i. e. Mr. Burroughs will by no means allow but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church This both Presbyterians and Independents then are agreed in That Edification alone is no sufficient Reason to forsake one Church for another and that a Persons own Opinion of his Case in that matter will not make that lawful to him which will be the unavoidable means of bringing in confusion to the Churches which he either leaves or joyns himself to But the Author of Separation yet no Schism thinks he hath sufficient Reason for his Opinion who doth thus argue viz. You call it a Crime because you suppose it is a transgression the Law of visible Communion with some particular Church But I say That the Laws of visible Communion with this or that particular Church are but positive and therefore subordinate to Laws more natural and necessary such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our Souls and Salvation So that if Christians do shift particular Churches for the obtaining of very apparent advantages to their Salvation above what they have had where they were I see therein no Crime at all committed I grant indeed that positive Laws must give way to natural but then there must be a plain necessity that must intervene to make them inconsistent for otherwise both remain in force as I conceive they do in the Instance here given If indeed Salvation was inconsistent with or what we run the apparent hazard of in Communion with a particular Church then there is sufficient reason for separation from it but if it be onely that I conceive the increase of Knowledge or the engaging of my Affections may be better attained by separation from than continuance in its Communion this is far from a necessity and so no sufficient Reason to break it As it is in a Family If the Master takes no care to provide for his Children and Servants who of old were esteemed the Goods of their Master but that they must starve if they continue with him or if what he provides is such as will rather poyson than nourish them or what is absolutely forbid as Swines flesh under the Law in such a case they may shift for themselves and refuse to live with him till he mends their Condition But if what he provides is lawful wholesom and sufficient though not of so good nourishment as might be wished they are to content themselves and to keep within the bounds of Duty and Observance So it is here If we were in a Church that either denied us what is necessary to Salvation or that would engage us to do what will bring it into imminent hazard we have an unquestionable Reason to forbear Communion with her But when the means of Salvation that we enjoy are sufficient to it and what we deliberate about is onely the Degree and Measure what is better and fitter we cannot quit a Church without sin and our departure is unnecessary And that will further appear if we consider 1. That no further Knowledge or Edification is necessary than what we can attain to in a lawful way and what is otherwise lawful in it self by taking an undue course for it is made unlawful As Hearing Reading and Christian Converse are very fit Means for my Improvement but if I for it do injure my Family and neglect my Calling it is so far from being my duty that it is my sin So to edifie my self and to acquire a greater measure of Knowledge and Christian Vertues is a noble and most excellent End but if I for it break off Communion with the Church whereof I am a Member I make my self a Transgressor All which if well considered the falacy of our Author's Argument will appear For suppose I reason thus The Laws of particular Families are but postive and therefore subordinate to Laws more necessary such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our Souls and therefore if I neglect the former for the good of the latter I see no Crime therein committed Would not this appear very conceited and imaginary And if it 's false here it is so in the Case that he offers The grounds of his mistake herein seem to be 1. That he was so intent upon the positive Laws of particular Churches that he had no respect to Church-communion in it self which is highly necessary by which means he did not consider that this Principle of shifting Communion for the expectation of further Improvement is what tends so to the dissolution of a Church that he that holds it is capable of continuing in no Communion whatsoever and what cannot be put in practice but confusion in and breaking up of Churches will most certainly follow This was what they of New-England had experience of and therefore provided against in their Platform of Church-Discipline cap. 3. church-Church-Members say they may not depart from the Church and so one from another as they please nor without just and weighty cause Such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body Just Reasons for a Members removal of himself are 1. If a man cannot continue without sin 2. In case of Persecution But not a word of a more profitable Ministry and greater edification Now if this be the necessary and constant Effect of this Principle it cannot be true 2. Another ground of his mistake seems to be That the notion of a particular Church led him to think that their separation into Societies distinct from our Church was no more than to go from one Parish-Church to another which is also the conceit of the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion This he insinuates pag. 66. But this is apparently false as I have shewed in part before and which will be further evident if you observe that their Agreement with us in Thirty six of our Articles makes them to be no more of us whilst they differ in the others that refer to our Constitution and which they separate from us for as they profess than that of the Independents made them one with the Presbyterians who in all matters of Faith did freely and fully consent to the Confession published by the Assembly the things of Church-Government and Discipline onely excepted as they say in the Preface to the Platform of Church-Discipline in New-England And much to the same purpose is that of the Congregational Churches met at the Savoy 1658. But yet for all this they neither of them think themselves one with the other and the Independents for their separation were notwithstanding accused of Schism by the other 2. This Course is unnecessary and so unlawful because even in the way in which a Person is whilst a Member of a true Church in the sense all along spoken of he may attain to all due Improvement The Author of Prelatique Preachers none of Christs Teachers pag. 31. to encourage People rather to sit at home than hear the Publick Ministers tells them That
from this Sermon in which Separation is unwarrantable and schismatical 1. It is not to be allowed when it is by reason of Mixt-Communion and admitting into Church-fellowship the vile with the precious This he handles at large from pag. 33. to pag. 37. and saith That it hath no Scripture-warrant And this hath been their constant Opinion So Mr. Firmin in his Separation examined pag. 40. Corrupt Members there were enough in the Jewish Church and so in the Christian Churches soon after and in the Apostles times but you have no example of separating from them So the Provincial Assembly of London in their Vindication of the Presbyterial Government pag. 134. Suppose there were some sinful mixtures at our Sacraments yet we conceive this is not a sufficient ground of a negative much less of a positive separation This they give the Reason of Because in what Church soever there is purity of Doctrine there God hath his Church though overwhelmed with scandals And therefore whosoever separates from such an Assembly separates from that place where God hath his Church which is rash and unwarrantable Mr. Vines in his Treatise of the Sacrament hath a whole Chapter viz. cap. 20. to shew the unlawfulness of it and saith pag 235. That to excommunicate our selves from Gods Ordinances if Men of wicked Life be not excommunicate for fear of pollution by them is Donatistical So Dr. Manton on Jude pag. 496. The Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of separation And Mr. Baxter doth speak fully to it in his Cure of Church-Divisions pag 81. If you mark all the Texts of the Gospel you shall find that all the separation which is commanded in such cases besides the separation from Infidels and the Idolatrous World is but one of these two forts 1. That either the Church cast out impenitent Sinners by the Power of the Keys or 2. That private Men avoid all private familiarity with them But that the private Members should separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to Prove it if you can The consideration of this made the Author of the Book called Nonconformists no Schismaticks to quit this Argument concluding pag. 16. with good reason That if one Mans sin desileth another that Communicates with him who can assure himself of any Scriptural Communion on this Side Heaven All which I have produced and could indeed tire you with Quotations of this kind on purpose to let you see how much the Author of Separation yet no Schism doth run counter to his own Party and withal how little acquaintance with this Argument will serve to shew the weakness and inconsistency of that Tract He puts the case thus pag. 56. If Ministers or many of the Members are much corrupted or the Members onely commonly so but connived at it is a sufficient ground for the sound to withdraw And for this he gives two Reasons 1. Lest under the pretence of Peace they should be guilty of the greatest Uncharitableness and that is the hardning and encouraging them in their abominable Impieties 2. Because the sound ought by the Law of God and Nature to provide for their own safety for they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such Now granting the Case so to be yet separation will not be granted lawful by themselves upon the Reasons which he there gives I shall refer him for an Answer to the first of the Letters that passed betwixt the Ministers of Old and New England published by Mr. Ash and Mr. Rathband 1643. as thought by them at that time very seasonable When those of New England had said That by joyning with an insufficient and unworthy Ministry they did countenance them in their Place and Office pag. 8. it is answered pag. 11. The Scripture teacheth evidently not onely that the People by joyning do not countenance them in their Place and Office but that they must and ought to joyn with them in the Worship of God and in separating from the Ordinance they shall sin against God From whence you may observe That the countenancing of such whom the Word of Truth doth condemn as not approved Ministers of God as it 's there said is no reason to discharge us of our Duty and if Separation be not otherwise our Duty the fear of hardning others by our Communion with them will never make it to be so Surely this might have been very well thought to be the effect of the same Practice in the Church of Corinth where there was as the Provincial Assembly of London observeth in their Vindication pag. 134. such a profane mixture at their Sacrament as we believe few if any of our Congregations can be charged withal And yet the Apostle doth not persuade the godly Party to separate much less to gather a Church out of a Church Which yet had been very necessary if this Author's Reason had been of any force And his second Reason viz. Care of our own safety will also have no place here if Mr. Jenkin's Authority will signifie any thing with him who speaking in this Sermon p. 36. of that Text 1 Cor. 5. 11. of not eating with a Brother c. shews very well that it is to be understood of Civil and not Religious eating and gives this as one Reason for it viz. That there is danger of being infected by the wicked in civil familiar and arbitrary eatings not so in joyning with them in an holy and commanded Service and Ordinance If we follow the Apostles Precept of having no familiar and ordinary converse with Fornicators Covetous Idolaters Drunkards c. we may be assured that we shall be in no danger of Infection by their Company in Religious Offices and Duties where there is little or no converse opportunity and way for it The case I acknowledge is sad when such are to be found amongst Christians and that Discipline is not exercised upon them but I ought not to leave my Place and Duty because such do joyn with me in it or to separate from the Church of God because such continue in its Communion For this is to tear the Church in pieces and the Doctrine that drives to it is very pernicious Take the Character of it from the Provincial Assembly in their Vindication pag. 124. That Doctrine that crieth up Purity to the ruine of Vnity is contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel But truly the case is not so bad with us as it is represented I know there are some that do object as J. Rogers did in 1653. The Parish-Churches are not rightly constituted for there is in them ranting revelling To whom I shall reply as Mr. Crofton did then to him in his Bethshemesh clouded pag. 103. O sharp sentence severe censure at one word pronounced on all Parishes indefinitely the Position whence it flows had need be well proved and the Inference well backed For I must needs say that what Mr. Firmin in
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
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
England declared in the Articles of Religion and herein what is purely Doctrinal we fully embrace and constantly adhere unto Again pag. 17. We know full well that we differ in nothing from the whole Form of Religion established in England but onely in some few things in outward Worship Herein too we have the concurrence of Mr. W. himself in his Separation yet no Schism p. 60. If you take it the Church of England for such Christians onely who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold the Thirty nine Articles here the Nonconformists come in for a share also who are of your Faith therein excepting those which respect Discipline and Ceremonies And pag. 62. It is evident that some sort of Errors in a Church though but tolerated may be a just ground of withdrawing though I do not charge the Church of England with any such Errors This therefore being thus acknowledged one would have thought the Argument might be fairly dismissed and that here could be no reason found for Separation And yet when we are come thus near it is like the two Mountains spoken of in Wales upon whose tops you may exchange Discourse and almost come to shaking of Hands and notwithstanding all there is little less than a days Journey betwixt you We seem to have brought the Matter to a perfect reconciliation but when we least thought of it we are at open War again For the Author last-mentioned grants as much as we can ask but immediately thrusts in a Reason or two that he thinks will maintain their Ground and vindicate their Practice notwithstanding The Doctrine he hath nothing against but yet the Preachers are Sometimes he saith they are contrary one to another some are for the Doctrine of Predestination others against it c. and how shall he then judge of their Faith and Doctrinals pag. 60. Sometimes he saith It is conceived many of them preach contrary to the Articles ibid. Sometimes again It is conceived that several of them do not honestly believe those Articles that they have professed to believe p. 62. And to make all sure because it may be objected That the People have liberty in this case of complaining he answers To what purpose when such Errors are publickly professed in printed Books and no course taken for correcting or ejecting of the Authors pag. 61. Things as impertinently as slanderously suggested For what though the Ministers differ among themselves in some Points as he doth after his Predecessors the Brownists affirm as you may see in the Nonconformists Answer to them pag. 4. is that a reason to forsake our Communion and doth he that forsakes ours for theirs find the case much amended Do not the Nonconformists as much differ from each other as any amongst us If not from whence proceed all those Disputes about Communion and Non-communion with us about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the nature of justifying Faith lawfulness and unlawfulness of prescribed Forms of Prayer of God's Prescience c. And why are Mr. How and Mr. Baxter c. so much teazed by some of their Fellows and the latter called Slanderer Dictator Self-saver and accused of Profaneness Blasphemy and what not as you may see in the Antidote to his Cure 1670 Is it not because they will not swallow down the absurdest of their Principles or do go further toward an accommodation of our unhappy Differences than they will allow But what are those Points that our Ministers thus differ among themselves or from our Church in Is it about the mode in Imputation or about the Object of Predestination c. These things the Church of England is not so minute and positive in If he will not believe me I shall turn him over to Mr. Hickman who hath in several Tracts particularly concerned himself in this Argument and may be supposed to understand it He in his Latin Sermon De Haeresium origine 1659. pag. 37. undertaking to answer Tilenus about the Doctrine of our Church concerning the Object of Predestination whether massa corrupta or no saith Apage nugas Non solet Ecclesia Anglicana in mysteriis hujusmodi explicandis vagari in eas quaestiones quae nimia subtilitate popularem captum effugiunt Is it about the special Grace of God in the conversion of a Sinner or the influence of the Holy Spirit in it Then I will dare him to produce any that are herein Nonconformists to the Doctrine of the Church of England and that teach That there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a Sinner or That the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the conversion of Men than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity c. as he slanderously doth say He may force and scrue and wrest but he cannot do it honestly and fairly But supposing there were several that did thus teach and that such Books were Licensed where this is affirmed Doth this presently make the Church Heretical Notwithstanding this I believe that the Church of England is in it self as Orthodox as theirs was in 1646. when Shlichtingius his Comment on the Hebrews or what was little better came out thus attested by Mr. J. Downame I have perused this Comment and finding it to be learned and judicious plain and very profitable I allow it to be printed and published I doubt they would have taken it very ill to have been then charged with Socinianism because that Book came out with such an Imprimatur from him that was deputed in those Times to give it And yet I never heard that Mr. Downame was corrected or ejected for so doing And may they continue Orthodox notwithstanding and we for such an escape be counted Heretical But how far a Church is concerned in such Cases I think will appear from what is said in The Divine Right of the Presbyterial Government pag. 265. The Church of Rome setting aside those particular Persons among them that maintained damnable Errors which were not of the Church but a predominant Faction in the Church continued to be a true Church of Christ until Luther's time as the unanimous consent of the Orthodox Divines confess yea as some think till the cursed Council of Trent till when the Errors among them were not the Errors of the Church but of particular Men. Now I hope they will be as favourable to us and give our Church as much allowance in this case as that of Rome and not count it the Error of the Church till by some Decree Canon or Article it is owned so to be Sir You may by this time perceive how hard these Persons are put to it when it makes them so quick to espy and busie to rake all the dirt they can together to make our Church deformed and worthy of all that defamation they have branded it with and of that distance they observe and keep from it How do they torture Phrases hale along Expressions whithout due Process to the
Gibbet and the Stake and cry out Pelagianism and Socinianism nay Mahometism Mr. Jenkin and his Brethren once said in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government pag. 140. To make ruptures in the Body of Christ and to divide Church from Church and to set up Church against Church and to gather Churches out of true Churches and because we differ in some things therefore to hold Communion in nothing this we think hath no warrant out of the Word of God and will introduce all manner of Confusion in Churches and set open a wide gap to bring in Atheism Popery Heresie and all manner of wickedness And all People would be apt to say the same and could not see into the Reason of this Separation if it came to this Whether the Righteousness of Christ be the meritorious or formal Cause of our Justification or Whether Moral Vertue and Grace differ in their nature or onely in their cause It must be somewhat gross and tangible that they can judge of and therefore charge them home That they hold no necessity of the Righteousness of Christ and That Moral Vertue as it was in the Heathens or in Christians without any Divine Grace will save and you do the work This is a Lord have Mercy wrote upon their Church-doors and People will be taught by this to avoid them as they would the Plague and to be as wary of trusting their Souls with them as their Bodies with Tygers Bears and Wolves It is truly and well observed by Mr. Hickman in his Sermon De Haeresium origine pag. 12. Ipsa salus non servet eas oves quae aeque metuunt a pastoribus lupis Once render their Pastors formidable to them and we may know how the day will go Beat up these Kettle-Drums and you may easily gather and securely Hive the Bees I shall conclude this with what Mr. Baxter saith in his Cure of Church-Divisions pag. 393 394. As I have known many unlearned Sots that had no other Artifice to keep up the reputation of their Learning than in all Companies to cry down such and such who were wiser than themselves for no Scholars So many that are or should be conscious of the dulness and ignorance of their fumbling and unfurnish'd Brains have no way to keep up the reputation of their Wisdom with their simple Followers but to tell them O such an one hath dangerous Errors and such a Book is a dangerous Book and they hold this and they hold that and so to make odious the Opinions and Practices of others And if Ignorance get possession of the ancient and gray-headed it triumpheth there and saith Give me a Man that I may dispute with him or rather Away with this Heretick he is not fit to be disputed with How far Mr. Jenkin is concerned in this Character I leave to his consideration but if you have a mind to inquire into it you may repair to his Exodus where he comes like another Samson shaking his Locks and rushing forth with his mouth full of Menaces against the uncircumcised Philistims those audacious Hereticks that lie sculking in the corners of the Church of England but poor man meets with the misfortune of that Champion to be led away in triumph and in stead of answering others is not able to defend himself 3. Separation is not to be allowed for the manner of Church-constitution So saith Mr. J. here pag. 37. Much more clear if clearer can be is the Schismaticalness of those who separate from and renounce all Communion with those Churches which are not of their own manner of Constitution For which he gives three Reasons pag. 38. And herein he agrees with Mr. Brinsley in his Arraignment pag. 32. and in his Church-Remedy pag. 51. Now if this Argument held for Presbytery against Independency and that the separation of the latter was for that reason Schismatical I see not why it should not be of as equal force to condemn the former who yet do presume to offer it on their own behalf against us and think that they have said enough when they have been able to pick some quarrel with the present Constitution 4. Separation is not to be allowed when it is upon those terms which will make us refuse some Churches upon which are seen the Scripture-characters of true Churches This Mr. J. gives as a Reason to confirm the former pag. 38. Now what those Characters are he tells us a little before in the same page viz. In Scripture Churches are commended according as their fundamental Faith was sound and their Lives holy Nay he seems to resolve it wholly into the former pag. 34. where he saith Hath not God his Church even where corruption of Manners hath crept into a Church if purity of Doctrine be maintained Now how far our Church hath upon it these Characters I appeal to what is abovesaid to shew and for which I question not but it may contend with any Church in the World 5. It is not to be allowed because other Churches are by them accounted better So pag. 39. Men separate to those Churches which they account better because they never found those where they were before to them good Which he there condemns and as a remedy against it advises to labour for experimental benefit by the Ordinances The reason of this Separation saith Mr. Vines on the Sacrament p. 235. seems plausible to easie capacities such as the Apostle calls Rom. 16. 18. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple but if it be urged by the Standard of Scripture it will be found too light But now the case is altered and it is become a considerable Argument A more profitable Ministry a purer Worship a stricter Discipline an holier Society and Fellowship are some of the massie Pillars upon which the weight of this new Separation is laid Hither the Author of Separation yet no Schism doth with confidence betake himself pag. 65 66 67. The Reason supposeth that which is not to be supposed i. e. That to withdraw from a Church for the benefit of a more profitable Ministry is a Crime Now here I shall consider whether this Reason will hold and serve to justifie a Separation from a Church and if it were granted whether yet it is a Reason amongst us Whether it is so in it self let Mr. Brinsley speak in his Arraignment pag. 47. where the Case is put thus May not People make choice of what Ministers they please putting themselves under such a Ministry as by which they may edifie most Answ Suppose it That a People have such a Power and Right to chuse their own Ministers yet having once chosen them and God by giving a Blessing to their Ministry having ratified and confirmed that Choice evidencing that they are the Ministers of God to them whether they may now upon pretext of greater Edification take a liberty to themselves to chuse new ones as oft as they please this the moderate Author of the late Irenicon
they might otherwise help themselves and that they had Means sufficient without it as the Scriptures mutual Edification and Conference Prayer and Meditation c. and that though never so few or weak Christ was amongst them And if this would be sufficient when wholly destitute of a Ministry I am apt to think it would do as well with one though not altogether so well qualified as might be desired I shall conclude this with what the same Author saith pag. 28. When God hath vouchsafed a sufficiency of Means and those unquestionably lawful though not of so rank flesh or so highly promising as some others for the attaining of any good and desirable End a declining and forsaking of those Means whether out of a diffidence of the sufficiency of them for the End desired or upon any other reason whatsoever to espouse others pretending to more strength and efficacy hath been still displeasing unto God and of sad consequence to those that have been no better advised than to make trial of them But is it really thus that there is any such difference betwixt the Abilities of their and our Teachers and that the obtaining apparent Advantages to their Salvation in that respect above what they could have had with us is what they separate for So they would have it thought as you may see in the Call to Archippus printed 1664. pag. 20 21. There is indeed a Ministry and Preaching such as it is but whether snch as is likely to answer the Ends of it judge ye Are those like to convert Souls that have neither will nor skill to deal with them about their Conversion So again When there is no better help than an idle ignorant loose-living Ministry under which God knows we speak it with grief of heart too many not to say the most of those that are of late come in may be reckoned or than the cold and heartless way that is generally in use the Coal of Religion doth ever go out An high and daring Charge which he will be concerned to make good or to suffer under the imputation of a foul Defamer Have they neither will nor skill to convert Souls From whence then proceed those most excellent and laborious Sermons that the Wisest of the Nation do so extol the present Generation for Whence was it that when we were bewildred with Phrases and Religion made hard and unintelligible and Cases intricate and perplexed that the things of it were made easie and to lie near to Mens Understandings and that the part of Casuistical Divinity is not near so cumbersom as it was in the days of some Men Are they idle and ignorant From whence then is it that their Adversaries of all sorts are so well opposed not to say confuted that they are made to quit their ground and to betake themselves to new Principles in their own defence to fall from the Infallibility of the Person to that of Tradition as they do abroad from old Nonconformity to Brownism and from Presbyterianism to Independency as some do at home In what Age and Church have the great Truths and Principles of our Religion been more effectually considered more diligently searched into more clearly stated and explained or more successfully defended than in ours and which I may challenge the whole Party of the Separation to shew any thing equal to From whence comes all this to pass if our Church did so abound with uncatechised Vpstarts poor Shrubs and empty and unaccomplished Predicants as Mr. Jenkin with an holy indignation doth in his Exodus p. 55. complain Surely if these Men had but duly weighed things and had been conversant in the Writings of our Church or looked amongst themselves they would not have dared thus to reproch the most Learned and Industrious Ministry that perhaps England ever yet had Let me recommend to such what Mr. Baxter saith in the like case in his Explication of Passages in the Profession of the Worcestershire Association printed 1653. pag. 110. I desire those Brethren that object this but to search their hearts and ways and remember what may be said against themselves and cast the beam first out of their own eye at least to censure as humble men that are sensible of their own miscarriages and imperfections And if they did according to this advice I am perswaded that they would think there were as good and useful Men in the World as themselves Do we not find some of themselves forced to acknowledge as much Consult Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 86. I really fear lest meer Nonconformity hath brought some into reputation as consciencious who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being judicious more than their silence lost it And a little after speaking of their own Ministers he saith Verily the injudiciousness of too many among you is for a lamentation And pag. 88. he adds Through Gods mercy some Conformists preach better than many of you can do Truly when I consider what a Stock of worthy and accomplished Persons in that Quality whether for Sobriety and Learning our Church is at present furnished with though it must be confessed there are that are defective in both as when were they not I look upon Men of this quarrelsom temper to be such as are described in Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 91. That having set themselves in a dividing way secretly do rejoyce at the disparagement of Conformists and draw as many from them as they can and that therefore deserve the Character he there gives That they are but destroyers of the Church of God Such that to strengthen themselves and carry on their own Interest care not what they do or say but how worthily let the Author of the Antidote to Mr. Baxter's Cure judge who saith pag. 20. That to reproch a whole Party for the miscarriages of some few without taking notice how many faults are in those whom they would defend is the usual artifice of such that think themselves concerned upon any wretched terms whatsoever to maintain an ill Cause and have prostituted their Consciences to defend an Argnment I will leave such to consider what Mr. Watson saith in his Sermon of God's Anatomy upon the Heart pag. 167. which is so severe that I care not to transcribe But to proceed As little reason is there to separate from a Church for remisness of Discipline This the Author of Separation yet no Schism saith that he seeth no sin in pag. 67. for the Reason given before and to which my abovesaid Answer and what I have also said pag. 66. will be sufficient I shall onely add That care is taken by our Church and Constitution as I have already shewed for the due Administration of Discipline And if it be objected That it fails in the exercise and application of it I will answer with Mr. Jenkin here pag. 33. Let them consider whether the want of purging and reforming of Abuses proceed not rather from some unhappy and political restrictions in the exercise
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
Excommunication as you may see in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland printed 1641. pag. 12. And as they there declared the Office of a Bishop to be unlawful in it self pag. 19. so I find that the General Assembly did require that besides this Subscription to the Book of Discipline some Persons I suppose suspected of affection that way should subscribe a particular Declaration of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy as was the Case of Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Hay in the Principal Acts of the General Assembly 1644. And thus it was amongst us when all Persons to be Ordained were to bring a Testimonial of their having taken the Covenant as you may find it in the Form of Church-Government pag. 20. and in all Places required to take it and to read the Directory the next Lords-day after the receipt of it by an Ordinance Aug. 23. 1645. So that taking Security by Profession and Subscription that the Order of the Church shall be observed by Persons intrusted in the Ministrations of it and Suspension in case of refusal is no Persecution But supposing that so it was yet it is not intolerable I do grant that it must needs be a great trouble to a good Man that he cannot do God and the Church that Service which he hath devoted himself unto by reason of some Limitations put upon him but yet I think that this is not sufficient to carry him off from Communion with a Church and to set up another because he is denied this Liberty for he is still capable of being a private Member of it and therefore he ought to continue in the latter Capacity when suspended from the former So saith Mr. Crofton in his Reformation not Separation Epist to the Reader I cannot be perswaded that I am disbanded from Christs Army so soon as I am superseded to my Conduct I must march under his Banner when I may not be permitted to march at the Head of a Company So again pag. 98. I conceive Administration of God's Worship is much different from Attendance on God's Worship and I stand bound to the last when I am justly or unjustly barred from the first And this was the Opinion of the old Nonconformists But now we find it otherwise and sometimes these plead the obligation of their Ordination sometimes the Relation which they have to a peculiar People and sometimes the necessity of multitudes of Souls The first we find insisted upon by the Author of Separation yet no Schism Epist to the Reader If it be asked May not Supreme Magistrates within their Dominion suspend some Ministers from the Exercise of their Office when they conceive it is for the peace of the rest It will be answered That the Lord of Lords who giveth the Office and the Commission hath certainly with the Office designed them to the Exercise thereof and hath therein placed not onely the Office but the Exercise thereof above the restraint of any Powers whatsoever so long as the Exercise thereof continues to be regulated by the Laws of Christ And in this case nothing is more ordinarily produced than that of the Apostle Wo is me c. But is not this to advance every one beyond the cognisance of Superiors and to fall in with the Church of Rome whilst they decry it If indeed theirs was the Apostle's case the Apostle's resolution of obeying God rather than Man would become them But how little it is so let the old Nonconformists shew in their Confutation of the Brownists pag. 41. How unskilfully that speech of the Apostles is alledged will appear to them that will consider these three differences between their Case and ours 1. They that inhibited the Apostles were professed Enemies to the Gospel 2. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel 3. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from men nor by the hands of men but immediately from God himself and therefore might not be restrained or deposed by men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet we are called and ordained by the ministry of men and may therefore by men be deposed and restrained from the exercise of it I shall conclude this with what Mr. Crofton saith in his Reformation not Separation pag. 70. If the Being of Christianity depended upon my Personal Ministry as the being or appearing a Christian doth on my Communion with the Church visible the Inference might be of some force But till that be proved I think it is of little But is this really the case Then what becomes of those that among themselves have taken up wholly with other Professions and yet were never charged by their Brethren for so doing as Mr. Baxter is by the Author of the Antidote pag. 15. with having left the Lord's Work Now I question not but the same Reason that did induce some to take up with other Employments to the neglect of this and so satisfie the rest that they acquiesce in it will also be sufficient to shew That meer Ordination cannot bind to the Exercise of that Office when the Magistrate and Church forbids and consequently that a Restraint is no intolerable Persecution But the relation that they have to a peculiar People makes this Inhibition intolerable This is indeed pleaded in Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 11. 45. I undertake to prove that Pastors and People are the constitutive Essentials of a true Church that Dr. Seaman Mr. Calamy Dr. Manton c. with the People subject to them as Pastors were true Churches Prove you if you can that on August 24. 1662. they were degraded or these true Churches dissolved But before he puts others to prove the contrary he ought to have made good his own Proposition by proving That the Relation betwixt particular Pastors and People is not to be dissolved For what though Pastors and People are the Constitutive Essentials of a true Church what though Dr. Seaman Mr. Calamy c. and the People with them were true Churches Can neither Dr. Seaman c. remove or be removed from a People but all this mischief follows that Ministers are presently degraded and Churches dissolved Could not Mr. Calamy remove from St. Edmondsbury to Rochford and from Rochford to Aldermanbury as he himself doth declare in his Apologie Could not Mr. Jenkin remove from Black-Fryers to Christ-church without all this disorder What wreck was here made in Churches if this Relation was indissoluble But if a Pastor may thus remove himself from one Church upon invitation to another as it seems he may it shews that the Relation is not so strict as is pretended and that consequently Superiors in Church and State may so far dissolve that Relation as well as the Pastor himself But however what relief will this afford to those that leave those Places where they had any pretence of such
a Relation and busie themselves where they had none What relief will this be to those that contract a new Relation and that do gather Churches out of Churches Surely Dr. Seaman's Dr. Jacomb's and Mr. Jenkin's Flocks now are taken from other Places than Alhallows Breadstreet Martins Ludgate c. Lastly The necessity of the People is what doth make their Preaching necessary as they would have it understood So Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 59. and so their Suspension intolerable Persecution But supposing this as doubtless there is and ever was Work sufficient for a greater number of skilful and faithful Labourers yet is there no way to be useful but by facing a numerous Congregation and preaching at such Times and in such Places as do declare a defiance to the Church which they thereby make a manifest rupture in and open separation from Is there no good to be done by preaching to Five besides a Mans own Family and by Personal Conference and Instruction How came then our Saviour and his Apostles oftentimes to betake themselves to this way as an Author of their own in his Archippus doth inform us pag. 21 But if it be of great advantage and that it is no little part of a Ministers Duty personally to Instruct and Preach from House to House as that Author saith how comes it to be so sadly neglected by them as he there complains and how comes the Apostles Wo to be pleaded for the one and not to bind the other Hear what the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion faith pag. 93. Is it not too much Hypocrisie to cry out against them that forbid us Preaching and in the mean time to neglect that which none forbids us viz. Christian Conference Certainly as he saith pag. 94. Sincerity inclineth men to that way of Duty that hath least Ostentation But if the state of the People be indeed the reason why do we not find them where there is most need of their Assistance Are we not told in Sacrilegious Desertion pag. 10. That the Nonconformists have found that some Places of many Years past have had no Ministers at all Are there no Places in England and Wales that do much more abound in Ignorance than London and the adjacent Parts and are the Nonconformists there to be met with No that Work is left to one good Soul that having not a Liberty by the Law to exercise his Office in the more Publick way doth with unwearied diligence pursue the Ends of it in travelling over steep Mountains and craggy Rocks and conversing with the rude and untaught Natives whilst others do more consult their Ease and Profit You see then upon the whole that their Suspension is not intolerable Persecution or what will be sufficient to justifie their Separation but that still notwithstanding their Pleas they are upon the same terms with the People and what will not justifie the Separation of the People will not justifie that of the Minister and what is sufficient to retain the People in Communion is sufficient to retain the Minister And so we are left to consider the State of the People and whether there be on their part intolerable Persecution Not to dispute whether what is suffered be Persecution or not I shall onely consider whether it be what is sufficient to warrant their Separation And that will appear if we observe That their Suffering must be either because they do not at all Communicate with the Church or that there are some particular things onely which they do not Communicate with us in If it be for the former then they did separate before their suffering and consequently their Suffering can be no reason for their Separation If it be onely as to particular things then I say it will be hard to shew that any Person doth suffer intolerably upon that score the Church proceeding in so great tenderness where Persons have shewed their readiness to hold Communion with her in what they can and have so far given satisfaction of their Piety Peaceableness and Compliance that in the Cases where the Laws have been thought severe they have rarely been executed upon such in their severity Which I conceive is a sufficient Reply to those that cry out Persecution and intolerable because of the great Penalties that Offenders in such kind are liable unto For the meer supposal and expectation of severity is no good Reason for Separation as long as it is not nor is likely to be actually inflicted For as Mr. Bradshaw the Nonconformist in his Vnreasonableness of Separation printed 1640. pag. 107. doth say Though Humane Laws under never so great Punishments should bind us to never so great Corruptions in Gods Service yet so long as we do not actually communicate in those Corruptions our Communicating is never the worse for the said Laws So I say Though Laws threaten never so great Punishments yet so long as we do not actually suffer them our Condition is not the worse for these Laws And this was thought a good Argument by Mr. Baily in his Historical Vindication of the Church of Scotland 1646. Pag. 20. who when charged That the King and his Family are subject to the Classical Assemby answers That any Presbyterian did ever so much as begin a Process with any Prince when they had the greatest Provocations thereto it cannot be shewed to this day The Church of Scotland notwithstanding all the cross Actions of King James or King Charles yet never did so much as bethink themselves of drawing against them the Sword of Church-Censures Where he denies not the Charge of their Churches claiming such a Power but thinks it enough to reply That she had never so used it So then you see that it is not the Power that our Superiors have nor the Penalties that a Law threatens that will serve in this case as long as the Use of that Power and Execution of those Laws is suspended and a Person ought not any more to quit the Church than he will his Country as long as he may be suffered to abide in it And that he may do with us that will hold Communion with our Church in what he can and doth behave himself with modesty in those things which for the present he cannot Communicate in 4. Vnjust Excommunication is another Reason given to make Separation warrantable But that being a spiritual Persecution as Camero calls it doth not really differ from the former and therefore will receive the same Answer 5. That which will warrant a Separation from a Church is a necessary Communion with it in its Sins Towards the resolution of which I shall observe 1. That bare Communion with a Church doth not necessarily make a Person to communicate with the Sins of it This is granted by all that say We must not separate from a Church because of the ungodly that are in its Communion or because of some mixtures that are in its Worship And if we must not separate from them it is certain we
and his Followers first stumbled pag. 37 38 39. Mr. Jenkin 2. Let them consider whether the want of reforming abuses proceed not from some unhappy obstructions in the exercise of Discipline rather than from the allowance of the Church Mr. Brinsley What though there are some failings in the execution through some unhappy obstructions in the exercise of Discipline yet cannot the Church stand charged with them pag. 40. Mr. Jenkin 3. Let them consider whether when they separate from Sinful mixtures the Church be not at that very time purging out those Sinful mixtures pag. 33. Mr. Brinsley Consider the manner in separating at such a time in a time of Reformation What separate from a reforming Church pag. 51 52. Mr. Jenkin Hath not God his Churâ—h even wâ—â—re corruption of Manners hath crâ—pt into a Church iâ— purity of Doctrine be maintained And is sepâ—ration from that Church lawful from which God doth not separate pag. 34. Mr. Brinsley Suppose there may be some nay many just Scandals amongst us by reason of corruption of manners yet is not this a sufficient ground of separation from a Church wherein there is purity of Doctrine pag. 50. Mr. Brinsley How dare any forsake that Church which God hath not forsaken p. 59. Mr. Jenkin Let them consider whether God hath made private Christians Stewards in his House to determine whether those with whom they communicate are fit Members of the Church or not or rather whether it be not their duty when they discover Tares in the Church in stead of separating from it to labour that they may be found good Corn that so when God shall come to gather his Corn in to his Garner they may not be thrown out Church-Officers are Ministerially betrusted with the ordering of the Church and for the opening and shutting of the Doors of the Churches Communion by the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline and herein if they shall be either hindred or negligent private Christians shall not be intangled in the guilt of their Sin p. 34 35. Mr. Brinsley God hath not made all private Christians Stewards nor yet Surveyors in his House so as that every one should take an exact notice of the conditions of all those whom they hold Communion with who are fit to be members of the Church and who not It is Cyprian's counsel What though there be some Tares discovered in the Church yet let us for our parts labour that we may be found good Corn that so when God shall come to gather his Crop into his Garner we may not be cast out Ministerially the Church-Officers whom Christ hath betrusted with the ordering of the Church them he hath made the Porters in his House for the opening and shutting the doors of the Churches Communion by the keys of Doctrine and Discipline Now in this case if either their hands be tied by any humane restrictions or if through negligence they let loose the Rains how private Christians should be entangled in the guilt of that sin it cannot be conceived pag. 414. Mr. Jenkin The Command not to eat with a Brother c. 1 Cor. 5. 11. concerns not Religious but Civil Communion by a voluntary familiar intimate Conversation either in being invited or inviting pag. 35. Mr. Brinsley That which Paul prohibits there is not properly a Religious but a Civil Communion not to mingle themselves with such scandalous Livers by a voluntary familiar and intimate Conversation in an ordinary way repairing to their Tables or inviting them to yours Mr. Jenkin Now though such Civil eating was to be forborn yet it follows not at all much less much more that Religious eating is forbidden Because Civil eating is arbitrary and unnecessary not so Religious which is enjoyned and a commanded Duty pag. 36. Mr. Brinsley If we may not have Civil much less Religious Communion Ans Not so neither inasmuch as the one is arbitrary and voluntary the other a necessary Communion pag. 45. Mr. Jenkin It should be our care to prevent Separation To this end 1. Labour to be progressive in the work of Mortification pag. 38. Mr. Brinsley How shall this Vnity be attained 1. To this end labour after new hearts Mr. Jenkin 2. Admire no Mans Person This caused the Corinthian Schism Take heed of Man-worship Mr. Brinsley How may Schism be prevented 6. Take heed of having the Persons of Men in admiration This occasioned all those Divisions in the Church of Corinth Take we heed how we look too much at Men. p. 59. Mr. Jenkin 3. Labour for Experimental benefit by the Ordinances Find the setting up of Christ in your hearts by the Ministry and then you will not dare to account it Antichristian If with Jacob we could say of our Bethels God is here we would set up Pillars Mr. Brinsley 4. Labour to see and acknowledge God in our Congregations Now if he be here how dare any withdraw When Jacob apprehended God present with him at Bethel Surely the Lord is in this place he sets up his Pillar there Have we met with him why do we not set up our Pillar here pag. 58. Mr. Jenkin 4. Neither give nor receive Scandals Give them not to occasion others to separate nor receive them to occasion thy own Separation Construe doubtful matters charitably Look not upon Blemishes with Multiplying-glasses or old Mens Spectacles Hide them though not imitate them Sport not your selves with others nakedness Mr. Brinsley 3. Take heed of Scandals whether of giving or receiving Of giving to drive off others of receiving to set off our selves Doubtful matters still construe them on the better part So doth Charity not looking upon Blemishes with Multiplying or Magnifying-glasses So far as may be without sin hide them Cursed Cham espies the nakedness of his Father and makes sport with it pag. 56. Mr. Jenkin 5. Be not much taken with Novelties New-Lights have set this Church on fire For the most part they are taken out of the Dark-Lanthorns of old Hereticks They are false and Fools-fires to lead Men into the Precipice of Separation Love Truth in an old dress let not Antiquity be a prejudice against nor Novelty an inducement to the entertainment of Truth Mr. Brinsley 2. Be not over-affected with Novelties As for those New-Lights which have set this Kingdom on fire at this day for the most part they are no other than what have been taken out of the Dark-Lanthorns of former Hereticks no other but ignes fatui false fires useful onely to mislead Tr th is lovely and ought to be embraced in whatever dress she cometh whether new or old As not Antiquity so neither should Novelty be any prejudice to Verity Mr. Jenkin 6. Give not way to lesser differences A little division will soon rise up to a greater Small Wedges make way for bigger Our hearts are like to Tinder a little spark will enflame them Be jealous of your hearts Paul and Barnabas separated about a small matter the taking of an Associate pag. 40 c. Mr. Brinsley 1. Take heed of lesser divisions Small Wedges make way for great ones Small differences sometimes rise to Divisions pag. 57. Mr. Brinsley 4. Bâ— jealous over our own heâ—rts they being like unto Tinder ready to take fire by the least spark It was no great matter that Paul and Barnabas differed vpon onely about the taking of an Associate pag. 71 c. Now Sir by this you may perceive how some Men do make their Books and Sermons and by what ways a Man may rise to the reputation of being a considerable Author he may cull and pick pilfer and steal and become Learned to a miracle an excellent Preacher and write even to a Folio and if he had but the Art of keeping men from poring into neglected Authors and prying into Books that are cast into corners might pass as such But as long as what is forgotten in one Age is revived in another and as long as it is become a Trade to collect Pamphlets I would advise your Friend to be more wary for the future and keep from writing a Folio and a Comment again And now Sir it is high time for me to conclude to whom it is no pleasure to deal in such a way and to converse with those kind of Books that you see my Design hath put me upon It is Charity to you and the World that hath led me along and I hope I have so managed it as shall be to the offence of none but those that are Enemies to Truth I am sure I have so much avoided all that might exasperate that I have for that reason cast aside Leaves of what some others might be tempted to have taken in If Mr. Jenkin hath been hardly dealt with he must thank himself who 〈◊〉 without provocation defamed others could not be suffered to run away with that out-cry which he hath made without a just Rebuke I am SIR Your Servant S. R. FINIS ADVERTISEMENT The RIGHT of TYTHES Asserted and Proved from Divine Institution Primitive Practice Voluntary Donations and Positive Laws With a Just Vindication of that Sacred Maintenance from the Cavils of Thomas Elwood in his Pretended Answer to the Friendly Conference Printed for E. Croft at the Seven Stars in Little Lumbard-street