Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	lord_n	parliament_n	4,338	5	6.4183	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70371	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.	Jane, William, 1645-1707.; Jenkyn, William, 1613-1685.; S. R. To his worthy friend H. N.; Brinsley, John, fl. 1581-1624.; H. N.	1678 (1678)	Wing J454; ESTC R18614	63,527	154

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

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-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-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

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