Justification of Separation from the Church of England, Treatise · Section 105
The scope of …e scripture followeth, which, say you, i… that the beleeving Mr B.Corint…ians may have no fellowship with the infidels, and vnbeleevers, to their evill works; but that they reprove, condemn, hate, and avoyd them.
Belike then they might hauehave had fellowship with them in anyAnsw. good work: and so if any of the heathen, or infidell Corinthians would hauehave communicated with the Christian Corinthians in the sacraments, or prayer, they might not hauehave refused their fellowship, or communion herein. For by your exposition the Apostle onelyonly forbids partaking with them in evill works & the works of darknes. Of which more hereafter. And here in our names you frame an obiection, the sum whereof is, that if all the godly would separate from all the wicked, then there should be no wicked of the Church. VntoUnto which you answer sundry things: but how sufficiently will appear in the particulars. First you say, God commaunds not his to separate wholly from all the wicked: but from Infidels, Gentiles, Idolaters; Iewes, Turks, Papists, whose very societies are to be left as no people of God.
Well then, I perceive, all religious fellowship with Papists is vnlawfull, and that their societies are no people of God. And how agrees this with your other affirmations, that Rome is a true Church: Papists true Christians, though under corruptions, as it was true Iob, though vnderunder soars: baptism there, a true sacrament, and seal of the covenaunt; & yet here the societies of Papists are no people of God, that is in no covenant with him? Or how doth this separatiō thus wholly to be made from Papists agree with that you write, pag. 91. of ioyning in prayer with such Papists, as though they be of the Church of Rome, yet sorrow for the abhominations, and as are come out from it in their soules, the best part, though not so in their bodyes?
The distinction you put between Infidels, and idolaters, and men of prophane life, wee shall consider of in due place: & for your speach of all the Church falling into the estate of infidelity, and so …dged of the Church, eyther it is without sense, or I, which vnderstand it not. Now to that you adde of separating from the private familiarity of the wicked, living in the society of the godly, and that, if they will not be reformed, other courses are to be taken with them, as their sin of obstinacy deserves, I answer these things. First, that, as there is a case, wherein private withdrawing from a brother is warrantable, namely, when his offence is private, and he privately obstinate, & that his sinne eyther cannot be, or is not yet made publick, & publiquely …vin…d: so to separate from men privately, and that onelyonly, for publick offences, is a course without ground either of scripture, or rea son. You say, pag. 144. that (alvin so expounds 1 Cor. 5. 11. and therevpō do take an occasion to accuse our practise as Brownisticall, & vsus of Luciferian schisme, & Pharisaicall pride. As I leave your raylings to be iudged by the Lord, so do I give the reader to vnderstand, how you grossely abuse Calvins authority: who expounds that scripture (as all men know it is meant) of excommunicates, and of mens private cariage towards them: with which, publick separation is also to be joyned: I suppose you your self will not deny it. And where you speak of an other course to be taken with wicked men, that wil not be reformed, you should also shew what that course is, and what is to be done, if that course be not taken: but you have thought it a point of your wisdome to be silent in these things least by opening them too particularly, you should discover your own shame.
The course to be taken is, the censuring of such incorrigible offenders by the particular congregation, whereof they are, being gathered together in the name of Christ, by the power of Christ; with which1 Cor. 5. power divine, and heavenly priviledge, he hath furnished his Churches every one of them, as well as that one of Corinth; neyther doth any true Church of Christ want this power, or neglect the vse of it without sinne. And if any Church of Christ would neglect to vse this power against scandalous sin manifestly proved, and cōvinced, & would obstinately continue (notwithstanding all good meanes vsed to the contrary) this sower leaven vnpurged out, the whole lump were levened, and with leven might not the Passeover be eaten. And as the Church, if sin do arise, is first to endeavour the casting out of the sinne by the sinners repentance, and if that will not be, in the last place to cast out the sinne, and sinner together: so if the Church do wickedly bear out, and boulster iniquity amongst themselves, such as are faithfull are first to quit themselves of that Church-sin by testifying against it, and reproving it, and in the last place to quit themselves of the Church, if it remayn incurable. Now here you bring in certayn differences, & distinctions of separation, but without application. The first I omit as being before handled, so much as concerns the present purpose. The 2. difference is between the wicked remayning amōg the godly, & the godly being▪ of the felowship of the wicked: this differece I acknowledg, & withall affirm, that the latter part of it notes out the estate of your nationall Church: wherein a few godly mynded in comparison, live in the fellowship of a wicked, and sinfull nation. And if persons excommunicate by the Church be not of her fellowship, then certaynly the number of the godly in your fellowship is very small: since your nationall Church representative, the convocatiō house (whose Act also pag: 147. you avouch to be the Act of all the Church, & so to be accounted) doth pronounce ipso facto excommunicated all that do affirm eyther the ceremonies of the Church, or goverment by Arch Bishops, Bishops, Deanes, Archdeacons, and the rest, to be Antichristian, Canon 4. 6 7. 8▪or the bookes eyther of common prayer, or of consecrating Bishops, Preists, and Deacons, to conteyn in them any thing vnlawful, or repugnant to the word of God. Your third distinction I passe by as impertinent: and the fourth, as being already handled, saue onelyonly that in the end of it you bite at vsus, as you go, for separating frō Gods ordināces in the Church, for some wicked mens sake. But you know Mr B. that wee do not deem your Church-government, worship, ministery, and ministrations to be Gods ordinances: nor your Church in that confusion, wherein it was gathered, & consisteth, to be rightly possessed of the ordinances which it injoyes: no nor that any person how godly minded soever, can hauehave the right vse of Gods ordinances, in your assemblies, as they are publick joynt exercises of the communion of the body. In the fifth, and last difference, you speak of godly mens breaking society with themselves, bycause of some wicked persons. To which point I answer thus much; since the L. Iesus hath given his Churches both power, and charge to put from among them such wicked persons, as do arise, and appear incorrigible; and hath also taught by his Apostle, that the neglect of this duety levens the whol lump: that they which countenaunce, and continue in the Church such wicked persons against the godly zealous, which endeavour their reformation, that they I say, do break the society of the godly with themselves, and do rather make choise of the society of the wicked, whom they thus bolster, and bear out.