the Apostles forecited Precepts are piously observed and St. Austins caveats judiciously not neglected For number not many no Judaical excess for signification most weighty useful for edifying as well as beautifying for observation most easie that they be not plummets to depress but wings to raise our affections in Divine Ordinances The LETTER Our birth in the Nation makes us Members of the Church The ANSWER We avouch not the Climate but the Parentage the descent a Christian extraction in any Nation gives right to the Covenant and seals of the Covenant this renders Infants capable of being baptized and therein imitate Church Members In Babes that are the issue of profest Believers we acknowledge a federal though not a personal actual holiness They have seminal claim a radical right of admission into the visible Church It is Gods promise to Abraham the Father of the Faithful I will establish my covenant between me and thy seed after thee Wherein though the invisible graces are assured to inward Believers yet the visible signs appertain to outward Professors the Sons the Heirs apparent of Abraham The legal Seal of the Covenant Circumcision being exchanged to the Evangelical Baptism St. Peter builds the Jews hereditary Title and interest as to Baptismal reception into the Church upon this foundation The promise is made to you and your children The LETTER I confess I have read some Historians and Writers both Ancient and Modern touching the first constituting and appearing of a Church and Gospel in England Annis 180 and 598 but not to satisfaction The ANSWER That in the year 598 was not the first conversion in this Climate though magnified by the Romanists to heighten the Saxon obligation to Rome because Austin the Monk was employed by Pope Gregory the first Nor yet was the complexion of Christianity first discernable in the year 180 though the Jesuits own the dawning of the Gospel in the British Climate about that time for to vindicate the dependance of the British Church upon the Roman because of King Lucius baptized by a delegate from Eleutherius Not to carp at your Chronology though I find not that punctual year of 180 fixed by any Chronologer Polanus mentions 188 Baron 183. Polyd. Virg. 182. Balaeus 179. Mar. Scotus 177. Forsedia 169 c. However not to insist on or debate that nicity The first Evangelical apparence was of an elder date than the time specified in your Letter the year 180. by above an entire Century of years Gildas an ancient renowned Historian as cited by Balaeus Cent. 1. doth testifie the Morning Beams of Christianity to have been darted among the Britains Hence the British Church hath been titled Primogenita Ecclesia the first born Church Of all the Provinces this is famed by Sabbellicus for the first celebrating of Christianity Credible Testimonies of Capgravius Scropus Polyd. Virgil. do fix on the year 63 for the conversion of the British Nation From which Epocha the British preserved the lustre of an uncorrupted purity till o'ercast with the tempest of the Dioclesian persecution as Beda acknowledgeth But during this time you will not allow a constituted Church As if Tertullians flourish of the British being subdued to Christ not to Caesar the one having erected a Throne where the other durst not set his foot Territa quaesitis ostendit terga Britannis had been but an empty flourish a windy vaunt Your dissatisfaction being expressed without your reason to confirm it I need not dilate to confute it The LETTER Concerning the second Query lest I tyre you with these at present very discomposed things I humbly offer Whether the Church of England and that there is a divine separation or a separation warranted in the word Jer. 15. 19. Ezek. 22. 26. Matth. 7. 6. Matth. 18. 19. Acts 9. 18. Rev. 4. 2 Cor. 6. 17. The ANSWER My Replies will much more need an Apology than your Query wherein I have been partly necessitated to be copious for discussion for illustration by examining those Texts you quote only unfolding what you enwrap because I would not like Heraclitus be entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dark obscure Sophister One Scripture genuine quotation if pertinently demonstratively pressed shall convince and captivate me whereas a thousand if loosely and inconsiderately applied will not startle me from my station There is I confess a Divine Separation not in your notion you raise separation to Heaven as Hortensius did Eloquence in Tullies Censure to advance your self with it I shall encounter with your Texts in the rank you muster them The first is Jer. â—5 19. If thou take forth the precious from the vile thou shalt be as my mouth let them return to thee but return not thou to them This is a Doctrinal not a personal separation It is Gods special consolation to the Prophet Jeremy If by thy Instructions thy Sermons thou shalt separate or distingush betwixt the sacred or the wicked c. So Jerom expounds it If by Prophecying thou discernest what is good from what is evil c. so Junius and Tremelius gloss it Or as others comment If thou convertest those souls that are redeemed by the precious Blood of Christ from vile vitious courses then thou shalt be as my mouth thou shalt discharge the part of Gods Embassador In voce Hominis tuba Dei as St. Austin expresseth it In the voice of man there will be the trumpet of God Let them return to thee but return not thou to them let them be reclaimed be not thou depraved The sense and scope of this Text is an alien to the Question it is far separated from your separation Your second Quotation is at as great a distance and needs no other solution than the former Ezek. 22. 26. Her priests have violated and have prophaned my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and prophane neither have shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Some Expositors understand this of Ceremonial oblations the Mosaical differences not observed betwixt clean and unclean beasts and sacrifices If this charge concerns Moral Actions God hereby reproves the Priests because the Priests reproved not the people for their Transgressions The Priests were indeed ordained authorised by God Instructors of the people and ordinary Judges in these cases who yet never sentenced nor reprehended the holy for mingling with the prophane in a divine Service or Sacrifice 1. I grant a Ministerial or Prophetical Separation by declaring Gods Commandments by denouncing his Judgments The neglect of this is taxed by Jeremy and Ezekiel in your instances 2. I allow a Professional Separation which may be branch'd to devotion compunction reprehension by praying against wickedness by mourning for it by rebuking it This was the frequent practice of the Prophets and the Apostles 3. I yield an Ecclesiastical or Juridical Separation which is Excommunication to be of Divine Impression But your local separation from
the Saints as Fellow Members I desire to be resolved who those Saints are Not the reformed Protestants not the Primitive Christians you exclude both their Church being not separate if they be acknowledged Members of the Catholick Church they are interested in the Communion of Saints expressed in the Creed And then your separation from them amounts to a separation from the Church and the Communion specified in the Creed To ascend higher are the Apostles the Saints you own a Communion with Then prove they made such separations from Christian Congregations as you do But you admit them not the Title of Saints let me inoffensively ask for my own satisfaction if they be real Saints why not Titular If your selves as real assume the Title why may not the Apostles be indulged that privilege in regard you plead to be Saints of the same extraction especially since us to the judgment of others at least there is greater certainty infallibility of their Saintship than of yours As for your desire of company comfortably to partake the things of God those Assemblies you have quitted do afford those sacred Comforts you have deserted them for wherein sacred Ordinances are most comfortably because most charitably celebrated Being private Persons or Pastors of a Parochial Church we are principled to be Converts not Judges to exercise severity in repentance not censure to be inquisitors in our own Breasts to condemn none but our selves Religion is not tainted with Faction among us nor Zeal stained with Schism We bewail the practical prophaneness of any that the same tincture of Grace is not visible in Worship and in Life however our wickedness is not in Gilgal as to this charge God's pure Ordinances are not slurred not vitiated much less vacated rendred ineffectual by mens impure desailances unless to themselves only To the pure all things are pure The LETTER Therefore do humbly offer these ensuing grounds to your serious consideration desiring your judgement on them and thoughts of them The ANSWER I take no felicity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Nazianzens expression to mould Divinity into a Comedy I shall not by the Divine assistance fail of a serious Discussion of your Advertisements weighing them in the ballance of Reason and Religion I am not so improvident an Enemy to a numerous Family as to be peevishly wedded to clouded Tenets could I be rationally and conscienciously divorced from them I should not stick to pen my own Retractations according to the laudable Example of St. Austin The LETTER That there is a Church of God here on Earth all do agree in concerning the Matter and Form in general there is no great difference That it is coetus fidelium a company of people called out and segregated from the World by the Word to walk together in the Gospel of Jesus is granted The ANSWER The quod sit that there is a Church is uncontrolled undiscussed the quid sit what that Church is is the subject of Ancient and Modern Debates Here the Logick Rule is to be observed Ambiguous words are first to be distinguish'd then defined The Church is either Universal or Particular Grand Differences being loudly prosecuted touching the Matter and Form of both The Romanists comprehend Miscreants Reprobates for material parts and Members of the Catholick Church the Reformed allow only Elect Persons to be true and real Members of this Church yet they avouch vitious Christians nay scandalous till excommunicated to be Members of a particular visible Church but the Separatists do quite expunge raze them out The Romanists exact not as a consecutive but a constitutive essential Note as a formal mark of every particular Church Subjection to the Pope The Separatists require a Church Covenant an evidence if not assurance of the grace of every Member The Reformed Protestants dissent from both But not to tread out of your track Your Latin definition of the Church coetus fidelium is accommodated to the inward Church invisible Though an Assembly if particular be an object of Sense Believers properly are not But your English illustration of it is the Character of the outward visible Church that walk in the profession of the Gospel of Jesus If they walk whether in the Notion of Nature or Scripture if they profess they must be visible This is to shuffle together Disparata The LETTER 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints by calling is Scripture Definition Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 14. 33. but how far these terms may be understood how far extended and wherein restrained is the controversie The ANSWER I shall not except at the Etymologie nor the Scripture definition but the Restriction of it That 's the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the main hinge of the Question If you understand Saints by calling of an inward effectual vocation the Testimony is an impertinency as to our debate touching an outward visible Church If you understand it of an outward Vocation remember our Saviours uncontrolled Maxime many are called but few are chosen This suites with a mixt Communion with an outward profession take Aretius his rational descant on St. Pauls Character How are they called Saints since it is certain many Novices in belief yea notorious lewd wretches in life were among them whereto he frames a double answer They were Saints by calling because called to Sanctity and endowed with preparatory Graces Because the better part were Holy the rest were Saints in the judgement of Charity though not of Infallibility It is the Candor the Rhetorick of the Apostle that the Title might be a Lecture the name a charm to Holiness Zanchy under the name of Saints apprehends titular professing Christians but the faithful distinguish'd severed from these by the Apostle to be sincere Believers Thus your first Citation is a Nominal definition of Christians nominal professional not real habitual outwardly interested by Baptism though not inwardly regenerated Saints by destination by designation not in conversation not in the least perfection of parts much less of degrees Your second Citation 1 Cor. 14. 33. is less advantageous to advance your design God is not the Author of confusion not of dissention in the vulgar Latin not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of tumult but of peace as in all the Churches of the Saints That is in all Christian Churches that are called obliged to be Saints If you observe your separation to be the source of dissention of confusion admitting no dependance no subordination it will appear at a great distance from those Apostolical Churches of the Saints especially if you note the coherence in the Claromonte Edition approved by Beza and other Reformed Divines immediately adjoyning to the 33 verse the 36 37 38 39 40 th vers and annexing 34 35 vers to the 40 th What came the Word of God from you or to you only The ophylact thus illustrates it You are neither the prime nor the sole Believers It behooves you to entertain that with affection with submission which hath
Nation till there be a valid legal repeal of so valid and legal a constitution The LETTER If the godly in England whether in the bound of Parishes or not I mean Professors in Doctrine and Practice though failing in some Circumstantials of Discipline be the Churches we own no separation from them but a reformation we desire and shall willingly sit down and walk with such a people of such a Parish and then I suppose the separation lies on the other part that have withdrawn themselves from their first Covenant Jude 19. there described Such are most of our people Acts 5. 13. The ANSWER You profess you will embrace the Society of Godly Professors in Doctrine and Practice though Parochial I demand how far perhaps for united Devotion and Attention for publick Prayers and Sermons not for Sacramental Duties by the mildest Principles of semiseparatism there must be a Reformation of Discipline an exact Shibboleth a new Covenant a particular satisfaction for the Holiness the suitableness of disposition to precede to qualifie for these What do you indulge the most accomplish'd holiest Parochial Christian more than to a Mahumetan an Indian whom you will not deprive of these Expedients for Conversion as subservient to the collecting of a Church You will not separate from Doctrinal and Practical Professors in Parishes but it is upon this tacite condition that they separate from Parochial Congregations You will not communicate with them in such a mixture So that this solemn flourish if sifted will be resolved into the emptiest kind of Fallacy Petitio principii The begging of the Question You transfer the separation on our Parochial Churches This Divinity is as Orthodox as Copernicus his Philosophy that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still It is not unlike the Optâ—ck mistake of those that first set out to Sea who launching out of a Haven imagine the Port the Shore moves departs from them not they from the Port the Shore Terraeq urbesque recedunt Beware lest your self be imbarqued in a floating Vessel whilst the Church of England is fixt on a Rock It separates not from you it was never a Branch of your Tree a Member of your Body but you of its But you charge us with the cause of the separation having withdrawn our selves from our first Covenant It is violated not abrogated though not punctually observed yet not absolutely renounced a disobedience but not a defiance Though withdrawn yet we make our penitent approaches to the Throne of Grace to renew our Covenant of Baptism by the Eucharist What withdrawing do you pitch on to warrant your separating not from discipline We never embraced yours This is confest by your selves no foundation of separation Not from Doctrine This you tax not There remains for the sole cause a practical prophaneness This is a fallacious objection Non causa pro causa A false cause for a true Were not the Sons of Eli practically vitious scandalous Sons of Belial yet the people that communicated with them were Gods people in the 29 th verse Though men were induced to abhor the Sacrifices for the Priests impieties in the 17 th verse yet thereby they were tempted to transgress You make the Lords people to transgress in the 24 verse This transgression was a separation a deserting the Assembly Not to serve the Lord according to the Septuagint to wit publickly with the Congregation This visible prophaneness being recorded in every visible Church specified in Scripture without the effect or attempt of severing disjoynting in celebrating Gods Ordinances renders your separation as unexcusable as it is unwarrantable Adams Family was the one and only visible Church una unica for a time therein there was a Cain as well as an Abel both sacrificed though both were not sanctified Cains pollution was not covert Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof Gen. 4. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo the first and the best But of Cain it is expressed he brought of the Fruit not the first Fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostom what first came to hand his oblation was scanted for the quantity according to the Sceptuagint and the Greek Fathers at least tainted in quality In Abrahams Family a visible Church there was an Ismael as well as Isaac in Isaac's house an Esau as well as Jacob. Among the Patriarchs Jacobs Issue Simeon and Levi with Joseph and Benjamin In Noahs Ark a Type of the Church there was a Cham a Judas among the Apostles a Nicholas among the Deacons To omit the manifest mixtures of the Jewish Corinthian Galatian Asian Churches recited in the second and fifth Chapters of the Revel Each whereof was a Grove wherein every Tree was not a Myrtle an Edifice wherein every Stone was not a Marble The Church delineated by the Apostles Pencil without spot and wrinkle is to be apprehended as adorned by Christs imputed Merits as with resplendent Robes not as dress'd with its own sordid Raggs not as clad with its own frailties stained with its own deformities 'T is expressed in the front of the verse That he might present it to himself a glorious Church Christ presents the Church specious glorious in himself but the Church exhibits not it self thus to the World The Church described holy and without blemish in the close of the same 27 verse is not Militant but Triumphant The one is a Casket of true and false Pearls the other a Cabinet of true Diamonds and Rubies to be selected and severed from the Counterfeit and adulterate in the day that God shall make up his Jewels But of this only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of illustration as an anticipation of an objection I proceed to those Texts you cite to justifie your separation Ep. of Jude 19. These men separate themselves being sensual having not the Spirit This is generally applied by Expositors to Sectaries Take heed this is not brutum fulmen if rightly apprehended it is not to be sported but trembled at We may play the Sophisters with men but cannot delude our God This is a Bill to indict no Plea to vindicate your separation it is active not passive you separate your selves a spice of singularity discard others The Apostle shadows out the occasion of a real separation an imaginary perfection keeping aloof from sensual men as refined from such dross as being spiritual But the Apostle asswageth this tumor blasts this haughty fancy checks it as a carnal symptom being sensual having not the Spirit I shall recommend to you Mr. Perkins Exposition of this Testimony comparing it with his Comment to the same effect on the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians the 2 verse and his Doctrinal Observation is this I shall only abbreviate that descant he hath enlarged It is a great sin for a man to separate himself from the Assembly of Gods people Heb. 10. 25. It is our duty to keep
set down what proportion of knowledge is precisely requisite in a Communicant and how far that phrase of discerning of the Lords Body is necessarily to be extended After constant Catechisms and Sermons in Parochial Churches mens ignorance is not so great in not knowing what to practice as their prophaneness in not practising what they know Where Catechisms and Sermons are not frequent where the Expedients of saving knowledge are not tendred your Charity may determine this ignorance of a pure negation not of a depraved disposition an involuntary necessitated not a voluntary affected ignorance However you deem there is a gratious high Priest after the order of Melchisedeck who can have compassion on the ignorant Heb 5. 2. It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which according to Theophylact imports commensuration compassion condescention condonation to match to melt to bend to stoop so the Syriack to pardon This compassion is not confined to the ignorant but extended to the Delinquent And on them that are out of the way 'T is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as swerve deviate from the narrow Path of integrity such as are seduced by the wiles the impostures of Satan This notion comprehends your description of the black rabble Swearers Drunkards c. especially if the transgressions be not predominant if the transgressors be not impenitent They may be titled Saints professional though not actual for their Tenets though not for their Lives as to the outward Administration of the General Covenant of Grace though not as to the inward special Participation Yet in the strictest consideration they are to be enrolled Saints till they are convicted to be miscreants Till then though they are not such really in themselves yet they are judicially in the Eye of the Law in the Censure of the Church Not only by the Rule of Charity but Equity every man is presumed supposed to be good till he be legally proved to be evil To twist together your objections of ignorance and prophaneness drunkards c. which you press as inconsistent with Saintship I confess not reconcileable with practical yet reconcileable with federal sanctity to be interested in a visible Church The Israelites were charged for ignorance worse than brutish The ox knows his owner the asse his masters crib But Israel hath not known my people hath not understood So universally signally corrupted for conversation the whole Nation is decypher'd branch'd out to be Princes of Sodom and people of Gomorrah and yet titled the Children of God in vers 2. The vineyard of the Lord of hosts in Is. 5. 7. yet the fruits were not delitious Oppression in vers 7. Covetous in vers 8. Drunkenness in vers 11. 12. Security and Impenitency in verse 12. Deliberate obstinate iniquity in vers 18 20. Though Sodom and Samaria were outvied in guilt by Israel yet were they a people relating to God by Covenant though forfeited by their defailance disobedience yet by Gods indulgence not deserted disclaimed by himself I will remember my covenant made with thee in the days of thy youth It is Hoseah's black enditement No truth no mercy no knowledge of God in the land By lying and swearing and killing and stealing and whoring blood toucheth blood and yet it is appropriated My people in the sixth and twelfth verses of that Chapter Not ironically but truly as Zanchy expounds it in regard of an external adoption of outward Symboles expresses of Religion which served as publick badges and cognizances to manifest the Jews Ecclesiastical visible priviledges not to be a people uncovenanted unchurched Suppose this Nation more depraved than Sodom and Samaria yet is it but ballanc'd with Israel and it is no greater Soloecism in Scripture Language to entitle this Nation to be Saints for its Parochial Members for the profession of true Religion than to entitle the Jews to be Gods people on the same account They are like parallel lines proportionable suitable to each other The people of Israel were sanctified by a federal relation were circumcised they owned Gods Oracles but disobeyed his Laws The scene of Circumcision being shifted to Baptism our case holds resemblance as to a visible Church as face answers face in water I shall add by way of surplusage The Apostles themselves were not absolutely acquitted from ignorance of scandal even in a remarkable conjuncture notwithstanding the celebrating of our Saviours last Supper and the approaching of the last scene of our Saviours Tragedy they were contentious and ambitious tainted with pride and variance There a rose a strife among them which should be greatest Ignorant they were of the saving mysteries of Christs Passion his Resurrection notwithstanding the predictions of the Prophets the Sermons of our Saviour yet they understood the Scepter only not the Cross of Christ the apprehension of a Temporal not a Spirituall Messiah fluttered in their brains yet were still listed reputed Disciples Apostles Nay Judas himself when he was declared pointed out a Traitor being not excommunicated was not debarred the name or the seal of a Disciple the Sacrament as it is recorded by three Evangelists A truth written radio Solari in Tertullians Phrase with a Sun-beam manifest to discerning judgement not dimmed with prejudice or cavil Since that Judas his treason being discovered but not doomed was reckoned among Christs Disciples why may not vitious persons uncensured by the Church who profess Christianity as to that profession be named Saints You pretend this is contrary to Gods Word 1 Cor. 6. 9. This Text hath been already sifted As to your present application of it I answer This debars such offenders from being Members of the Mystical Church of that part of it which is triumphant in Heaven not of the Church Militant so far as it is visible here on earth Your next Text is 1 John 1. 6. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness we lie and do not the truth This excludes practical habitual Malefactors such as walk in darkness from being comprehended in the Catholick invisible Church not in a particular visible Church The next verse points out as an evidence of this innocence Fellowship one with another an united Congregation not a disjoynted Separation Your third Citation is Matth. 3. 7 8. And when he saw many of the Pharisees come to his baptism he said to them O generation of vipers who had warned you to flee from the wrath to come Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance This by way of Analogy betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist proves that every Communicant ought to be a real penitent not that we ought not to communicate with him who is a real impenitent You seem to deal with these Texts to form and fit them to your opinion as Procustes did with his guests to proportion their dimensions to his bed some he hack'd and cut shorter others he rack'd and stretch'd out You annex a Caveat Is. 5. 20. Wo