures in a Church be an evil yet it is not so great an evil as Separation upon that ground This was the Opinion of the Five dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration pag. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with defilements or in the greatest danger thereof That we both did and would hold a Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And this they agreed to upon this consideration that otherwise there hath been no Church yet nor will be to the day of Judgment which Persons otherwise perswaded could or can hold Communion with as you may find it in the old Nonconformists Letters to those of New-England pag. 12. Mr. Firmin's Separation examined pag. 25. and the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly pag. 135. 2. I add That the imposition of things unlawful or so thought to be in a Church makes a Person in this case no farther concerned than as they are imposed on him For if Corruptions tolerated are no bar to Communion then they are not when imposed meer Imposition not altering the Nature as Mr. Crofton saith in his Jerubbaal pag. 27. 3. Imposition in some things unlawful or supposed so to be will not justifie a separation from what is lawful The Author of Separation yet no Schism in his Epistle to the Reader thus pleads for the People The People are not always free from such Impositions which they extremely suspect as sinful as that they cannot enjoy Baptism for their Children without the Cross nor receive the Lords Supper without Kneeling to name no more as well he could not But suppose that these things are imposed and what they extremely suspect can this be a Reason for their separation in those things where nothing of this nature is Certainly in obedience to Magistrates and for Communion with a Church we ought to go as far as we can and what I cannot do is no excuse for the omission of what I can Thus did the old Nonconformists think and practice as I observed to you before from the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly pag. 135. That though some of them thought it unlawful to receive the Sacrament kneeling yet they held Communion with the Church in the rest And accordingly Mr. Firmin argues in his Separation examined pag. 29. Suppose there should be some Humane mixtures are all the Ordinances polluted Why do you not communicate with them in those Ordinances which are pure Now if this be true what shall we say to them that have nothing to object against the greatest part of what they are required to communicate with us in and yet keep up a total and positive Separation from us as if all Parts were alike infected and that from the Crown of the Head to the Sole of the Foot there was nothing but Wounds and putrifying Sores 4. The meer suspicion that a Person may have of the unlawfulness of what is imposed will not justifie his omission of or separation in that particular For he ought to come to some resolution in it and in case of Obedience Communion and Charity to go against such his Suspicion To this purpose speaks Mr. Geree in his Resolution of Ten Cases 1644. Things wherein doubts arise are of a double nature 1. Meerly arbitrary and at my own dispose 2. That are under command as coming to the Sacrament Obedience to the Higher Powers in things lawful If Scruples arise about these and a Man doubts he sins if he acts and he also doubts he sins if he forbears c. In this case he must weigh the Scales and where he apprehends most weight of Reason must incline that way though the other Scale be not altogether empty And this done after humble and diligent search with bewailing our infirmity that we are no more discerning will be accepted by God God puts not his People on necessity of sinning nor can our Scruples dispense with his Commands So Mr. Faldo in his Quakerism no Christianity pag. 93. In doubtful and difficult Cases wherein we cannot reach the knowledge of our Duty it 's our Duty to follow the Examples of the greatest number of the Saints c. And then surely what will serve in such a case to let us dispense with our Doubts will much more in Obedience to Governours and for Communion with a Church This I thought to have more largely handled as it 's thought a new and late Argument used by Bishop Sanderson c. but what I can prove to be of old the common Resolution of the Case and as the contrary is pleaded for from Mr. Hales But lighting happily upon a Book called Mr. Hales's Treatise of Schism examined wrote by a Learned Person I shall refer you to it where he particularly undertakes this Point pag. 110 c. Having thus made good the Three Propositions abovesaid and shewed That the Church of England is a True Church That there is a Separation from it and That this Separation is voluntary and unnecessary that which remains is not to be denied viz. That therefore the present Separation is Schismatical So that now you may see in what condition those of our dissenting Brethren are that withdraw from the Communion of our Church and how little able they will be to reconcile their present Proceedings to their former Principles and Professions It was once said by them in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government pag. 133. We dare not make separation from a true Church by departing from it as you do speaking to the Independents Then Independency was what they proved to be Schism because 1. Independents do depart from our Churches being true Churches and so acknowledged by themselves 2. They draw and seduce Members from our Congregations 3. They erect separate Congregations 4. They refuse Communion with our Churches in the Sacraments Now we judge that no Schism is to be tolerated in the Church as say the London-Ministers in their Letter to the Assembly pag. 3. Then the inevitable Consequences of it could be discovered and represented as that by it Peoples minds would be troubled and in danger to be subverted bitter heart-burning would be fomented and perpetuated godly painful and orthodox Ministers be discouraged and despised the life and power of Godliness be eaten out by frivolous Disputes and the whole Course of Religion in private Families be interrupted and undermined as they there say pag. 4. Then Church-Division was as great a Sin as Adultery and Theft as Dr. Bryan maintains in the Publick Disputation at Kilingworth 1655. pag. 28. Then it was pleaded That they Covenanted not onely against Sin but Schism as saith Mr. Watson in
Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 43. doth suggest The love of Peace and the fear of frightning any further from parish-Parish-Communion than I desire do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformity and that Sin which Nonconformists fear and fly from which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old But this additional Conformity that the People are concerned in I am yet to understand and I fear he had another Reason to forbear the description of it viz. because he could not However for once suppose this yet he grants that it 's onely harder but that doth not make it unlawful For then what shall we say to Mr. Corbet that in his Discourse of the Religion of England Anno 1667. pag. 33. doth declare That the Presbyterians generally hold the Church of England to be a true Church though defective in its Order and Discipline and frequent the Worship of God in the Publick Assemblies I believe he speaks of those that he converses with for here it is generally otherwise as to the point of Practice What shall we say to Mr. Hickman that in his Bonasus Vapulans page 133. saith of himself I profess where-ever I come I make it my business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise What shall be said to that of Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church-Divisions pag. 263 264 265. where he saith Thousands of well-meaning People live as if England were almost all the World and do boldly separate from their Neighbours here which they durst not do if they soberly considered that almost all the Christian World are worse than they And that the present State of this Church is far better than almost any in the World he there doth largely prove So far as the Profession of these Persons doth hold who both deserve and I am confident have your reverence we are safe But still suppose the worst I will be bold to say and I question not to prove that our Church is more a Church than what theirs was when they so briskly assaulted the Independents and charged them with no less than Schism for their separtion from it For if you consider you will find that their Constitution was not setled nor the Church in any order when this Controversie began and was carried on amongst them How it was in 1642. Sir Edward Dering in his Speeches then made and printed will inform us pag. 47. The Church of England not long since the Glory of the Reformed Religion is miserably torn and distracted you can hardly now say which is the Church of England A little above in the same page he saith thus Mr. Speaker There is a certain new-born unseen ignorant dangerous desperate way of Independency Are we Sir for this Independent way Nay Sir are we for the elder Brother of it the Presbyterial Form I have not yet heard any one Gentleman within these Walls stand up and assert his Thoughts here for either of these Ways And yet Sir we are made the Patrons and Protectors of these so different so repugnant Innovations c. How it was in 1645. you may guess when the Sovereign Argument they had was That they had hopes of a Settlement So Mr. Calamy in a Fast-Sermon preached that Year did call upon his People to be ashamed and confounded as for divers other things so amongst the rest for this that whilst the Parliament is sitting and labouring to settle things and while the Assembly of Ministers are studying to settle Religion and labouring to heal our Breaches that any should be separating from us as we may learn out of The Door of Truth opened pag. 5. So again pag. 6. They engage themselves into separated Congregations and do not wait and tarry to see what Reformation the Parliament will make So it is confessed by the London-Ministers in their Letter to the Assembly pag. 2. Jan. 1. 1645. That the Reformation of Religion is not yet setled among us according to the Covenant and urge it to shew that the Desires and Endeavours of the Independents for a Toleration at that time were very unreasonable How it was in 1646. you may see in Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment pag. 48 49. It is alledged That in this Kingdom at present there is no way laid forth for the Churches to walk in And then why may they not take liberty to set up their way as well as others theirs Answ Suppose the Church hath not her way laid out yet it will not be denied but that she hath been all this while seeking it out c. Neither can it be truly said that the Church is so wholly destitute of a way to walk in whether for Worship or Government the former of which is and for some good time hath been fully agreed upon the latter however not fully compleated yet is it for substance both determined and held forth How it was 1656. Dr. Drake in his Bar to Free admission doth acknowledge pag. 132. How many Congregations have for ten or twelve Years together assembled constantly at the Word and Prayer without the Lords Supper yea some of them haply without Baptism A great fault I grant but I hope not so great as to unchurch them To favour whom he is drove to affirm That I dare not say the Sacraments are essential Notes of the Church visible This was that which lay hard upon them and what the Independents took great advantage of viz. That they were some Years without any setled Constitution and at last so defective in such a considerable part as Government and Discipline So it was urged by the Five Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration 1643. pag 23. When the others charged them with Schism they thus answer Schism which yet must either relate to a differing from the former Ecclesiastical Government of this Church established and then who is not involved in it as well as we or to the Constitution and Government that is yet to come and until that be agreed on established and declared and actually exist there can be no guilt or imputation of Schism from it This was what the Presbyterians themselves lamented as the Norwich-Ministers in their Hue and Cry after Vox Populi Anno 1646. pag. 31. We could wish some Penal Law were against the Independents Anabaptists and some Government setled And when it is objected there The Parliament hath given full Power and Authority for Ordination c. They answer For what Sir to Ordain Pastors for each Congregation or to chuse Elders In what Ordinance is this Power given to any but the City of London The want of this was what their Adversaries did continually object and this was what they used all their skill to refute as Mr. Brinsley pag. 31. Object We want an Ordinance viz. Discipline So in Knutton's Seven Questions about Separation 1645. And which Mr.