CERTAIN REASONS, Proving the Separation, commonly called Brownists, to be Schismatics. By WILLIAM GILGATE, Minister of the Word of God. GALAT. 5.19, 20, 21. The works of the flesh are manifest,— Seditions,— whereof I tell you before, as I have told you before, that they that do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. LONDON Printed by W. Stansby for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his shop near St. Augustine's gate, at the sign of the Pied Bull. 1621. The Preface to the Reader. Having some years since suffered shipwreck in the gulf of Separation, and by God's gracious hand having been lifted out, and saved from drowning in these waves, I think it my duty to descry to others the danger and escape of those passages to and from Amsterdam. I left these Arguments of mine with Master Henry Ainsworth, Preacher to the same English at Amsterdam, calling themselves the Separation, commonly called Brownists; that he and his might see, how I not rashly, but for just cause left them. Since that, I have been inwardly moved to publish them in print, that they also who still stick in that pit, may at length perceive on what a sandy foundation the Separation is built; and forsaking the same with me and others, may labour to build themselves upon the Rock Christ, so as the gates of Hell may not prevail against them, to pluck them from the one Body, whereof he is the one only Head. Because they persuade themselves, that their manner of separation is the same that the holy Scriptures do warrant, I have set down their Reasons grounded on two chief places of the same, very firmly, as they imagine: but I have showed that they wrist them, as many other alleged to that end, for the proof of that which they reprove. My reasons showing their Separation to be a Schism, I have set down briefly. This I have done, not of hatred to any of their persons, or any truth of Christ, which they hold with the true Churches of God; but of sincere love toward them; that they might acknowledge and forsake this work of the flesh, Schism I mean, which among other excludeth men from the Kingdom of God; which I pray God to bestow upon all his there and every where. Amen. William Gilgate. The reasons of the Separation, called Brownists, taken out of two chief places of Scripture, answered. GOD admonisheth his people dwelling in Babylon, id est, Rome, Reuel. 18 4. That at length acknowledging the filthiness of that City, they forsake her: Therefore he willeth also all his people with speed to come forth from the Parish Assemblies in England. I deny the consequence. It followeth not; there is not the same reason. In the Church of Rome men continuing members, are partakers of their damnable errors and sins; but it is not so in the Parish Assemblies of the Church of England. Which is so fare from being Babylon, that it is the strongest and most flourishing enemy of Babylon: In which regard it is most deadly hated by the Antichrist of Rome. Let the Separatists take heed lest themselves, under the pretence of hatred to Babylon, build up a worse Babylon, or Babel of Confusion in the Christian Church. 2. The believers in the Church of Corinth, 2. Corin. 6.17. are forbidden to have fellowship with Infidels in Idolatry, id est, in the holy Feasts they celebrated to the honour of Idols. Therefore they may not communicate with the English Parish Assemblies in the Word of God, Sacraments, Prayer. Here also is an inconsequence: They must prove the people there to be Infidels, and those means or helps of God's worship to be Idols, and the using of the same there, to be idolatry. Separatists are Schismatics. NAy, the Separation seemeth the rather guilty of Idolatry in adhering to, admiring, and even adoring their own dreams and new-fangled fancies. My reasons convincing them of Schism. Where the Son of God speaketh to men by his Gospel, there we may hear him. In the English Parish Assemblies, Christ speaketh to men by his Gospel. Therefore in those Parish Assemblies, we may hear him. And by consequence the Separation are Schismatics, refusing to hear him in any of the said Assemblies. Minor proved. Where men that were dead in sins and trespasses, by hearing do live spiritually, id est, do rejoice in God, tasting Gods fatherly favour toward them in Christ, there the Son of God doth speak to men by his Gospel. In the said Assemblies, some men that were dead in sins and trespasses do live spiritually, etc. Therefore in the said Assemblies, at least some of them, the Son of God doth speak to men by his Gospel. When I urged this Argument to Master Ainsworth, he could answer nothing but that Christ doth not at any time speak to any by his Gospel, in the Parish Assemblies of the Church of England, and that none there do live by Faith. Which uncharitable and hateful opinion of his, did make me the more to hate their opinions. Reason. 2 They that consenting with others in the doctrine of Salvation by Christ, 1. Cor. 1.10.11. jud. 19 do nevertheless separate themselves from them as touching spiritual communion, are Schismatics. The Separation do consent with others in the doctrine of salvation by Christ, and yet do separate from them, as touching spiritual communion. Therefore they are Schismatics. The Corinthians were guilty of Schism in hearing some teachers, and not othersome, Maior proved. though teaching the same doctrine; and in not communicating at the Table of the Lord with them that professed the same Faith of Christ with themselves. 1. Cor. 11.21. Therefore the Separation are guilty of Schism in doing the like. The former had some show of reason for that they did: so have the latter. Those men that jude speaketh of were Schismatics, 2. proof of the Mayor. for separating themselves from the godly, when they came together to the outward worship of God. Therefore the Separation for doing the like, are likewise Schismatics. Let them not falsely affirm, that they from whom they separate in the Parish-Assemblies, are not godly; and that the outward worship there used is not God's worship, because of I know not what pretended defects, and because many wicked are mixed with them. Reason. 3 They that teach that in those Churches, where open sinners are tolerated, Reuel. 2.24. & 3.4. no lawful communion can be had in things of God, and thereupon refuse to have communion with the same, are Schismatics. Reasons discussed, pag, 247. 249. The mayor proved. The Separation do teach this, etc. Therefore they are schismatics. Christ putteth no such burden upon the faithful in Thyatira and Sardis to separate themselves, because wicked men were tolerated in their Churches. Therefore they are Schismatics that lay such a burden on the faithful in England. Reason. 4 They that refuse to have communion in private prayer with those, Ephes. 4.3.4.5.6. whom they may discern to have communion with Christ, are schismatics. The Separation for the most part do this. Therefore they are schismatics. The mayor proved. In refusing to have communion with such, they show themselves not to be of the same body of Christ with them, nor to be led by the same Spirit, nor to have the same Lord, and the same God and Father; and therefore are Schismatics. Reason. 5 They that without just cause, renounce all spiritual communion in public, with a true Church, are Schismatics. The Separation do this. Therefore they are Schismatics. Minor proved. The Church of England is a true Church of God. The Separation renounce spiritual communion with the Church of England in public, and that without just cause. Therefore they without just cause, renounce spiritual communion in public, with a true Church. If the Church of England be the pillar of truth, Maior proved. upholding the heavenly truth, 1. Tim. 3.16. 1. proof for the Church of England. against all heretics and the Antichrist of Rome, as pillars uphold a house, than it is a true Church of God. The first is true. Therefore the second. The Gospel of our salvation is the word of truth. The antecedent proved. Ephes. 1.13. The Church of England upholdeth as a pillar, the Gospel of our salvation. Therefore it upholdeth the word of truth, and by consequence it is a true Church. Let them not here stand to show a difference between the Church of England and Ephesus. There may be a difference between true Churches: notwithstanding they are all true, that maintain the word of truth, the Gospel. If the Church of England in Queen Mary's time, 2. proof for the Church of England. from the errors then maintained being the principal was rightly named a false corrupted Church: then since Queen Elizabeth's time, the same Church from the truth maintained being the principal, is to be named a true Church. When I mention the truth as principal only, I argue out of the principles supposed by the Separatists, namely, that there may be some inferior errors in the Church of England: As what Church in the world is free from erring in all things? Will the Separation boast that themselves have no errors in their Church. This task I leave to them, both of clearing themselves from all error, and also of accusing the Church of England of any. Antecedent proved. The denomination or naming of a thing is from the more principal: as it is named a heap of wheat, though much chaff be mixed with it; and he is called not a sinner, but righteous, whose sins are forgiven, and in whom sin reigneth not, though he hath sin dwelling in him, & sometimes sinneth of infirmity: and he is called a spiritual man, in whom the regenerate part beareth the sway. The errors in Queen mary's time were the chief and principal; the truths were overwhelmed with the multitude of their errors. Therefore from the same multitude of untruths and errors then maintained, it was to be named a false or corrupt Church: and therefore also since Queen Elizabeth's time it is to be named a true Church, the truths have prevailed, and are the chief part. 2. proof of the Antecedent. As the Spirits, or teachers are to be tried by that short sum of the Gospel (Christ is come in the flesh) and thereby are to be judged true or false: so by the same is a Church to be judged true or false. From hence I frame this argument. If they be to be accounted false Teachers, who holding some truths of Christ, yet also hold some great error contrary thereunto, as Cerinthus denying Christ's godhead; then a Church, as that of England in Queen Mary's time, was to be accounted a false Church, which professing in word that sentence concerning Christ's person and office, yet in the mean time defended opinions overthrowing the truth both of his natures and offices. The first is true. And therefore also the second. If they are to be accounted true Teachers, 3. Proof for the now Church of England to be a true Church. who keep this foundation (Christ is come in the flesh) and build not upon it any Doctrine, overthrowing the same; then a Church, as that now of England, is to be held for a true Church, which retaineth this foundation of the Christian Faith, and buildeth not upon it any Doctrines, overthrowing the same. The first is true. Therefore the second. The Separation have no just cause to separate as they do, from the Church of England. Reason. 6 IF a member of that Church may there not defile his garments, then in hearing of the Word read and preached, in Prayer and receiving the Sacraments, they have no cause to renounce communion with that Church. The first is true; and therefore the second. The sincere and pure profession of Christ, Antecedent proved. from all filth and defilements of monstrous opinions and vices, are those garments. A member of that Church may make there a pure profession of Christ, from all filth and defilements of monstrous opinions and vices. Therefore a member of that Church may there not defile his garments. 2. Proof. A member of that Church needeth not to be infected with the company of the wicked there; he may separate himself from every of them, but not from the Church where such are. Therefore, a member of that Church may keep his garments undefiled. And so the Separation have no just cause to renounce communion with the Church of England in those means of God's worship. Reason. 7 The French and Dutch reformed Churches are true Churches of God. The Separation renounce spiritual communion in public with those Churches. Therefore, they renounce spiritual communion in public with true Churches. They have no just cause to do it, because they meet in Temples. If the difference of places be taken away by Christ, even as the difference of meats, that as Christians may eat any meats; so they may serve God in any places: then the Temples they assemble in to worship God, are no just cause of renouncing communion with them. Coloss. 2.16. The first is true: Therefore the second. 1. Tim. 2.8. If they answer, the place of Paul to Timothy: Though he bids us pray for all men, yet john excepteth one sort, 1. john 5. so though he bids men pray every where, yet one kind of place is excepted as evil to serve God in: let them then name one of the Apostles, who hath made such an exception. I deny not that in the old Testament, there was in force such a difference of places, but it is taken away in the new Testament. Nor because they read a set form of Prayer. If in a set form of prayer read, or said by heart, all things may be put in practice, required in acceptable prayer to God; then the using thereof by these Churches, is no just cause of their renouncing communion with them in public. The first is true: Therefore the second. The things asked of God may be such as are contained in the Lord's prayer. We may have a sense of our wants, and a desire of the grace of God to supply the same. Thirdly, Faith, whereby we believe and profess, that God for his Son Christ's sake, will in his due time grant us our requests. Therefore, all things required in acceptable prayer to God (except they can show us any more) may be put in practice, in a set form of prayer, read, or said by heart.