Strangers that checked with the Principles of Nature and of Grace But his distemper and his incest were monstrous blemishes as if he would transfer Sodom to Zoar a reiterated distemper and incest wherein his drunkenness did not abate but aggravate the guilt and horror of his wantonness the cause being directly voluntary though not the effect In this addition this cumulation of wickedness the offence was the more heinous because Gods deliverance was exceeding gracious The meditation of the burning of Sodom should have kindled his zeal not his lust should have procured his Holiness not his dissoluteness yet notwithstanding these Crimes and Prodigies St Peter recites him with no branded Epithet 'T is just Lot and vexed his righteous soul not his incestuous From these Instances I observe that God judgeth not as man not according to the outward integrity but the inward sincerity A manifest offender may be a secret penitentiary I press this only to moderate your rigor to allay your acrimony in censuring not to animate the security of others in sinning I wish I could write and speak like Pericles Thunder and Lightning to terrifie to blast their prophaneness But you prove your black doom out of 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate persons nor abusers of themselves with mankind Nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God Parishes I hope are not Idolaters c. Suppose your application to some parochial Members The Apostle threatned not so much actual as habitual customary sinners as in St. Johns determination He that committeth sin is of the Devil 'T is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that drives wickedness as a trade contrives it as a design pursues it as a delight However you understand your quotation whether of such as are actually or habitually vitious the menace is not fix'd on the Delinquent unless impenitent Our Parochial Churches cannot be pronounced by you to have split on this Rock of impenitency The LETTER Thus far concerning that first institution and so this practice was followed in all the Churches that were constituted none admitted Members but visibles I do not mean real Saints which is only known to God and herein the Apostles themselves who had a far greater spirit of discerning than we have were deceived but as far as we can judge by a well guided not blinded charity The ANSWER If your Rule for admission be rigorously pressed how can men of different judgements and repugnant spirits be admitted into separated Churches Are not Contentions Divisions carnal brands Whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions are you not carnal The visibility of Church Members and Saints is no more compatible with the profession of gross Errours and Heresies in Doctrine than the manifestation of foul vices of enormities in practice And yet I presume you will not unchurch at once all the Anabaptists and other erroneous factious assemblies nor among your selves exclude all such who have been admitted notwithstanding some spiritual sins perhaps not undiscerned which if granted are pollutions of visible sanctity no less than justly blamed Carnalities As for the Apostolical practice objected as a pattern not copied out by the Church of England in admission of Members I pray distinguish the times of the infancy of a Church and the proficiency the growth of it A proficiency of age was required in the infancy of the Church an infancy of age allowed to be admitted in the proficiency of the Church by Baptism For I understand no other Church admission or imitation but that Were persons in some measure ripen'd for years and intellectuals only to be admitted Members of the Church of England as in the Apostles time the dispute of a visible qualification were no impertinency I pray add to this consideration the Constitution of the Church of England in point of Confirmation in imitation of the Primitive Purity of Christianity without this debarring any reception to the Eucharist Which to a calm Opponent will vindicate her admitting of Members and embracing them But to return more closely to your own Track The first Constitution you insist on doth not prop your separation no nor yet the following practices you alledge but instance in no particulars Fallacies being fairly shrowded in Generalities What Visibility of Sanctity was in Simon Magus Acts 8. 13. He believed and was baptized that is he professed pretended that he believed There was no other visible Saintship conspicuous in Philip the Eunuch before his admission to the Church but a naked profession I believe that Jesus Christ is that Son of God The Jaylor and his Family were constituted Members of the Church baptized upon no other sanctified account than their attention to the Gospel preached and a single exercise of compassion Washing the stripes of Paul and Silas Those additional Testimonies of rejoycing and believing recorded in the 40 th verse were improvements perfections after their admission not endowments qualifications before it It is indeed expressed of Cornelius and his Domesticks that they were inspired before they were baptized The holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word Acts 10. 44. Besides the extraordinary Season well suiting with an extraordinary inspiration as for the appearing of this inspiring speaking with tongues it was gratia gratis data not gratum faciens as the School-men distinguish a Grace a Gift for the edification of others not for the Salvation of themselves As touching real Saints you acknowledge that the Apostles who had a far greater spirit of discerning than your selves were deceived They had a more discerning but under favour a less condemning Spirit Yours is the Spirit of Eliah not of Paul of Moses not of Christ It savours of Mount Sina not Sion The Apostles were deceived in misapprehending evil men to be good but you in misapprehending good men to be evil They took Wolves for Sheep because in Sheeps cloathing because doctrinally Christians But you take Sheep for Wolves because stragling because practically Pagan Nay they are scarce allowed to be Sheep when themselves stray not out of the Fold because mingled with Wolves This is the less innocent misconstruction But you alledge you are directed by a well guided not blinded Charity That Charity that hath the Divine conduct is not like Lamia in Plutarch putting off the spectacles at home and putting them on abroad but is dim without and quick sighted within Vaunts not it self insults not 1 Cor. 13. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh not evil or imputeth not evil to any as Valla and Eras. interpret it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 13. 5. Charity shall cover a multitude of faults 1 Pet. 4. 8. nay an universality many for all as all for many being reciprocal Phrases in the Scripture idiome It hath a present efficacy doth cover
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
those Christian Brethren you account unholy in those Ordinances you acknowledge holy discovers no stamp of the Sacred Spirit no warrant out of those Prophets you cite and therefore cannot pass for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Ignatius words for Gods current uncontrolled Coin having not the true image superscription of the Sanctuary Your two next Quotations Matth. 7. 6. Matth. 18. are repeated and reinforced within a few lines where they shall be discussed The 5 th Quotation is Acts 19. 9. But when divers were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way before the multitude he departed from them and separated the disciples disputing daily in the School of one Tyrannus After three Months ineffectual trial not a private ordinary person but an Apostle who had an immediate vocation and commission an infallible inspiration an universal jurisdiction quitted obdurate obstinate Jews who undermined the foundation who blasted the superstruction of Christian Religion who were branded for notorious scandalous blasphemy infidelity impenitency In this exigency he withdrew the Disciples from a Synagogue to the School of Tyrannus a sort of Seminary of Piety and Literature according to Maimonides A private collegiate Academy for the Prophets and the Prophets Sons what will you hence infer Therefore you ought to separate from profest Christian Believers for their practical defailances The proof fits the conclusion as well as Goliahs Armour did Davids body or Elisha's demensions stretch'd upon the the Child The next Citation is Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues I shall not examine the literal restriction as a prediction of Alaricus Siege wherein the Emperor Honorius with others escaped from Rome to Ravenna Take this Testimony in the most advantageous Latitude yet there is to be distinguish'd a Negative Separation of not approving and a positive of deserting There may be an egress out of Babylon not by the paces of the body but the affections of the souls It is emphatically expressed that ye be not partakers of her sins of her sins not of her virtues of her sinners not with her sinners especially in those exercises wherein they are not sinners I need not perplex my self to enervate the force of your Argument This will not prop your separation till you prove the Church of England to be Babylon at least in a figurative acception to be ranked parallel'd with it for infidelity for idolatry Till then your supposition is an imputation It is Aristotles Maxime One absurdity being granted a thousand may be inferred Take heed lest you desert Bethel for Babel Jerusalem for Samaria lest like Ixion you embrace a Cloud for Juno lest you exchange a beautified paradise for a Tohu bohu a disordered Chaos an uniform exquisite Garden for an unnurtured confused Wilderness lest your Flowers be not Roses but Nettles your Plants not Vines but Briars The last Citation is of the same grain 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you This as the former Testimony is a Transcript of Isaiah 52. 11. Depart depart ye go out from them and touch no unclean thing go out of the midst of her be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. This charge at the first blush is confined to the Priests and Levites The Jewish Rabbines expound it as a Precept not to wave the opportunity of Cyrus consent for the Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem The Fathers of the Church enlarge this Precept to a Prophesie a mixture of both for the Christians retiring from Jerusalem to Pella before the destruction of it which is testified by Eusebius to have been accomplish'd The further application of it extends not to your separation Take the English Marginal Annotations He warns the faithful not to pollute themselves with the superstitions of the Babylonians Junius and Tremelius interpret the departure repentance the separation sanctification What our English Translation renders Be ye clean The Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ye separated Estius observes the separation prescribed to be for opinion and affection The Geneva Divines run the same descant that this separation ought to be purifying sanctifying The Apostle doth no otherwise press it to the Corinthians for a mental not a local discession spiritual as Aquinas distinguisheth not corporal Not to touch an unclean thing is not like the Jews shy distance from the Gentiles the Samaritans who upon a sudden approach startled and admonish'd touch me not but not to touch is to disgust to reprehend not to gloze not to palliate offences I pray observe the object of the separation expressed by the Apostle in that sixth Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians cited by you It is the Infidel in verse 15 Darkness in verse 14. for the spirits of darkness idols in verse 16. for idolaters according to Theophylacts Rule of Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things for persons Because the Christian Corinthians were required to separate from the damned Fiends from branded Idolaters Pagan Infidels in their unrighteous idolatrous Sacrifices and Feasts Will you hence induce a justification of your separation from Professors in Christian Sacramental Actions It is a very lame consequence Lastly it is observable what kind of mixture is taxed prohibited in the Apostles perswasive invective in the sixth Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians It is a yoking which imports binding and linking jugum à jungendo an unequal yoking of Piety with Infidelity of Christianity with Paganism like that of the Tuscan Tyrant of the living with the dead It is not only expressed a participation or Fellowship not only a Communion or rather Communication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in verse 14. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not convention according to the vulgar Latin but consent not an Assembly but an Harmony in verse 15. like several Musical Instruments tuned to an exact melody saith Aretius nay entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not barely an agreement not meerly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an assimilation a resemblance as the old Scholiast illustrates it but it denotes an entire confederacy in infidelity This variety of Eloquence-is the Apostles pregnant Rhetorick to present an absolute correspendence heightned to complacence of Society This we allow not with profest Believers whose lives are notoriously vitious scandalous But this Apostolical severity reflects upon Pagan not Christian Professors I have sifted this Testimony the rather because as it hath been managed it hath been a specious snare to men of honest upright hearts though not of discerning piercing intellectuals The LETTER Who those are and what the things are we must separate from I speak here of separation from men professing not heathens The persons are Brethren the things are Offences scandals The unclean were to be separated of old
may be byast with a further scope more peculiarly reflecting upon Timothy that he should turn away from such offenders of steeled faces that being habitually depraved obstinately hardned they should not ineffectually be exhorted argued with The patient may be quitted when the cure is despaired Junius and Tremelius thus descant on the Caveat Estius parallels it with the Apostolical Precept to Titus 3. 10 11. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned by himself The LETTER We cannot communicate with those whom we are commanded by God to separate from without sin But scandalous and offending brethren are such as we are commanded to separate from 1 Cor. 5. 11. If not to keep company in the lesser as ordinary commerce eating much less may we in the greater The ANSWER Distinguish betwixt Separation in Communion and Conversation and there will evidently appear four Terms in your Argument which will discover it not a Fallacy only in Divinity but a Prodigie in Logick The Major Proposition is true only as to separating in Communion The Minor Proposition is true only as to separating in Conversation To prevent Ambiguity Amphibology I shall crave leave to new mould your Syllogism We may not communicate with such whom we are commanded by God to separate from in Communion But from scandalous sinners we are commanded by God to separate from in Communion Therefore we may not communicate with scandalous sinners I deny the Minor Proposition This you assay to confirm by the Apostles Prohibition 1 Cor. 5. 11. With such a one no not to eat you hence fortifie your Argument If not to keep company in the lesser as ordinary commerce and eating much less may we in the greater I answer The Topick Canon from the Lesser to the Greater is a valid proof when both are of the same Tribe of the same stock and nature when they are cloathed with the dress of the same circumstances But your instances are not Take the illustration from Calvin The one is arbitrary it is in our power not to eat with a scandalous Brother The other is necessary to communicate with him in the Lords Supper He can till excommunicated plead an interest in the Lords Table which is secund◠post naufragium tabula the second plank after Shipwrack He can plead no interest in yours If the Church saith Calvin tolerate an unworthy person it is commendable to be shy of his society so far as may consist with a mans duty so that hereby no Schism no Separation as to Church Communion be introduced Aretius manifests the fallacious abuse of your Topick Maxime by this reason Private familiarity of repast with the wicked may taint in point of conversation at least tempt molest but not so for the publick Piety of the Sacrament In the one the holy encourage the impiety of the prophane in the other the prophane countenance the piety of the holy Their access if impenitent needs not scare nor divert your approach if penitent a foil to set off your lustre of Religion your joynt Prayers and Graces may be helps to purge them their defect and blemishes cannot annoy and soil you in the Sacramental Devotion Like a Bee you may suck Honey out of that Herb out of which others like Spiders extract Poyson As the fragrancy of that Oyntment deadens the Fly which enlivens the Dove The Principle Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis is no less appliable to a Sacrament than a Sermon Both admit different repugnant Operations according to the capacities of Auditors and Receivers As a reverent Auditor is not less edified because of irreverent Auditors in the same Church so a faithful Communicant is not less sanctified because an unfaithful dissolute Brother partakes of the same Table Remember the Apostles Caution wherein in the judgement of Expositors he pricks the bladder of Pharisaical censure Let every man prove his own work and then shall he have cause of rejoycing in himself alone and not in another It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not against another saith St. Chrysostom to tax to condemn him The Apostle enforceth this caution with a prediction which may unplume any spiritual Arrogance and turn the edge of any censorious rigor For every man shall bear his own burden This personal clog of guilt hath weight and terror enough to cause you and me to sigh and tremble for our selves Alas there needs no panick affrightment of being loaded and polluted with the corruptions of others in uncorrupt actions unless such only as are committed to our charge whose vitious courses may reflect stains if promoted by our neglects by our defaults The LETTER It is called a Communion 1 Cor. 10. 16 21 22. I suppose meant a Communion of Saints as far as our charity guided by the word may discern but to say That a company of ignorant Drunkards Swearers Sabbath breakers are Saints is contrary to the word of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 1 Joh. 1. 6 9. Matth 7. 8. Let us take heed of it Esa. 5. 20. Prov. 17. 15. They profess Christ 1 Cor. 6. 15. 17. Therefore such make not the Communion A mixt Communion is not for Christ. His Members must be homogeneal or else a monster 2 Cor. 6. 14. The ANSWER To prove a Communion of Saints in the Eucharist you cite 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ This relates to the matter of the Communion not to the quality of the Communicant You add vers 20 21. But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and not to God I would not that you should have fellowship with devils The Apostle here brands the oblations of depraved Gentiles to damned Spirits and forbids those that communicate in a Christian Pious Sacrament to partake of a Pagan Idolatrous Feast This is remote eccentrical to our question I hope your judgement as well as your charity better guided than to rank those you separate from with Heathens Idolaters or to repute their sacrifice of thanksgiving to God to be an offering to Satan You aggravate it as a Soloecism in Religion to say that a company of ignorant Drunkards Swearers Sabbath breakers are Saints Is this your best Character to descypher a Parochial Ecclesiastical Assembly The sharpest invectives are the slightest proofs It was but a frothy confutation of a fiery Spirit in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou cursed wretch We may in these saith St. Austin to Petilianus a Donatist be alike copious but we will not be alike vain As if like those of China you fancied your selves only to have two eyes of Reason and of Religion and the rest of the World but one your first brand is Ignorant I pray
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