The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 9
Sect. 9. But, for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie, we must consider, What things were agreed on both sides, and where the Main Points of Difference lay.
1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine, or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound, and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it. In their Apology presented to King Iames,Brownists Apology, p. 7. A. D. 1604. thus they speak; We testifie by these presents unto all Men, and desire them to take knowledge hereof, that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land; but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still.A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, Middleburgh, p. 3. A. D. 1599. And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation, between Iohnson and Iacob, saith, That the first Separatists never denied, that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in the state of Salvation, but always held, professed, and acknowledged the contrary.Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply, n. 4. p. 240. Barrow saith, That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs, and deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false Offices, and great corruptions in the Worship exercised:Brownists Apol. p. 92. And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death, he saith, He had Reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in England; though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church, in the present Communion, Ministry, Worship, Government, and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies.
2. The Separatists granted, Brownists Apology, p 7.That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church, for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it. Thus they express themselves in their Apology, Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church, for blemishes and imperfections, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, and to expect and further it, until either there follow redress, or the Disease be grown incurable. And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith, written by Iohnson and Ainsworth, they have these words. None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established, for faults and Corruptions, which may, and so long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. But in the case of our Church they pleaded, that the Corruptions were so many and great, as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church. Barrow, ib.So Barrow saith, They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election, or from Christ, but from being Members of a True Constituted Church.
On the other side, the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church, but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it, or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary, or lawful. So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions.
1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrew the being, or constitution of it.
2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such, as did overthrow the Constitution of it.
The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie.
1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it.Barrow's Refutation of Giffard. Preface to the Reader. Sum of the Causes of Separation. Barrow and his Brethren, did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation, unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches. For, here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be; Want of a right gathering our Churches at first; False Worship; Antichristian Ministery and Government: These Reasons, say they, all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ, to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate; especially, when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied, but resisted, blasphemed, persecuted. These are the words of the First, and Chiefest Separatists, who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles. We condemn not, say they, their Assemblies, barely for a mixture of good and bad, which will alwayes be, but for want of an orderly gathering, or constitution at first: we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry, but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them: we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government, or Discipline, but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government. Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections, but because their Worship is Superstitious, devised by Men Idolatrous, according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book; according unto which their Sacraments, and whole Administration is performed, and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament. So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well, that nothing but such a Charge, which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches (the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound) could justifie their Separation: not meer promiscuous Congregations, nor mixt Communions; not defect in the Exercise of Discipline; not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship; but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church; as they supposed Idolatrous Worship, and an Antichristian Ministry to do. If Mr. Giffard, Ibid.saith Barrow, can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches, then we would shew him how free we are from Schism. The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames,Brownists Apology, p. 7, 8, 9. by Ainsworth, Iohnson, and the rest of them. Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus. That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God,Ainsworth's Counter-poyson, p. 3. Ib. p. 87. ought not, by any true Christian, to be continued, or Communicated with; but must be forsaken, and separated from; and a true Church sought, and ioyned unto, &c. But the Church of England is before proved, not to be the true Church of Christ, and of God, therefore it ought to be separated from, &c. By which we see, the Greatest Separatists that were then, never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches, if they were true. On the other side, those who opposed the Separation, with greatest zeal, thought nothing more was necessary for them, to disprove the Separation, then to prove our Churches to be true Churches. R. Brown (from whom the Party received their denomination) thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright (the Ringleader of the Non-conformists) to prove the Necessity of Separation, because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church; and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here, he made our Church not to be a true Church, and consequently that Separation was necessary. T. C. Answers, T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation, in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98, 99.That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation, the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remaining of that which is forbidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing, as giveth an utter overthrow, and turning upside down of the truth. His meaning is, wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed, there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church, or Iustifie Separation from it. For, he addeth, although besides Faith in the Son of God, there be many things necessary for every Assembly; yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being, and not simply to the being of the Church. And in this respect, saith he, the Lutheran Churches,Page 106. (which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies) which beside the maym of Discipline, which is common to our Churches, are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper, are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God.Page 107. Was not Jerusalem, saith he, after the Return from Babylon, the City of the Great King, until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City? To say therefore it is none of the Church, because it hath not received this Discipline, methinks is all one with this, as if a Man would say, It is no City, because it hath no Wall: or that it is no Vineyard, because it hath neither Hedge, nor Ditch. It is not, I grant, so sightly a City, or Vineyard, nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them; but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards. And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church, his Defender saith, He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church, with respect to Censures,Page 91. but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties, i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People.
Afterwards, as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation, their main Business was, To Prove our Churches to be True Churches. As in a Book, Entituled, Certain Positions h…ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of the Gospel, against those of the Separation; which was part of that Book, afterwards Published by W. R. and called, A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists. The Ground-work whereof, as Mr. Ainsworth calls it, is thus laid.
That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ, Counterpoyson, p. 117.and such a one, as from which whosoever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself, Cutteth himself off from Christ.
If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days; those who live in ours, ought well to consider it, if they regard their Salvation.
And, for this Assertion of theirs, they bring Three Reasons.
1. For that they Enjoy, and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means, which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church; i. e. Preaching of the Gospel, and Administration of the Sacraments.
2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith: and Hold and Teach, &c. all Truths Fundamental. So we put their Two Reasons into One, because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith; which, say they, is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church: and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church, and admitted to the Priviledges thereof, even by the Apostles themselves. So the Church of Pergamus, though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it: yet because it kept the Faith of Christ, was still called the Church of God.
3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister, and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship.
When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation, the Position he laid down was this,
That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God. Which he proved by this Argument.
Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; that is sufficient to make a Company of Men, so gathered together, to be a True Church.
But the whole Doctrine, as it is Publickly Professed, and Practised, by Law in England, is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together.
Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches.
And in the Defence of this Argument, against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson, that whole Disputation is spent. And, in latter times, the Dispute between Ball and Can, about the necessity of Separation, runs into this, Whether our Church be a True Church or not; concerning which, Ball thus delivers his Judgment. Ball against Can, p. 77.True Doctrine, in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith, though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters, not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion, and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance, though in the manner of Dispensation, some things be not so well ordered, as they might and ought, are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church, though somewhat crased in health and soundness, by Errors in Doctrine, Corruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in Life and Manners.
The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on, was,