Testimony produced is that of Calvin A large Discourse he hath Institut lib. 4. cap. 1. against Causeless Separations from a true Church and by whom are they not condemned No determination of the Case in hand can be thence derived nor are the Grounds of our refraining Communion with Parochial Assemblies the same with those which he condemns as insufficient for a total Separation nor is the Separation he opposed in those days which was absolute and total with a condemnation of the Churches from which it was made of the same nature with that wherewith we are charged at least not with what we own and allow He gives the Notes of a true Church to be the pure Preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments according unto Christs Institution Where these are he allows a true Church to be not only without Diocesan Episcopacy but in a form and under a Rule opposite unto it and inconsistent with it And if he did at all speak to our Case as he doth not nor unto any of the Grounds of it why should we be pressed with his Authority on the one hand more then others from whom he differed also on the other Besides there is a great deal more belongs unto the pure preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments according unto Christs Institution then some seem to apprehend They may they ought to be so explained as that from the consideration of them we may justifie our whole Cause Both these may be wanting in a Church which is not guilty of such heynous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatry in Worship as should overthrow its Being And their want may be a just Cause of refraining Communion from a Church which yet we are not obliged to condemn as none at all Calvin expresseth his Judgment N. 12. I would not give Countenance unto Errors no not to the least so as to cherish them by flattery or Connivance But though I say that the Church is not to be forsaken for tristing Differences wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is retained safe and sound wherein the Integrity of Godliness doth abide and the use of the Sacraments appointed of the Lord is preserved and we say the same And this very Calvin who doth so severely condemn Separation from a true Church as by him stated did himself quietly and peaceably withdraw and depart from the Church of Geneva when they refused to admit that Discipline which he esteemed to be according to the Mind of Christ. It is certain therefore that by the Separation which he condemns he doth not intend the peaceable Relinquishment of the Communion of any Church as unto a constant participation of all Ordinances in it for want of due means of Edification much less that which hath so many other Causes concurring therewith For the other Learned Men whom he quotes unto the same purpose I see not any thing that gives the least countenance unto his Assertion that our Principles weaken the Cause of the Reformation It is true they plead other Causes of Separation from the Church of Rome than those insisted on by us with respect unto the Church of England and indeed they had been otherwise much to blame having so many things as they had to plead of greater importance Did we say that the Reasons which we plead are all that can be pleaded to justifie the Separation of the Reformed Churches from the Church of Rome it would weaken the Cause of Reformation For we should then deny that Idolatry and fundamental Errors in Faith were any Cause or Ground of that Separation However we know that the Imposition of them on the Faith and Practise of all Christians is more pleaded in Justification of a Separation from them then the things themselves But allowing those greater Reasons to be pleaded against the Roman Communion as we do it doth not in the least follow that our Reasons for refraining Communion with Parochial Assemblies doth weaken the Cause of the Reformation However let me not be misinterpreted as unto that expression of destroying our Faith which the Communion required with the Church of England as unto all the important Articles of it doth not do and I can subscribe unto the Words of Daille as quoted by our Author out of his Apology If saith he the Church of Rome hath not required any thing of us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the Service which we believe due to God if the Differences have been small and such as we might safely have yeilded unto then he will grant their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schisme He closeth his Transcription of the Words of sundry Learned Men who have justifyed the Separation of the reformed Churches from the Church of Rome wherein we are not in the least concerned with an Enquiry What Triumph would the Church of Rome make over us had we no other reasons to justifie our Separation from them but only those which as is pretended we plead in our Cause I say whereas we do plead confirm and justifie all the Reasons and Causes pleaded for the Separation of the Reformed Churches from them not opposing not weakning any of them by any Principle or Practise of ours but farther press the force of the same reasonings and causes in all Instances whereunto they will extend I see neither what cause the Papists have of Triumph noâ— any thing that weakens the Cause of the Reformation He adds further how should we be hissed aâ—d laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these I answer that as the Case stands if we did alledge no other Reasons but those which we insist on for our refraining Communion with our own Parochial Assemblies we should deserve to be derided for relinquishing the Plea of those other important Reasons which the Heresies and Idolatries and Tyranny of that Church do render just and equal But if we had no other Causes of Separation from the Church of Rome but what we have for our Separation from our Parochial Assemblies at home as weak as our Allegations are pretended to be we should not be afraid to defend them against all the Papists in the World and let the World act like itself in hissing Whereas therefore the Cause of Reformation is not in any thing weakened by our Principles No Argument no Reason solidly pleaded to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome being deserted by us neither Testimony Proof nor Evidence being produced to evince that it is weakned by us I shall in the Second place as was before proposed prove that the whole Cause of the Protestants Separation from the Church of Rome is strengthened and confirmed by us There were some general Principles on which the Protestants proceeded in their Separation from the Church of Rome and which they constantly pleaded in Justification thereof The first
3. This therefore is that which he opposeth namely that there was a Deviation in various degrees and falling of from the Original Institution Order and Rule of the Church until it issued in a fatal Apostasie This is that which on the present Occasion must be further spoken unto For if this be not true I confess there is an end of this contest and we must all acquiesce in the State Rule and Order that was in the Church of Rome before the Reformation But we may observe something yet farther in the Vindication and Confirmation of this Truth which I acknowledge to be the Foundation of all that we plead for in point of Church Reformation As 1. That the Reasons and Arguings of the Doctor in this Matter the Necessity of his Cause compelling him thereunto are the same with those of the Papists about the Apostacy of their Church in Faith Order and Worship wherewith they are charged namely when where how was this Alteration made who made opposition unto it and the like When these Enquiries are multiplyed by the Papists as unto the whole Causes between them and us he knows well enough how to give satisfactory Answers unto them and so might do in this particular unto himself also but I shall endeavour to ease him of that trouble at present Only I must say that it is fallen out somewhat unexpectedly that the Ruins of the principle Bulwark of the Papacy which hath been effectually demolished by the Writings of Protestants of all sorts should be endeavoured to be repaired by a Person justly made eminent by his Defence of the Protestant Religion against those of the Church of Rome 2. But it may be pleaded that although the Churches following the first Ages did insensibly degenerate from the Purity and simplicity of Gospel Faith and Worship yet they neither did nor could do so from an Adherence unto and abiding in their Original constitution or from the due Observation of Church Order Rule and Discipline least of all could this happen in the Case of Diocesan Episcopacy I Answer 1. That as unto the Original of any thing that looks like Diocesan Episcopacy or the Pastoral Relation of one Person of a distinct order from Presbiters unto many particular compleat Churches with Officers of their own with Power and Jurisdiction in them and over them unto the Abridgement of the exercise of that Right and Power unto their own Edification which every true Church is entrusted withal by Jesus Christ it is very uncertain and was introduced by insensible Degrees according unto the effectual working of the Mistery of Iniquity Some say that there were two distinct Orders namely those of Bishops and Presbyters instituted at first in all Churches planted by the Apostles But as the contrary may be evidently proved so a supposition of it would no way promote the cause of Diocesan Episcopacy until those who plead for it have demonstrated the State of the Churches wherein they were placed to be of the same nature with those now called Diocesan Wherefore this Hypothesis begins generally to be deserted as it seems to be by this Author Others suppose that immediately upon or at or after the Decease of the Apostles this new Order of Bishops was appointed to succeed the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that were then gathered or planted But how when or by whom by what Authority Apostolical and Divine or Ecclesiastical only and humane none can declare seeing there is not the least footstep of any such thing either in the Scripture or in the Records that remain of the primitive Churches Others think this new Order of Officers took its occasional Rise from the Practice of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria who chose out one among themselves constantly to preside in the Rule of the Church and in all matters of Order unto whom they ascribed some kind of Preheminence and Dignity peculiarly appropriating unto him the namâ— of Bishop And if this be true as unto matter of Fact I reckon it unto the Beginnings of those less harmful Deviations from their Original Constitution which I assigned unto Primitive Churches But many Additions must be made hereunto before it will help the Cause of Diocesan Episcopacy What other occasions hereof were given or taken what Advantages were made use of to promote this Alteration shall be touched upon afterwards 2. Why may not the Churches be supposed to have departed from their original Constitution Order and Rule as well as from their first Faith and Worship which they did gradually in many successive Ages until both were utterly corrupted The Causes Occasions and Temptations leading unto the former are to the full as pregnant as those leading unto the latter For 1. There was no vicious corrupt disposition of Mind that began more early to work in Church Officers nor did more grow and thrive in the Minds of many then Ambition with desire of Preheminence Dignity and Rule It is not to be supposed that Diotrephes was alone in his Desire of â—reheminence nor in the irregular actings of his unduly â—ssumed Authority However we have one signal Instance in him of the Deviation that was in the Church with him from the Rule of its Original Constitution For he prevailed so far therein as by his own single Episcopal Power to reject the Authority of the Apostles and to cast them out of the Church who complyed not with his humour How effectually the same Ambition wrought afterwards in many others possessing the same Place in their Churches with Diotrephes is sufficiently evident in all Ecclesiastical Histories It is far from being the only Instance of the Corruption of Church Order and Rule by the Influence of this Ambition yet it is one that is pregnant which is given us by Amâ—rose for saith he Ecclesia ut Synagoga Seniores habuâ—â— quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia quod qua neglâ—gentia obsoleverit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri In 1. ad Timoth. cap. 5. It seems there was some alteration in Church Rule and Order in his Time whose Beginning and Progress he could not well discover and trace but knew well enough that so it was then come to pass And if he who lived so near the Times wherein such Alterations were made could not yet discover their first Insinuation nor their subtle Progress it is unreasonable to exact a strict account of us in things of the same nature who live so many Ages after their first Introduction But this he judgeth that it was the Pride or Ambition of the Doctors of the Church which introduced that Alteration in its Order Whereas therefore we see in the Event that all Deviations from the Original Constitution of Churches all Alterations in their Rule and Order did issue in a compliance with the Ambition of Church Rulers as it did in the Papal Church and this Ambition was signally noted
differences of lesser Moment whilst the general Rule of Faith and Love is attended unto 4. To be quiet and wait for further Instruction is the Direction given unto both Parties whilst the Differences did continue between them and that in opposition unto mutual Impositions 5. A Church that is really so or so esteemed may break the Peace with its own Members and others as well as they with it and where the fault is must be determined by the Causes of what is done 6. For what is added about gathering of Churches it shall be considered in its proper place But as unto the Application of these things unto the present Case there lies in the bottom of them such an unproved Presumption of their being the Church that is according unto Divine Institution for in their being so in any other sense we are not concerned of their Church Power and Authority by whom such Orders and Rules are made as we can by no means admit of I can more warrantably give this as the Apostles Rule than that of our Author What you have attained unto in the Knowledge of the Doctrine and Misteries of the Gospel walk together in holy Communion of Faith and Love but take heed that you multiply not new Causes of Divisions and Differences by inventing and imposing new Orders in Divine Worship or the Rule of the Church casting them out who agree with you in all things of divine Revelation and Institution He adds from my Words If the Rule reach our Case it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of worship to which he Replies And so this Rule doth in Order unto Peace require the Observation of such things which although they be not particularly commanded of God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided that they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant unto the Word of God Answ. 1. Let the Reader if he please consult the place whence these Words are taken in my Discourse and he will find this Evasion obviated 2. What is intended by this Rule is it the Rule given by the Apostle Who that reads the Words can possibly pretend unto any such conception of their meaning If he understand a Rule of his own I know not what it may or may not include 3. I deny and shall for ever deny that the Rule here intended by the Apostle doth give the least countenance unto the Invention and Imposition of things not divinely instituted not prescribed not commanded in the Word on the Pretence that those who so invent and impose them judged them lawful and that they have Authority so to do He Objects again unto himself out of my Discourse that the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. Whereunto he Replies What then I say then 1. It had been happy for Christians and Christian Religion if those who pretended to be their Successors had followed their Example and made no such Rules at all that they would not have thought themselves wiser than they or more careful for the Good of the Church or better acquainted with the Mind of Christ in these things then they were For that Multiplication of Rules Laws Canons about the things mentioned and others of an alike nature which the Apostles never gave any Example of or Encouragement unto which afterwards ensued hath been a principal means of altering the state of the Church from its Original Institution of corrupting its Worship Administring occasion unto scandal and endless Strifes 2. If the Apostles gave no such Rules themselves it may be concluded safely that it was because in their Judgement no such Rule was to be given Other Reason hereof cannot be assigned for if it might have been done according to the Mind of Christ and by vertue of the Commission which they had from him innumerable Evils might have been prevnted by the doing of it They foresaw what Differences would arise in the Church what Divisions the darkness and corrupt Lusts of men would cast them into about such things as these and probably knew much whereunto the Mistery of Iniquity tended yet would they not appoint any Arbitrary Rules about things not ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ which might have given some bounds unto the Inclinations of men in making and multiplying Rules of their own unto the ruine of the Church 3. Then I say we beg the Pardon of all who concern themselves herein that we scruple the Complying with such Rules in Religion and the Worship of God as the Apostles thought not meet to appoint or ordain But he addes It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule that all Lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace Answ. What is to be done for the Churches Peace we shall afterwards consider To be done is intended of Acts of Religion in the Worship of God I say then the Apostles never gave any such Rule as that pretended the Rule they gave was that all things which Christ hath commanded were to be done and observed and for the doing of any thing else they gave no Rule Especially they gave not such a large Rule as this that might serve the turn and interest of the worst of men in imposing on the Church whatever they esteemed Lawful as not by vertue of any Rule of the Apostles but in an open Rejection of all they gave it afterwards fell out in the Church This is a Rule which would do the Work to the Purpose of all that have the Reputation of Governours in the Church be it the Pope or who it will For they are themselves the sole Judges of what is Lawful the People as it is pretended understand nothing of these things Whatever therefore they have a Mind to introduce into the Worship of God and to impose on the Practice of men therein is to be done by vertue of this Apostolical Rule for the Churches Peace provided they judge it Lawful and surely no Pope was ever yet so stark mad as to impose things in Religion which he himself judged unlawful Besides things may be Lawful in themselves that is Morally which yet it is not Lawful to introduce into the Worship of God because not expedient nor for Edification Yea things may be Lawful to be done sometimes on some occasions in the Worship of God which yet it would be unlawful to impose by vertue of a general binding Rule for all times and seasons Instances may be multiplied in each kind Therefore I say the Apostles never gave this Rule they opened no such Door unto Arbitrary Imposition they laid no such Yoke on the Necks of the Disciples which might prove heavier and did so then that of the Jewish Ceremonies which they had taken away namely that they were to do and observe all that should by their Rulers be imposed on them as lawful in their Judgement This
deny Salvation unto all that abode in their Communion which the Donatists did with the greatest fierceness This was that which if any thing did truely and properly constitute them Schismaticks as it doth those also who deny at this day Church State and Salvation unto such Churches as have not Diocesan Bishops Now there is no Principle in the World that we do more abhor We grant a Church state unto all however it may be defective or corrupted and a possibility of Salvation unto all their Members which are not gathered in pernicious Errors overthrowing the Foundation nor Idolatrous in their Worship and who have a lawful Ministry with sufficient means for their Edification though low in its Measures and Degrees We judge none but with respect unto our own Duty as unto the Impositions attempted to be laid on us and the Acts of Communion required of us which we cannot avoid Nor can any man else let him pretend what he will to the contrary avoid the making of a Judgment for himself in these things unless he be brutish These things are sufficient to evidence that there is not the least countenance given unto the antient Schismes by any Principles of ours yet I shall add some farther Considerations on the Instances he gives unto the same Purpose The first is that the Novatians whose Pretences were the Discipline and Purity of the Churches wherein he says there was a Concurrence of Dr. O' s Pleas Zeal for Reformation of Discipline the greater Edificatian of the People and the asserting of their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was likely to promote their Edification I am sorry that Interest and Party should sway with learned Men to seek Advantages unto their Cause so unduly The story in short is this Novatus or Novatianus rather being disappointed in his ambitious Design to have been chosen Bishop of the Church of Rome Cornelius being chosen by much the Major Part of the Church betook himself to indirect means to weaken and invalidate the Election of Cornelius And this he did by raising a new Principle of false Doctrine whereunto he as falsly accommodated the Matter of Fact The Error he broached and promoted was that there was no place for Repentance such as whereon they should be admitted into the Church unto them who had fallen into sin after Baptisme nor as some add any Salvation to be obtained by them who had fallen in the time of Persecution This the antient Church looked on as a pestilent Heresie and as such was it condmened in a considerable Counsel at Rome with Cornelius Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43 where also is reported the Decree which they made in the Case wherein they call his Opinion Cruel or inhumane and contrary to Brotherly Love As such it is strenuously confuted by Cyprian Epist. 82. ad Antonianum But because the Church would not submit unto this Novel false Opinion of his contrary to the Scripture and the Discipline of the Church he and all his Followers separated from all the Churches in the World and rebaptized all that were baptized in the Orthodox Churches they denying unto them the means of Salvation Cyprian ad Julian Epist. 73. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. That which was most probably false also in Matter of Fact when this foolish Opinion which Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Dionysius of Rome calls a most profane Doctrine reflecting unmerciful cruelty on our most gracious Lord Jesus Christ Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. was invented to be subservient unto was that many of those by whom Cornelius was chosen Bishop were such as had denied the Faith under the Persecution of Decius the Emperor This also was false in Matter of Fact For although that Church continued in the antient Faith and practise of receiving penitents after their Fall yet there were no such number of them as to influence the Election of Cornelius So Cyprian testifieth Factus est Cornelius Episcopus de Dei Christi ejus judicio de Clericorum poene omnium Testimonio de suffragio Plebis c. Epist. 52. On that false Opinion and this frivolous Pretence they continued their Schisme Hence afterwards when Constantine the Emperor spake with Acesius the Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople finding him sound in the Faith of the Trinity which was then impugned by Arius he asked him why then he did not communicate with the Church whereon he began to tell him a story of what had happened in the time of Decius the Emperor pleading nothing else for himself the Emperor replying only O Acesius set up a ladder and climb alone by thy self into Heaven left him Socrat. lib. 1 cap. 7. This Error endeavoured to be imposed on all Churches this false Pretence in Matter of Fact with the following Pride in the condemnation of all other Churches denying unto them the lawful use of the Sacraments and rebaptizing them who were baptized in them do if we may believe the Doctor herein contain all my Pleas for the forbearance of Communion with Parochial Assemblies and have countenance given unto them by our Principles and Practises Of the Meletians whom he reckons up in the next place no certain Account can be given Epiphanius reports Meletus himself to have been a Good honest Orthodox Bishop and in the Difference between him and Peter Bishop of Alexandria to have been more for Truth as the other was more for Love and Charity And according unto him it was Peter and not Meletus that began the Schisme Haeres 68. N. 2 3. But others give quite another account of him Socrates affirmes that in time of Persecution he had sacrificed to Idols and was for that Reason deposed from his Episcopacy by Peter of Alexandria Lib. 3. cap. 6. Hence he was enraged against him and filled all Thebais and Aegypt with Tumults against him and the Church of Alexandria with intolerable Arrogance because he was convicted of sundry Wickednesses by Peter Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. And his Followers quickly complyed with the Arians for their Advantage The Error he proceeded on according to Epiphanius was the same with that of Novatus which how it could be if he himself had fallen in Persecution and Sacrificed as Socrates relates I cannot understand This Schisme of Bishop Meletius also it is thought meet to be judged that we should give Countenance unto All things are in like manner uncertain concerning Audus and his Followers whom he mentions in the next place The Man is represented by Epiphanius to have been a Good Man of an holy Life sound in the Faith full of Zeal and Love to the Truth But finding many things amiss in the Church among the Clergy and People he freely reproved them for Covetousness Luxury and Disorders in Ecclesiastical Affairs Hereon he stirred up the hatred of many against himself as Chrysostome did for the same cause afterwards at Constantinople Hereupon he was vexed persecuted and greatly abused all which he bare patiently and continued in