“And the Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be, ‘The Lord is one,’ and His name one.“
Zech. 14:9
“…endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Eph. 4:3-6
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord…”
1 Cor. 1:2
.
.
Subsection
Church Government is Secondary
Towards Union in Secondary Matters
Relations of Reformed & Lutherans
Accommodation: Consistent with Reformation & Covenants
Caution in Reforming so far as Peace & Order allows, without Schism
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Union in the Fundamentals
Bible Verses 70
Articles 8+
Books 4+
Quotes 60+
Against Separation from True Churches 35+
Consensus Confessions of the Reformed
Plans for Union 4
International Church 6+
Historical 12+
Latin, French, German 10+
Objections Answered
.
Intro
There ought to be one Church of Christ in the land. Denominationalism, where Churches believe it is legitimate to be separated over Church government and secondary and tertiary issues (not tending to overturn Christianity’s fundamentals) is a sectarian dividing of the Body of Christ.
This teaching of Scripture was by and large the view of Reformed Orthodoxy (as may be seen on this page); it was most frequently expounded at length by the moderate, English puritans. The principle has some further qualifications:
Union in at least Christianity’s fundamentals is obliging where secondary teachings and practices do not tend to overturn the fundamentals or the power of godliness (1 Tim. 6:3-6), and while an approving assent to anything sinful is not required as a term of communion.
Requiring “an approving assent to anything sinful” here refers, not to a tolerating consent for practical, material accommodation to things not ideal or fully right for the time and circumstances for higher reasons (such as the unity, peace and strength of Christ’s Church),¹ or individual cases where such an undue requirement might corruptly occur, or where the Church professes something one does not agree with, or others interpret the Church’s language in an unnecessary, erroneous way, but rather where a Church requires formal assent and approval of errors or corruptions as a necessary condition for its communion in toto.
¹ See principled practical accommodation argued in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025)
The thesis of this page does not deny that ‘Persons may Leave for a More Profitable Church’, but it does deny that a person may leave a fundamentally sound Church in a sectarian way, determining that one cannot hold communion with it without sin. Samuel Rutherford, a Scotish covenanter and Westminster divine, made this distinction with an illustration:
“The most that these [particular] arguments of our [Separatist] brethren do prove is but that it is lawful to go and dwell in a congregation where Christ is worshiped in all his ordinances, rather than to remain in that congregation where He is not worshipped in all his ordinances and where the Church censures are neglected:
which to us is no separation from the visible Church, but [only] a removal from one part of the visible Church to another: as he separates not out of the house who removes from the gallery to remain and lie and eat in the chamber of the same house because the gallery is cold and smokey and the chamber not so, for he has not made a vow never to set his foot in the gallery [again].” Due Right of Presbyteries... (London, 1644), pt. 1, ch. 4, section 4, question 5, p. 73
Hence this page is not primarily about what church one ought to attend, but it has most to do with Churches, that is, particular local churches, associations and denominations. Nor is the issue: Whether our Church can safely move (or be the first to move) for union with another suitable Church at this time in the current circumstances and prospects, or whether this must be forborne at this time, conditions not being ready, or: How will so many Churches best unify together, or at all? Rather, the issue is that all fundamentally sound Churches in the land have an obligation of fundamental weight at all times to so unify as able, however that can prudently come about in practice, whether other Churches do or not.
The thesis is also a positive recognition: it does not deny there may be circumstances where there yet remains an obligation to remain with the Church if it, or part of it, in some way tends to overturn a fundamental, or actually does, especially when such persons or Church is willing to retain and join with orthodox members. For example, besides Scripture, see Mastricht, Rutherford and others below.
While there is some variety in the details of the thought and practice of the persons referenced below, including in (sometimes ambiguous) definitions of terms, etc. (and they each ought to be interpreted by their fuller contexts), yet what they say generally supports the main thrust of this page.
This teaching was also the dominate view of the Reformation and puritan era Scottish Church:
The Scottish Westminster divine, Samuel Rutherford, said:
“The knowledge of points fundamental is necessary: 1. To obtain salvation. 2. To keep communion with a true Church; for we are to separate from a Church subverting the foundation and laying another foundation…
The separation from a true Church, where the Word of God orthodox is preached, and the sacraments duly administred, we think unlawful;” The Due Right of Presbyteries (London: Griffin, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, sect. 5, Question 3, In what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church?, pp. 223, 232
The Scottish Protesters (1650’s), who were some of the most right-wing of that era (including Rutherford, Robert Trail, William & James Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, James Ferguson, etc.) commended the previous, non-separatist English puritans as setting forth an imitible practice and principles on the issue:
“We trust all who are acquainted with the principles and practices of our worthy predecessors, and the learned and godly non-conformists in England, will easily see how far we are from their judgments who follow the ways of Separation.” The Representation, Propositions & Protestation of Diverse Ministers (Leith: Tyler, 1652), p. 12
That the opposite party, the Scottish Resolutioners, concurred likewise in this webpage’s principle will not be a surprise; they are quoted below.
The Scottish, covenanting leader James Durham set forth the obligation to unite around Christianity’s fundamentals:
“Thou wilt also find [in this volume]… what things are to be forborne, and what is to be done in order to uniting, and that as well in closing doctrinal differences, not fundamental nor nigh the foundation…” Dying Man’s Testament (1659), Preface
Durham specifically addresses the problem of our current denominationalism, where divisions over less than fundamental issues have long ago occured:
“What cannot warrant a breach where there is union, that cannot warrantably be the ground to keep up a division;” Dying Man’s Testament, pt. 4, ch. 7, p. 320
The earlier Scottish divine, John Cameron (d. 1625), concurred that continuing a schism is faulty, just as in making a new one:
“Schism is a secession in a religious matter, whether rash or unjust, whether it has been made or is being continued.” Works (Frankfurt: Schleichius, 1642), 16. Tract on the Church, “On Schism,” p. 323 (lt col, bot)
To see the position of this webpage briefly argued, read Travis Fentiman, pt. 4, ‘White Towers & Unifying the Church’, pp. 160-89 in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” to English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025).
The Scriptural position affirms that the Church ought to work and reform ‘Towards Union in Secondary & Tertiary Matters’, and that secondary matters, when united on, are disciplinable.¹
¹ Though with respect to a Christian civil government in a professing Christian land, see this argued in pp. 64-72 of Travis Fentiman, The Civil Government’s Authority about Religion & the Church, Circa Sacra: An Extended Introduction… (RBO, 2021).
It is acknowledged that not all denominationalism is the same (an important point to remember): a fundamentally-sound, cooperative denominationalism is much better than denominationalism set against itself (Mk. 3:25; 1 Cor. 1:11); yet nonetheless, cooperative denominationalism is not the standard Scripture sets forth:¹ “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; read also: Dt. 7:6; Eze. 34:22-24; 37:15-28; Mt. 16:18; Jn. 10:16; 17:21-23; Rom. 12:5; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; 10:16; 11:12-13; 12:12-27; Eph. 2:13-22), and the standard Christ has given in his Word for governing his Church is for his whole Body (Mt. 16:18-19; Acts 2:42-47; 14:23; 15:1-16:5; 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:27-28; Eph. 4:11-13; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).
¹ “…he that does unwarrantably separate from a true Church is truly guilty of schism though he add not uncharitableness thereto to denominate him a complete schismatic.” London (Presbyterian) Provincial Synod, A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government & Ministry… (London: Meredith, 1650), p. 118
May it ever be before us that those who are first to believe and obey the Lord are often praised in Scripture, receiveing a greater reward from God and renown for doing so, being a pattern for others to follow. (Num. 14:24; 25:11-12; Josh. 1:7-8; 1 Sam. 17:32; 2 Kn. 23:25; Mt. 16:16-17; Mk. 14:8-9; Acts 4:36-37; 7:59-60; 11:26; Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 15:9-10; 16:15; Gal. 4:14; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 11:4-5, 7-8, 24-26, 31; Rev. 11:3-12)
.
“…pray I… for them also which shall believe on Me… that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.”
Jn. 17:20-21
“Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come,thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven… For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.”
Mt. 6:9-13
.
On Church Union in Christianity’s Fundamentals
.
Bible Verses
Not exhaustive
.
Old Testament 16
Gen. 17:10 “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.”
Lev. 19:2 “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.”
Ex. 19:5 “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people…”
Dt. 6:4–5 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”
Dt. 12:13–14 “Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes…”
Dt. 29:29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
Josh. 5:2–3 “the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the
hill of the foreskins.”
Josh. 24:14–15 “Now therefore fear the LORD… and put away the gods which your fathers served… As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
Neh. 8:1–8 “All the people gathered themselves together as one man… and Ezra the scribe brought the book of the law… and read… and gave the sense, and caused them to understand.”
Ps. 133:1 “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”
Isa. 2:3 “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD… and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths…”
Isa. 55:3–4 “Incline your ear, and come unto Me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people…”
Jer. 32:38–39 “And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever…”
Mic. 6:8 “what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
Zech. 3:9 “For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.”
Mal. 2:10 “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?”
.
New Testament 54
Mt. 23:23-24 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
Mt. 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Jn. 16:12-13 “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:”
Jn. 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Acts 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 2:42 “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
Acts 8:36 “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?’”
Rom. 6:17 “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”
Rom. 10:6 & 9 “But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)… That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Rom. 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
Rom. 12:6 “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;”
Rom. 14:1 “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”
Rom. 14:4 “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”
Rom. 14:13 “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
Rom. 14:17 “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
1 Cor. 1:12-13 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Cor. 2:2 “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
1 Cor. 2:11-13 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
1 Cor. 3:10-11 “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
1 Cor. 8:1-3 “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.”
1 Cor. 8:8-9 “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”
1 Cor. 8:12 “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
1 Cor. 12:12–13 “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body… and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
1 Cor. 13:1-2 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
1 Cor. 13:4-6 “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;”
1 Cor. 13:9-10 & 12-13 “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away… For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
Gal. 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:”
Gal. 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
Gal. 6:15-16 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
Eph. 4:3–6 “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Eph. 4:1-6 “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Eph. 4:13 “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”
Eph. 4:15 “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:”
Phil. 1:27 “…stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;”
Phil. 3:15-16 “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”
Col. 1:23 “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”
Col. 2:6 “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him:”
1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
1 Tim. 6:3 “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness…”
2 Tim. 1:13-14 “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”
2 Tim. 2:22-25 “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”
Tit. 1:1 “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;”
Heb. 5:12 & 14 “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat…. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Heb. 6:1–2 “…the principles of the doctrine of Christ… the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
Jm. 3:13 “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.”
Jm. 4:12 “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”
Jude 1:3 “ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
1 Jn. 1:7 “But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
1 Jn. 3:23 “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
1 Jn. 4:7-8 “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.”
1 Jn. 4:12-13 “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”
1 Jn. 4:15-16 “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
2 Jn. 9–10 “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”
Rev. 14:1 “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.”
.
Articles
1500’s
“To All the Faithful Christians which are in Germany & other Foreign Nations, the Ministers of the Churches throughout Helvetia [Switzerland, including Geneva] whose names are subscribed, wish grace and peace…” in A Confession of Faith made by Common Consent of diverse Reformed Churches beyond the Seas: with an Exhortation to the Reformation of the Church. Perused & allowed according to the Queen’s Majesty’s injunctions (London: Wykes, 1568)
.
1600’s
Dury, John
A Memorial Concerning Peace-Ecclesiastical Amongst Protestants (London, 1641) 12 pp.
“By his [Dury’s] prolonged and varied efforts to make the communion of the saints a vital reality n his age he established a record of irenic activity which in duration and extent is without parallel in the history of Christian irenics. He is the only irenic leader of the seventeenth century who presented overtures of peace in efforts to settle each of the major types of ecclesiastical conflict prevailing at the time, viz., the alignment of Roman Catholics against Protestants; of Lutherans who accepted the Formula of Concord against the Lutherans who rejected it; of Lutherans against the Reformed; of Calvinists against Arminians; of Anglicans against Scottish Presbyterians; of Puritans against strict Anglicans; of Anglicans against Separatists; and the alignment of English Presbyterians against English Independents.
In these efforts Dury made free use of the irenic principles, methods and literature which had been developed by his predecessors and contemporaries. He attempted to unite the scattered efforts of irenic leaders and parties in support of a world-program of Christian reunion and, at the same time encouraged a wide variety of attempts to promote the peace of the churches in local, territorial, and national areas. He laboured to adjust the settlement of existing difficulties by the methods of conference, cooperation, comprehension and arbitration. He made personal efforts to promote peace and unity in the churches of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, France, and Switzerland.
Dury advocated conciliarism as the basic constitutional principle of a united church and as the bond of union between the churches of local, territorial, and international geographic units. His ideas on this subject find their clearest expression in his De modo procedendi [On the Way of Proceeding]. In that work and in numerous other writings he argues that reunion efforts must be conducted by skilful, courageous and tactful men who are genuinely interested in the establishment of Christian concord. They must be chosen from the ranks of both clergy and laity. These negotiators must do their work through a graduated system of representative councils, in which they should seek out the causes of discord among Christians and attempt reconciliations between opposing factions. At first the negotiators should deal with local units. Then efforts must be made in each country to enlist the interest and support of the clergy, the princes, and the masses of the people on behalf of a national church assembly which should maintain bonds of unity between the churches of the nation.
Finally a general assembly, composed of representatives of all Protestant churches of Christendom, should be charged with the responsibility of drafting a common creed, a statement of the essentials of practical piety which should be emphasized in Christian teaching, a common form of public worship, and an organization designed to maintain bonds of unity and cooperation between all Protestant churches.” – J. Minton Batten, “John Dury” in Ecumenical Review (1948), pp. 82-84
Motives to Induce the Protestant Princes to Mind the Work of Peace Ecclesiastical amongst themselves (London: Hope,1641) 10 pp.
The Interest of England in the Protestant Cause (London, 1659) 30 pp.
Calixt, George – Judgment on Theological Controversies agitated between the Lutherans & Reformed, and on the mutual brotherhood and tolerance of parties because of consensus in the fundamentals tr. by AI by WesternCatholike (1650; Leiden, 1652) 36 pp. no ToC Latin
Calixt (1586-1656) was a German, Lutheran theologian and professor of theology at Helmstedt.
Daille, Jean – ch. 7, ‘That there are two sorts of errors, the one overthrowing the foundation of faith and obliging men to separate, and the other not. That the opinions of the Church of Rome which we reject are of the first sort and those of the Lutherans of the second’ in An Apology for the Reformed Churches, wherein is showed the necessity of their Separation from the Church of Rome: against those who accuse them of making a Schism in Christendom (Cambridge: 1653), pp. 18-26
“Yet (which we Protestants confess) all errors in doctrine do not give a man a just and sufficient cause to make a division from those that hold them. For the apostle commands us to receive him that is weak in the Faith, Rom. 14:1, and not to trouble him with disputes, and to afford him ourselves for an example in bearing gently with those who are not of our mind in everything. ‘Let us all who are perfect,’ says he, ‘be of the same mind; and if any of you think otherwise, God shall reveal even this unto him.’ Phil. 3:15.
‘Tis evident that this weaknesse in faith and this diversity in opinon whereof St. Paul speaks are errors, but such as he would have us bear with. Yet since he elsewhere pronounceth anathema against those that preach any other Gospel than that which he preached, we must of necessity conclude that there are two sorts of errors in religion:
The one such, as a man may bear with without dividing from them who hold them; and the other such, for which he is bound to avoid their communion: and this difference depends upon the nature of errors themselves.
For as the truths which we are to believe are not all of equal importance, some being esteemed fundamental and so absolutely requisite, that a man cannot come to the kingdom of Heaven if he be ignorant of them; others being profitable, yet not so necessary but that a man may without the knowledge of them serve God and enjoy salvation, so it is with errors:
Some are pernicious and no way consistent with a true piety; others are less hurtful and do not necessarily draw in men to perdition. St. Paul does clearly enough discover to us this distinction, 1 Cor. 3:13, 15, where, after he had said that ‘none could lay any other foundation but that which he had laid,’ to wit, Jesus Christ, he adds that ‘they who builded upon this foundation wood, hay, stubble, should have loss in their work when it comes to be tried; nevertheless they should be saved, yet so as by fire;’ that is to say, with difficulty, their person only, or that wherein their chief good consisted, escaping a burning, an evident sign that there be errors which do not deprive the authors thereof of salvation, much less exclude such from happiness as believe them after them, and take them up (when they are dead or gone) merely upon their trust and credit.
And to conclude, who does not see plainly that there be errors which utterly overthrow the foundations of Christianity, engaging us unavoidably in such things as are inconsistent with salvation? and that there be others which do not so? As for example:
If one should think that he were bound to worship the sun (for seeing the sun is a creature, and those who worship creatures have no portion in the kingdom of Heaven), ’tis evident that he who has such an opinion cannot attain eternal happiness. And ’tis so with all other errors which overthrow any of the first, necessary, and fundamental articles of Christian religion. But the errour of those who believed of old that the Church shall continue a thousand years (or some long time) with Jesus Christ upon earth after the resurrection, is no way repugnant to piety towards God or charity towards our neighbor, nor does it directly overthrow any of the foundations of the Gospel, though it be in my opinion contrary to diverse passages of St. Paul and scarce consonant to the nature of Christ’s Kingdom.
A man would scarce believe how necessary it is to mark this difference among the errors of men in matters of religion for preventing that vain scrupulosity and importunate pensiveness which many melancholy spirits are troubled with, who condemn all errors alike, and thunder out one and the same anathema against whatever differs (though never so little) from their apprehensions: yet for keeping them from falling on the other side, into the indifferency of profane persons who conform to any thing and swallow a camel as well as a gnat.
Indeed the true pious person will endeavor to keep himself from all error; and will purge his neighbor too, as well as himself, so far as he is able. For any deviation from truth, though it may be a light and small error, yet ’tis an error (that is to say an ignorance, and contradiction to the truth) and by consequence an evil. But a man must be very diligent and circumspect in observing this distinction among errors and acknowledge that one is much more dangerous than another, and he should more or less abhor them all, according as he shall judge them to be more or less dangerous.” – pp. 19-21
Baxter, Richard – “Exhortation to Church Union where Fundamentally Faithful Churches already Agree” in Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), pp. 95-106 & 119-20
.
1700’s
Shields, Alexander – pp. 42-48 of An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or a Treatise against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled anno 1689 and 1690… (1706; Edinburgh: Gray, 1747)
Shields was one of the three last Scottish Cameronian ministers. When persecution ceased in 1690, he, with the other two, joined the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly. Albeit Cameronians were some of the most Separatistic Christians in history, yet their separatism was highly qualified, and this section of his book is good.
On the errors of Cameronianism in general, see the ‘Intro’ to the page, ‘On Cameronianism’. For an antidote to the separatistic side of even this volume of Shields, reflecting the prior Cameronianism, see English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), with an Extended Intro by Travis Fentiman ‘Defending the Lawfulness of Partial-Conformity’.
Shields: “I. There may be union and communion with ministers or professors with whom we may differ in judgment and practice about many things, and they will not acknowledge their mistake: I mean not if their differences be about fundamentals: we are to have no union or communion with these that hold errors, pernicious and damnable, obvious and evident, scandalous and hurtful to edification: But if the difference be consistent with the foundation and edification, doubtful, and not of dangerous consequence, and not heretical or schismatical, and rather negative (both parts endeavoring the thriving of the work of the Gospel) [rather] than positive in marring and counteracting each other in it, there may be very well union and communion between parties so differing, without sin.
Union in this case is to be endeavored by all expedient and adapted means; not by such means as will undo the one side and only set up the other; for that tends not to the good of the whole; nor then by such means as may incapacitate any minister or member of either side, that is fit for edifying the Church, from having access thereunto; nor by such means as are simply authoritative, condemning and censuring judicially the dissentient party; that is the way of governing an united Church, but not of uniting a rent Church, that’s a remedy very opposite to a Church that is healthy, but not for a sick Church.
But it is to be endeavoured by peaceable conferences, managed with all mutual condescension possible, without janglings, recriminations and irritating exprobations or reproaches, to the end one party may be convinced, and brought over to the other, or both agree in one sentiment:
Or, if that cannot be obtained, union is to be endeavoured, notwithstanding, by mutual forbearance in things controverted, forbearing to engage judicially in sentences of judicatories, abstaining from pressing or propogating differences, or putting restraint on others’ light or practices according to it. But if this union cannot be obtained, there may be communion, and must be no separation or withdrawing upon the account of such differences. This I confirm by Scripture and reafon:” – pp. 42-43
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – Editor’s Extended Introduction in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), pt. 4, ‘White Towers & Unifying the Church’
“Whereunto we have Already Attained,” Phil. 3:15–16 164
White Towers vs. Scripture 165
Westminster & the Scots’ catholic Principles 167
. Westminster Consistent with Herself 170
Church Unity in Fundamentals is Obliging 171
. Too Strong to Help the Weak? & Durham 176
. Objections 179
Close 185-88
Under the section ‘Church Unity in Fundamentals is Obliging’, Fentiman gives many verses throughout Scripture to this effect and quotes the following reformed divines to the same effect:
Calvin, Perkins, Draxe, Ball, Davenant, Dury, some French reformed divines, Hall, Brinsley, Bolton, Reynolds, Turretin, Mastricht.
References to early Church fathers on this principle are on p. 172 fn. 538. Many quotes by the Scottish covenanter James Durham to the same effect are given on pp. 178-79 fn. 550.
“…secondary teachings and practices which do not tend to overturn the fundamentals or the power of godliness will be seen to be no grounds for division, or schism.” – p. 160
.
Books
1600’s
Comenius, John Amos – The Labyrinth of the World & the Paradise of the Heart ed. and tr. Count Lutzow (1623; Dent, 1905) 306 pp.
Comenius (1592–1670) was a Czech philosopher, pedagogue and theologian who is considered the father of modern education.
“During his formative years, while studying at Herborn and Heidelberg, Comenius came under the influence of teachers who strengthened his ecumenical predisposition. This is particularly true of the period of study at Heidelberg, where he became acquainted with David Pareus, whose house, ‘Pareanum’, served as the center for those who worked for Protestant union.
Two years after his return to his native land, Comenius was ordained priest of the Unity, and became pastor at Fulnek in Moravia. But with the outbreak of the Thirty Years War, Fulnek fell a prey to the fury of the Imperial armies. Comenius was compelled to take refuge on the Bohemian estates of one of the most important members of the Unity, Count Charles of Zerotin… There he wrote his celebrated Labyrinth of the World, a book in which the ecumenical theme found expression in condemnation of the fanaticism and bigotry of the confessional groups…” – Martin Schmidt in A History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, p. 89
Various – Good Counsels for the Peace of Reformed Churches by some reverend & learned Bishops & other Divines (Oxford: 1641) 150 pp. ToC
King James I, To Cardinal Perron
Richard Hooker, Answer to Travers
Edwin Sandys, View of the State of Religion in the Western World
John Davenent, Opinion of
Thomas Morton, On the Peace of the Church
Joseph Hall
James Ussher
Opinion of
Sermon before King James
Some French Reformed Divines, Opinion of
Dury, John
A Summary Discourse Concerning the Work of Peace-Ecclesiastical, how it may Concur with the Aim of a Civil Confederation Amongst Protestants (Cambrdige, 1641) 50 pp.
Firmin (1614–1697) was a puritan English minister who appeared to lean congregationalist, but could submit to episcopacy and presbyterianism. He actively promoted Baxter’s model of persons of different persuasions in Church government uniting in a consensus practice (as Phil. 3:15-16 says Christians ought to do). Firmin was ejected in the Great Ejection of 1662.
Baxter, Richard
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653) 145 pp. ToC See the second part of this, ‘An Explication of some Passages in the foregoing Propositions.. with an Answer to some Objections’ at EEBO.
For background to Baxter’s paradigmatic and influential association of moderates of the differing parties for the sake of the Gospel and pastoral work (during a political and ecclesiastical vacuum), and the other similar associations which were modeled after it, see Tim Cooper, When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter (Crossway, 2024), pp. 23, 91-92, 104.
For the creedal Profession and 20 Propositions of the discipline of the Association, typed out, see below. See also ‘A Brief Explication of Some Passages in the Profession’. ‘An Explication of Some Passages in the Propositions’ gives a lot more of the philosophy of the whole.
Cooper: “England had a divided church. Even among puritans, fault lines had visibly widened under the pressure of the civil war and its aftermath. After his own traumatic experience of the war, Baxter longed for order and peace, and he developed a lifelong yearning to bring Christians together in unity.
He identified four main parties within the English church (Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Erastians, and Presbyterians), but he felt that the moderates within each party held similar views and, more importantly, could work together in practice even if their principles varied. He believed that if England’s ministers simply got on with the work of ministry, they would be too busy to notice how their differing doctrines of church government might otherwise keep them apart.
So he formed the Worcestershire Association, a network open to local parish ministers of all stripes who met monthly for the purpose of mutual edification and encouragement. In 1653 they published their agreement to work together, and similar ministerial associations sprang up in other counties.” – p. 23
Baxter: “1. We never intended these Propositions for the taking any sober man (of any of the parties whose union we endeavor) from his former principles; nor for the laying down of any middle way, in which the differing parties may accommodate, by any abatement on each or any side, of their former opinions…
We do therefore suppose in these Propositions that those whom we unite with, do still retain their differing judgements; And our business is but this: To improve those points wherein we are all agreed, for unanimous practice. Till we have opportunity to seek after an accomodation of opinions, or a conviction of each other, we resolve, by Gods help, to close in an amicable practice of so much as we do consent in.
It is utterly unbeseeming any member of Christ to make more divisions wilfully because we are necessitated to some differences through our weakness: and to unite and associate in nothing, because we cannot do it in all things: and to fly from each others society, as enemies or aliens, because we hold some different opinions: as if we were not the sons of one God, the members of one Christ, nor might live in the same family or join in the same Churches or worship, because we are not of the same intellectual complexion in every point, nor all men’s knowledge of the same stature…
2. You must understand, that we have no intent by this our agreement to forestall any further means or attempts for accomodation, or nearer unity: but contrarily to prepare for it; being confident that no way is so likely to accomplish it as a concordant practice of what we are agreed in, and the constant amicable association and familiarity of the dissenters…
3. Much less do we take up with what we are now agreed on as a perfect or fully-sufficient way; as if the points which are laid by, and wherein the several parties differ, did contain in them nothing of any moment… Nor do we intend to tie ourselves to take up with these, and never to go further… So I verily think that conscionable, friendly practicing of so much of Christ’s discipline as we generally know would have helped us to know the rest sooner then our perverse contendings have done…
4. I must therefore especially intreat you to observe that whereas several things are left undetermined in these Propositions…
6. Understand that though in many things we have tied up ourselves by these Propositions from acting in a way of singularity, yet in many points we have left each party and person to the liberty of their judgement: so that they may go above this our agreement, so be it, in so doing they go not against it.
More particularly:
1. Whereas in the first general Proposition we profess ‘not to addict ourselves to parties, but to practice unanimously those known truths that the sober and godly of each party are agreed in,’ we mean only those parties who acknowledge a discipline, and are so ‘sober’ as to disclaim those principles which are utterly inconsistent with the healing of our breaches and the peace and union of the Churches. Particularly we mean the presbyterians, Independants and episcopal who are moderate and judicious. We mean not any Seekers that disclaim [Church] discipline; nor Papists; nor Popish episcopal divines, who will have all the world come to the Romish polity or else they must have no peace. But it is only the Protestant episcopal divines whose principles I take to be consistent with our Propositions: And if there be any other party so sober as to depart no further from the ways of peace, it is such that we mean. But if it had been our intent to have laid by all that any party will controvert, we should have agreed on nothing.” – ‘An Explication of Some Passages in the Propositions’, pp. 1-3
The Christian Religion expressed: I, briefly in the Ancient Creeds, the Ten Commandments & the Lord’s Prayer, and, II, more largely in a Profession taken out of the Holy Scriptures, containing 1, the articles of the Christian Belief, 2, our consent to the Gospel Covenant, 3, the Sum of Christian Duty according to the primitive simplicity, purity, and practice, fitted to the right instruction of the ignorant, the promoting of holiness, and the charitable concord of all true believers… (London: 1660) 85 pp. ToC
This contains the creedal “Profession” of the associated ministers which is lacking in the volume above.
The True & only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches, the Desirableness of it & the Detection of False Dividing Terms (London: Hancock, 1680) 144 pp. ToC
Part 1, “The Reasons for Christian Vnity and Concord, after the nature of it descri∣bed: and how much may be hoped for on earth.”
Part 2, “The Terms of Concord”
Part 3, “Of Schism”
Church Concord, containing: I. A Dissuasive from Unnecessary Division & Separation, & the Real Concord of the Moderate Independents with the Presbyterians, instanced in Ten seeming Differences. II. The Terms Necessary for Concord among all True Churches & Christians… (1655 / 1667; London: 1691) 76 pp. ToC 1, 2
Newcomen, Matthew – Irenicum, or an Essay towards a Brotherly Peace & Union between those of the Congregational & Presbyterian Way: showing out of the most learned and renowned divines of the congregational way that their positions… are sufficient for the establishing a firm and lasting peace between them and the Presbyterians… in pursuance of the good design begun at the Savoy… (London: 1659) 75 pp. ToC
Newcomen (c. 1610 – 1669) was a presbyterian, Westminster divine who was was ejected at the Great Ejection (1662).
Baxter, Richard – Church Concord, containing I. A dissuasive from unnecessary division and separation and the real concord of the moderate independents with the Presbyterians, instanced in ten seeming differences… (London: Parkhurst, 1691) 76 pp. ToC 1, 2
.
1700’s
Turretin, Jean-Alphonse – A Discourse concerning Fundamental Articles in Religion (London: Darby, 1719/1720)
See especially ch. 7, ‘Church Communion ought to be had among those not differing in fundamentals’ and the ‘Testimonies of Scripture’ he cites for this.
.
Quotes
Order of
Justin Martyr
Augsburg Confession
Melanchthon
Calvin
Beza
Mornay
Gifford
Jacob
Perkins
English Puritans
Hall
Polanus
Bernard
Draxe
Adams
Taylor
Hildersham
Ussher
Ball
Rous
Stock
Davenant
Dury
French Reformed
Brinsley
Du Moulin
Newcomen
Bolton
Trapp
Greenhill
Rutherford
London Presbyterians
Reading
Scottish Protesters
Scottish Resolutioners
Caryl
Baxter
Burroughs
Leigh
Jenkyn
Hardy
Reynolds
Lawrence
Cotton
Durham
Lancaster Presbyterians
Watson
Walley
Fullwood
Steele
Le Blanc
Jekyll
Long
Thomas
Turretin
Ross
Flavel
Mastricht
Rule
Horneck
Burkitt
Hamilton
Currie
.
100’s
Justin Martyr
Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 47 in ANF 1.218 Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) was an early Church father.
“And Trypho again inquired, ‘But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [Mosaic institutions], will he be saved?’
I said, ‘In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men— I mean those gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. This you did yourself at the commencement of the discourse, when you declared that I would not be saved unless I observe these institutions.’
Then he replied, ‘Why then have you said, ‘In my opinion, such an one will be saved,’ unless there are some who affirm that such will not be saved?’
‘There are such people, Trypho,’ I answered, ‘and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.
But if, Trypho,’ I continued, ‘some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved.
And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved.’”
.
1500’s
Augsburg Confession 1530
The Confession of the Faith of the Germans exhibited to the most Victorious Emperour Charles the V in the Council or Assembly holden at Augusta… 1530, to which is added the Apology of Melanchthon... (London, 1536), The Principal Articles of the Faith, p. 7
“And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to consent of the doctrine of the gospel and ministration of the sacraments.”
.
Philip Melanchthon
The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 316-17
“I, Philip Melanchthon, regard the above [Smalcald] articles [1537] as right and Christian. However, concerning the pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, we, too, may concede to him that superiority over the bishops which he possesses by human right, making this concession for the sake of peace and general unity among the Christians who are not under him and who may be in the future.”
.
John Calvin
Institutes, tr. Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4
ch. 1, §12, pp. 23-25
“12. When we say that the pure ministry of the Word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.
Nay, even in the administration of Word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from Its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord?
The words of the apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,” (Phil. 3:15) Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.
Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord.
Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, “If anything be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace.” (1 Cor. 14:30) From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.”
.
ch. 2, §1, p. 42
“How much the ministry of the Word and sacraments should weigh with us… so as to be a perpetual badge for distinguishing the Church, has been explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it exists entire and unimpaired, no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us from giving the name of Church; and, secondly, that trivial errors in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate.
Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due, are those by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not injured, and by which those articles of religion, in which all believers should agree, are not suppressed, while, in regard to the sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor impair the legitimate institution of their Author.”
.
Epistle to Schalling of Regensburg
Epp., xvi, p. 429 ff. as translated in Edouard Bohl, “Separation of the Lutheran Church from the Reformed in the Sixteenth Century” in Presbyterian & Reformed Review, vol. 5, no. 19 (July, 1894), p. 428
“It is to be lamented that we, few in number, although we confess in all things the same Gospel, yet let ourselves be disunited by the Lord’s Supper, which ought to be the strongest bond of union.”
.
On Calvin
John T. McNeill, ch. 1. “The Ecumenical Idea & Efforts to Realize it, 1517-1618” in eds. Ruth Rouse & Stephen C. Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517-1948 (Philadelphia, 1967)
“Calvin frequently affirmed the ideals of the Conciliarists and criticized with the greatest severity the papal domination of councils. In a memorandum written probably in December 1560, after the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis between France and the Empire had renewed the issue of a council for pacification, he described the ‘free and universal council’ that was needed ‘to put an end to the existing divisions in Christianity’.
It must be free with respect to place of meeting, personnel, and procedure, and bound only by Scripture. The location should be central to the attending nations. This interesting document offers what is virtually an agenda for the council, listing numberous points in dispute in the realms of doctrine, worship, and polity. Calvin’s council was to be a conference on Faith and Order–with power.
The Pope is not excluded, but he must submit to the council’s decisions and swear to abide by them. Calvin insists that, while a national synod may undertake internal reform, only a genuinely universal council can allay the troubles of Christendom.”
.
“Calvin never for a moment ceased to view the Church in its totality and, as Karl Holl has noted, his ecumenicity took root in the Churches organized under his influence, resulting in a strong feeling of unity and an active intercourse between them. In conflicts within Calvinism, national difference has never played a part. In this ecumenical consciousness he sought, in fact, a ‘syncretism’ (a word employed in his Catechism) among Protestants.
Calvin never drew the bounds of communion in terms of assent to one confession of faith… He sought to lay the foundation of a Europe-wide communion, with a doctrinal basis clearly but not narrowly defined. He hoped to obtain this by mutual deliberation and conciliar action. Had his aims been achieved, Protestantism would have taken the outlines of a Church ecumenical and conciliar, autonomous vis-a-vis the State though protected by it. The design of Calvin has the grandeur of a world-embracing Christian order…
The three Protestantisms [Reformed, Zwinglian and Luthern] had become two [as the Zwinglian and Reformed merged], and Calvin never lost hope that the two would become one.”
.
Theodore Beza
To the most renowned Prince Louis [I] of Bourbon [d. 1569], Prince of Conde [in France]… in A Confession of Faith made by Common Consent of diverse Reformed Churches beyond the Seas: with an Exhortation to the Reformation of the Church. Perused & allowed according to the Queen’s Majesty’s injunctions (London: Wykes, 1568)
“Now why should we once name or make mention of that third kind of traditions, which do either shake the foundations of the salvation by Christ, either overthrow the things that are built upon that foundation.
Such as are the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, the praying to saints, prayer for the dead, the making and the worshipping of idols, the magistral and doctoral determinations (as they call them) of free will, of merit, of pardons and of such other filthiness, the which things seeing they could never be established so long as the authority of the heavenly doctrine stood unshaken in his full force, so are they over impudent which do think that these things may be established either by the false forged title of the Church or by the prescription and length of time.”
.
A Discourse of the True & Visible Marks of the catholic Church… (London: 1582), n.p.
“Therefore, as touching that former point, I put down three things:
One is, that although there be nothing set out unto us in the holy Scriptures which is not most profitable and very necessary as it were unto salvation, yet there are certain chief points, and as it were grounds of our religion, which are to be discerned from the rest.
The second point is that there have been some matters, which in times past have been rudiments of the catholic Church, and may in other times also be rudiments of some particular churches, yet for all that, those points cease not to belong to the true Church.
The third is that the religion and mark of the Church, either universal or particular, is not to be measured by some thing that this or that pastor teaches by word or writing. Neither by that, that some sheep by themselves have thought this, or by the disputations of some, whether they be many or few, but by that doctrine which is commonly received in the Churches, so that it be agreeable to the Word of God.
Now because these questions are called into controversy, go to, let us confirm them by sure reasons and examples:
As touching the first, the thing itself shows that there may be variance touching some things and yet the foundation of Christian religion remain safe: And again, some things cannot be taken away but that the whole building be utterly overthrown. He that denies Christ to have come in the flesh is not of God, but is the spirit of Antichrist. Therefore the companies of the Docetists, of the Marcionites, and of such like, be not the Church of Christ; whereby it is proved that the point touching both the natures of Christ is an article of Christian religion belonging to the foundation. Again, the Church of Jerusalem (wherein, who was better learned than Peter?) knew not the calling of the uncircumcised; and yet what true Church was there then in the world if the Church of Jerusalem were not it? Therefore the point concerning the calling of the uncircumcised is not of itself of the points of Christian religion which concern the foundation. Therefore there is some difference between those things which are set forth unto us in the Scriptures to be believed.
The second also may be proved by a more evident example. For who doubts but that if ever there were anywhere a true and almost only and wholy catholic Church, that was Christ’s own household, being conversant, and that according to the flesh, with those his twelve disciples? Who likewise is ignorant that the point of the resurrection (the foundation whereof is the resurrection of Christ Himself) is of so great weight that the apostle does rightly pronounce that that being abolished, the whole fruit of the Gospel should be abolished? But that very congregation could scarce believe that Christ was yet risen. And Thomas gave not credit to his own very fellow disciples; yea the disciples would not have believed even their own very eyes if the Lord had not said, ‘A spirit has not flesh and bones.’
And that third thing is confirmed by the examples of the Churches of Achaia and Galatia, which doubtless the apostle would not have called the churches of Christ, and therefore true churches, if he had therefore thought that the church of Corinth had denied that article of the resurrection of the flesh, and the churches of Galatia had rejected the benefit of their liberty purchased by Christ because some in Corinth, yea perhaps some of the pastors themselves, did doubt of the point of the resurrection; and the most part of the Galatians called back again the use of circumcision and other ceremonies, seeing that yet notwithstanding the same Paul says: ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ does profit you nothing,’ and seeing that he affirms that those which urged circumcision, not of ignorance, but of stubbornness, they were removed alway unto another gospel and therefore he openly calls them apostates or fallers away, and compares them to dogs, that is to say, to unclean beasts. But it is another thing to err through ignorance than obstinately to resist the truth, as willful fellows are wont.
Heresy which is without the Church, if it be of some point of the religion that touches the foundation, is another thing than being deceived, or an error, which requires and suffers itself to be taught. To be short, the eclipse of the sun is another thing than the absence of the same and the evening is another thing than the darkeness of the night; yea the night itself, which the day succeeds, is another thing than the darkness were when they covered the depth.
These things then being put down, it shall be easy to judge that every error does not take away the name of the true Church, and withal, that to be most false which the adversaries say, to wit, that the catholic Church cannot err, and yet that every error does not abolish the name of the catholic Church.
For as touching this latter point, if some particular Church may err, even in some chief head or article of Christian religion, and yet it ceases not therefore to be a true Church. Wherefore shall not a man say the same of all particular Churches, not considered one by one, but universally, for this is the catholic Church? Truly it is not probable that there lived then any men when Christ rose again, better or more perfectly instructed in true faith than those twelve disciples: And yet we see this whole congregation for a time (as I even now said) so to have doubted of the resurrection of Christ, [and] that for that cause (as Luke writes) Christ remained with them forty days after the resurrection, that He might fully assure them of his resurrection.
Wherefore this thing we conclude, that the chief points of our religion ought of necessity to remain sound in the catholic Church that it may be called catholic: But there may sometimes fall in some cloud (specially through the negligence of the pastors) which may sometimes darken one while this, another while that article, which never the less (when the Holy Ghost appears) straightways vanishes away.
Therefore catholic is not (as the unlearned imagine) always and without exception the same that right or sound is, seeing that even some universal error may continue for a time. And the same thing may and ought much more to be spoken of the particular congregations of this universality. And if these things be true, even in the very grounds of our religion: how much more may we think the same to be true as often as errors creep in, by which the very foundations of religion are not ouerthrown? And this is the stubble or chaff which sometimes, as St. Paul says, are builded upon the foundations of the apostles which at the length shall vanish away when the day of the Lord appears.
…
“[Margin note:] Which be the principal points of the catholic Faith or religion?
Now, because I see some [persons] (not yielding unto these things which we have spoken in general concerning the fundamental or principal points of our religion) again to demand what those should be: I answer:
That these articles are to be called grounds or principles, which being laid, the whole building remains: and which being overthrown, all things builded thereupon fall to the ground. And all these things we profess to have been described with great shortness and plainness out of the Word of God in the Creed which they call the Apostles’. Which thing ought to be added to the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s prayer, of the which, that, to wit, the Ten Commandments do very compendiously set out the order of Christian life: and this, that is, the Lord’s Prayer, does very briefly also set out, right invocation and prayer.
This (I say) is that fundamental, true and perpetual mark of the catholic Church, which shall never be blotted out unto the world’s end: but which nevertheless ought to be expounded out of the writings of the prophets and apostles, from whence it is taken, that all men may understand it and keep it as much as in them lies.”
.
The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ: translated out of Greek by Theodore Beza... (London: Barker, 1599), on 1 Cor. 1:10
“Now a schism is when men which otherwise agree and consent together in doctrine, do yet separate themselves one from another.”
.
Philip Mornay
A Notable Treatise of the Church in which are handled all the Principal Questions that have been moved in our Time concerning that matter [in controversy with Romanism] (London: Barker, 1579)
ch. 2, n.p.
“We will call then the true and pure Churches all those wherein we find the Word of God and sacraments purely and lawfully administered, that is to say (as Cyprian says) according to the institution of the Lord. And we nothing doubt to communicate with them, and that God is there president, howsoever in some certain points of doctrine there have been some error, and in the outward policy some abuse and corruption, and impurity in manners: for it behooves that always we resort thither, when the chief points of the foundation of our salvation be there truly taught, seeing we are men, and the Churches are compounded of men…”
.
ch. 10, n.p.
“Concerning the communion of charity or love, which consists in suffering and bearing the evils one of another, and in not lightly condemning one another: we hold all them for the true members of Christ which worship one God in spirit and in truth, and hope for their salvation in one Jesus Christ alone, the Son of God come in the flesh, and crucified for the sins of the world, which is the foundation of salvation to all men.
We desire all union and agreement with them, in whatsoeuer countries and regions they are, and whatsoever corruptions may be yet remaining amongst them, not only in manner, but also in certain points of doctrine, bewailing the bodily servitude which they endure, and praying the Father of light, that it will please Him to enlighten them more and more by his Holy Spirit.”
.
George Gifford
A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists… (London, 1590)
p. 6
“Behold then the inordinate dealing and arrogant presumption of you Brownists… professing to set up discipline, and glorying that you suffer for it, do break and utterly abolish the rules thereof given by Christ, by your utter forsaking and abandoning all the assemblies in England: for let it be confessed that the errors, the sins, the imperfections, the spots, and deformities of our Church be many, so that she is not in her general estate so fair as the fairest of her sisters: yet has she heretofore had, and now has, many noble children, richly adorned with heavenly jewels, and precious gifts of learning knowledge, faith, and godliness.
And howsoever the Papists one way, and the Brownists another way, do aggravate her crimes with pestilent slanders, yet shall they never prove that either in doctrine or manners she is guilty of any fundamental crime which separates from Christ and destroys the life and being of a true Church.”
.
p. 105
“if this Christian prince do err in some matters of doctrine, or touching the rules of discipline, yet holding and maintaining all the fundamental points of the Christian faith, so that there be abuses and corruptions in the Church, every private godly man is to keep a good conscience, not breaking the unity and peace of the faithful, but not to take public authority to reform.”
.
Henry Jacob
A Defence of the Churches & Ministry of England, written in Two Treatises, against the reasons and objections of Master Francis Johnson, and others of the Separation commonly called Brownists (Middleburg, 1599), ‘Jacob’s 2nd Reply to the 9th Reason’, pp. 79-80
“The apostle, 1 Tim. 6:3-5, saying, separate from such, has a two-fold sense: Either such as teach otherwise than the truth fundamentally, and then separate wholly: Or not fundamentally, but erring only in points less than the foundation.
And these diversely also: Either presumptuously obstinately, and of a desparate conscience: and then if that apear, separate from such wholly: Or else, erring in simplicity and of oversight, and former preiudice, from such, separate not wholly, but only from the very error or errors, in no wise from their Christian communion and society, seeing these are true Christians.
Seing therefore our corruptions of the prelacy and ceremonies be of these latter sort: which thing hitherto you haue not, nor cannot overthrow (and withal you must utterly overthrow Master [Thomas] Cranmer and the rest of the martyrs’ Christianity likewise): Therefore we in England, by the grace of God, are still true Christians: and you ought so to acknowledge us, as you will answer unto God: All which you may do, and yet touch no part of our ecclesiastical corruptions at all, to give allowance unto them: And in all this, there is no contradiction with myself, it is but your distempered conceit, that seems contrary. Neither is our absolute departure from the Papists hereby any whit impeached…”
.
William Perkins
An Exposition of the Creed (1595), on the Church in A Golden Chain (Cambridge, 1600), pp. 493-98
“Thus we see what the visible Church is: now further concerning it, three questions are to be scanned:
The first is how we may discern whether particular men and particular Churches holding errors, be found members of the catholic Church or no.
For the answering of this, we must make a double distinction: one of errors, the other of persons that err.
Of errors, some are destroyers of the Faith, some only weakeners of it:
A destroyer is that which overturns any fundamental point of religion, which is of that nature, that if it be denied, religion itself is overturned, as the denial of the death of Christ, and the immortality of the soul, justification by works, and such like; And the sum of these fundamental points is comprised in the Creed of the Apostles and the Decalogue.
A weakening error is that the holding whereof does not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation, as the error of freewill and sundry such like.
This distinction is made by the Holy Ghost, who says expressly that the doctrines of repentance, and faith, and baptisms, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection, and the last Judgment, are the foundation, namely of religion: and again, that Christ is the foundation, and that other doctrines consonant to the Word are as gold and silver laid thereupon.
Secondly, persons erring, are of two sorts:
Some err of weakness, being carried away by others, or of simple ignorance, not yet being convicted and informed concerning the truth.
Some again err of obstinacy or affected ignorance, which having been admonished and convicted, still persevere in their forged opinions.
This being said, we now come to the point: If any man or Church shall hold an error of the lighter kind, he still remains a member of the Church of God, and so must be reputed of us.
As when a Lutheran shall hold that images are still to be retained in the church, that there is an universal election of all men, etc.; for these and such like opinions may be maintained, the foundation of salvation unrazed.
This which I say is flatly avouched by Paul. ‘If any man’ (says he):
‘build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, or stubble, his work shall be made manifest by the fire, etc. and if any man’s work burn, he shall loose, but yet he shall be safe himself.’
And therefore the hay and stubble of men’s errors that are beside the foundation, on which they are laid, do not debar them from being Christians or members of the Church. A man breaks down the windows of his house; the house stands: he breaks down the roof or the walls, the house yet stands, though deformed. He pulls up the foundation, the house itself falls and ceases to be a house. Now religion which we profess is like a house or building: and some points thereof are like windows, doors, walls, roofs, and some are the very foundation: and the former may be battered, the foundation standing.
Again, if the error be directly or by necessary consequent, even in common sense against the foundation, consideration must be had whether the Church or party errs of weakness or malice: if of weakness, the party is to be esteemed as a member of the catholic Church. And thus Paul writes unto the Church of Galatia, as to a church of God, though by false teachers it had been turned away to another Gospel, and embraced the fundamental error of justification by works.
But when any man or church shall hold fundamental errors in obstinacy or affected ignorance, we are not then bound to repute them any longer as churches or Christians, but as such to whom condemnation belongs, as Paul shows by the example of Jannes and Jambres. And as Jannes and Jambres, says he, withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Yet withall, this caveat must euer be remembred, that we rather condemn the error than the person that errs, because God’s mercy is like a bottomless sea, whereby He works what He will and when He will in the hearts of miserable sinners.
The second question is: Where at this day we may find such visible Churches as are indeed so and members of the catholic Church?
And for the resolving of it, we are to go through all countries and religions in the world. And first to begin with Turks and Jews, we are not in any wise to acknowledge their assemblies for Churches, because they worship not God in Christ who is the head of the Church.
As for the assemblies of Papists which have been a great part of the world, if thereby we understand companies of men holding the Pope for their head, and believing the doctrine established in the Council of Trent, in name they are called churches, but indeed they are no true or sound members of the catholic Church. For both in their doctrine and in the worship of God, they raze the very foundation of religion, which will appear by these three points:
First of all they hold justification by works of grace: avouching that they are not only justified before God by the merit of Christ, but also by their own doings, which opinion flatly overturns justification by Christ…
The second point is that they maintain daily, real sacrifice of the body of Christ in the Mass for the sins of the quick and dead. And this is also a fundamental heresy, for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross must either be a perfect sacrifice or no sacrifice…
The third point is that they worship the images of the Trinity and of saints departed, and their breaden-god, which is as vile an abomination as ever was among the gentiles: all being directly against the true meaning of the Second Commandment, and defacing the worship of God in the very substance thereof.
…
As for the Churches of Germany, commonly called the Churches of the Lutherans:
They are to be reputed of us as the true Churches of God. Though their Augustane Confession [1530] have not satisfied the expectation of other Reformed Churches: yet have they all the same enemies in matter of religion and do alike confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and of the office of the Mediator, of faith and good works, of the Word, the Church and the magistrate, are all of one judgment.
They differ indeed from us in the question of the sacrament, but it is no sufficient cause to induce us to hold them as no Church: for that there is a true or real receiving of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s supper, we all agree; and we jointly confess that Christ is there present so far forth that He does truly feed us with his very body and blood to eternal life: and all the controversy lies in the manner of receiving; we contenting ourselves with that spiritual receiving which is by the hand of faith, they adding thereto the corporal, whereby they imagine themselves to receive Christ with the hand and mouth of the body.
And though to maintain this their opinion, they be constrained to turn… Indeed the opinion of the ubiquity [everywhere-ness] of the body of Christ revives the condemned heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius, and it ouerturns by necessary consequent most of the arti∣cles of Faith: but that was private to some men, as [Johann] Brentius and others, and was not received of whole churches: and whereas the men were godly and learned, and we are uncertain with what affection, and how long they held this error, we rest ourselves in condemning it, leaving the persons to God.
Again Po∣pish transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation are both against the truth of the manhood of Christ, yet with great difference: Transubstantiation is flat against an article of Faith: for if Christ’s body be made of bread, and his blood of wine (which must needs be if there be a conversion of the one into the other) then was not he conceived and born of the virgin Mary: for it cannot both be made of bakers breade and of the substance of the virgin. Againe it abolisheth the outward signe in the Lords supper, as also the analogy between the sign and the thing signified, and so overturnes the sacrament: but consubstantiation does not so, neither does it overturn the substance of any article of religion, but only a main point of philosophy; which is, that a body does occupy only one place at once.
Furthermore, the Churches of Helvetia [Switzerland], and Savoy, and the free cities of France, and the Low Countries, and Scotland, are to be reverenced as the true Churches of God, as their confession makes manifest. And no less must we think of our own Churches in England and Ireland.
For we hold, believe and maintain, and preach the true Faith, that is, the ancient doctrine of salvation by Christ, taught and published by the prophets and apostles, as the book of the [39] Articles of Faith agreed upon in open parliament do fully show: and withal now we are, and have been ready to testify this our faith, by venturing our lives even in the cause of religion against foreign power, and especially the Spaniard: and hereupon all the Churches in Europe give unto us the hand of fellowship.
And whereas sundry among us that separate and indeed excommunicate themselves, give out that there is no Church in England, no ministers, no sacraments: their peremptory asseverations wanting sufficient ground, are but as paper-shot. They allege that our assemblies are full of grievous blots and enormities. Answer:
The defects and corruptions of Churches must be distinguished: and they be either in doctrine, or manners.
Again corruptions in doctrine must further be distinguished: some of them are errors indeed, but beside the foundation; and some errors directly against the foundation: and these overturn all religion, whereas the former do not.
Now it cannot be showed that in our [English] Churches is taught any one error that razes the foundation, and consequently annihillates the truth of God’s Church. Indeed, there is controversy among us touching the point of ecclesiastical regiment: but mark in what manner:
We all jointly agree in the substance of the regiment, confessing freely that there must be preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments according to the institution, and the use of the power of the keys in admonitions, suspensions, excommunications:
The difference between us is only touching the persons and the manner of putting this government in execution: and therfore men on both parts, though both hold not the truth in this point; yet because both hold Christ the foundation, they still remain brethren and true members of Christ.
As for corruptions in manners, they make not a Church to be no Church, but a bad Church:
When as the wicked scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses’s chair taught the things which he had written, the people are commanded to hear them, and to do the things which they say, not doing the things which they do.
And whereas it is said that we hold Christ in Word, and deny Him in deed; that is answered thus: denial of Christ is double: either in judgment, or in fact:
Denial in judgment joined with obstinacy, makes a Christian to be no Christian; denial in fact, the judgment still remaining sound, makes not a man to be no Christian, but a bad Christian.
When the Jews had crucified the Lord of life, they still remained a Church, if any upon earth: and notwithstanding this their fact, the apostles acknowledged that the covenant and promises still belonged unto them: and they never made any separation from their synagogues till such time as they had been sufficiently convicted by the apostolical ministry that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah.
Thus we see where at this day we may find the true Church of God. Now I come to the third question; and that is: At what time a man may with good conscience make separation from a Church. Answer:
So long as a Church makes no separation from Christ, we must make no separation from it: and when it separates from Christ, we may also separate from it; And therefore in two cases there is warrant of separation:
The one is: when the worship of God is corrupt in substance.
And for this we have a commandment, ‘Be not,’ says Paul:
‘unequally yoked with infidels: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness, or what communion has light with darkness, or what concord has Christ with Belial? or what part has the believer with the infidel? or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? wherefore come out from among them and separate yourselues, says the Lord.’
[Note that Paul above is only expressly speaking of the difference between believers and unbelievers, Christians and pagans.]
And we have a practice of this in the Old Testament, when Jeroboam had set up idols in Israel, then the priests and Levites came to Judah and Jerusalem to serve the Lord.
The second is, when the doctrine of religion is corrupt in substance:
As Paul says:
‘If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Iesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is puffed up: from such separate yourselves.’
A practice of this we have in the apostle Paul, who being in Ephesus in a synagogue of the Jews, spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and exhorting to the things which concern the Kingdom of God: but when certain men were hardened and disobeyed, speaking evil of the way God, he departed from them, and separated the disciples of Ephesus: and the like he did at Rome also.
As for the corruptions that be in the manners of men that be of the Church, they are no sufficient warrant of separation, unless it be from private company, as we are admonished by the apostle Paul; and by the examples of David and Lot.
By this which has been said, it appears that the practice of such as make separation from us, is very bad and schismatical, considering our Churches fail not either in the substance of doctrine, or in the substance of the true worship of God.”
.
A Godly & Learned Exposition upon the Whole Epistle of Jude... (d. 1602; London: Kyngston, 1606), on v. 19, pp. 125-26
“The second question. But what if there be errors in the Church, or things amiss; may we not then separate ourselves? Answer:
Things that may be amiss in the Church must be distinguished: for some faults concern the matter of religion: some the manner: the former respects doctrine principally: the latter the manners of men.
First, for things amiss in the manners of men we may not separate; but with Lot have our righteous hearts vexed, and grieved with the wicked conuersation of those among whom we live. The Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses’s chair, teaching Moses’s doctrine must be heard; howsoever, the corruptions of their manners be such as they may not be imitated, Mt. 23:1. Yet here obserue further, that although we may not separate ourselves from such corrupt persons in the public assem∣blies, yet in private conversation we may abstain from them, 1. Cor. 5:11, ‘If any that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one eat not.’ That is, eat not privately.
Secondly, if the Church err in matter of religion, then must we consider whether the error be in a more weighty and substantial point, or in matter of less importance. If it be in smaller points (the foundation being kept) we may not separate ourselves. 1 Cor. 3:15, ‘If any man’s work burn, he shall lose, but himself shall be safe, yet as if it were by fire.’
Now if the error of the Church be in substance of doctrine, or in the foundation, then we must consider whether it err of human frailty, or of obstinacy: if of frailty we may not separate. The Church of Galatia was through frailty quickly turned to another Gospel, and erred in the foundation, holding justification by works: yet Paul writes unto it as unto a Church of God. So likewise the Church of Corinth erred grievously, and overthrew the article of the Resurrection: and yet Paul behaved himself accordingly unto it.
But if the Church err in the substance of religion obstinately, then with good conscience separation may be made. 1 Tim. 4:5, ‘If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome doctrine, from such separate thyself.’ An example hereof we have in Acts 19:9, when Paul had preached in the synagogue of the Jews, and could not prevail with them, but they began to blaspheme and speak evil of the ways of God, then he withdrew himself and separated from them.
1 Chron. 11:14-16, when Jeroboam had set up the two calves to be worshipped, many of the best disposed Jews departed from him and came to Rehoboam, and joined themselves with Judah and Jerusalem in the true worship of the God of their fathers.
Whence we see that no man may with good conscience separate himself from the Church of England; seeing it teaches, believes, and obeys the doctrine of the prophets and apostles.
Further, consider the manner of the separation of these wicked men: there be three sorts of separation:
First, by apostasy, when a man falls wholly from his religion, from the Church, and from common grace. Heb. 6:4, ‘It is impossible that they which were once enlightened, if they fall away,’ etc.
Secondly, by heresy, when men err in the substance of doctrine and religion, and that of obstinacy.
Thirdly, by schism; and that is when men hold the same faith and foundation, and yet disagree and separate in regard of order and ceremony.”
.
A Godly & Learned Exposition of Christ’s Sermon in the Mount (d. 1602; Cambridge: Brooke, 1608), on Mt. 5:29–30, p. 136 On Perkins, see also William Thomas below.
“the scribes and Pharisees, which were the doctors of that Church, erred in some fundamental points of doctrine, teaching justification by works: and withal they greatly corrupted the law of God, both by their doctrine and traditions…
yet for all this, Christ did not separate from that Church, neither taught his disciples so to do, but was present at their sacrifices and assemblies, and kept his Passover with them: and so did his apostles, till they saw them of obstinacy and maliciousness refuse the grace of God, offered unto them in the ministry of the Gospel. Now their example must teach us that so long as our Church holds Christ, we must esteem it to be the Church of God, and not for some wants thereof depart from it.”
.
1600’s
English Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025)
p. 210
Thirdly, we hold and teach and maintain against all heretics and adversaries every part and article of God’s holy truth which is fundamental and such as without the knowledge and believing whereof there is no salvation. Our confessions, catechisms, Articles of Religion, published and approved of our [Anglican] Church, may persuade all indifferent men of this.”
.
p. 211
“Now this reason also is strong to prove us a true Church, for although the bare letter of the Scripture may be found amongst the Jews and Papists and other heretics, yet was there never any people that held and maintained the true sense of the Scripture in all points fundamental but only the Church of God, whereunto only this title belongs, to be the pillar and ground of truth: 1 Tim. 3:15.”
.
p. 212
“Another strange opinion is amongst them [Separatists] maintained in the 156th–157th pages of the Discovery, viz. that every truth contained in the Scripture is fundamental…
yet dare we not call every truth fundamental, that is, such as if it be not obeyed and known, the whole religion and faith of the Church must needs fall to the ground.”
.
p. 231
“Neither can we find in holy Scripture anyone accounted an antichrist or antichristian who, holding the truth of doctrine and professing all the fundamental articles of the Faith, does swerve either in judgment or practice from that rule which Christ has given for the discipline of his Church. Now it is evident that our bishops both do and, by the laws of our land, ought to hold and teach all doctrines and truths that are fundamental. “
.
p. 239
“Lastly, the apostle sets down a rule which is directly contrary to this fourth article of their first exception in these words:
“Let us therefore as many as are perfect be thus minded, and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal the same unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule that we may mind the same thing.” (Phil. 3:15–16)
whereby it appears that with those who hold the foundation we both may and ought to hold and join ourselves in the things wherein we are agreed, notwithstanding our differences in those things that are not fundamental.”
.
Joseph Hall
Epistles, the Second Volume (London: 1608)
3rd Decade, Epistle 5. To Mr. W.L… our dissensions are no sufficient ground of his suspension…, pp. 55-65
“Must you defy your mother, because you see your brethren fighting? Their dissension is her grief: Must she lose some sons, because some others quarrel? Do not so wrong yourself in afflicting her. Will you love Christ the less because his coat is divided? Yea, let me boldly say, The hem is torn a little, the garment is whole; or rather it is fretted a little, not torn; or rather the fringe, not the hem. Behold, here is one Christ, one Creed, one Baptism, one heaven, one way to it; in sum, one religion, one foundation, and (take away the tumultuous spirits of some rigorous Lutherans) one heart.
Our differences are those of Paul and Barnabas, not those of Peter and Magus: if they be some, it is well they are no more; if many, that they are not capital. Show me that Church that has not complained of distraction; yea that family, yea that fraternity, yea that man that always agrees with himself.”
.
6th Decade, Epistle 5… dissuading from Separation & Shortly Oppugning the Grounds of that Error, pp. 50-55
“Are we then heretics, condemned in ourselves? wherein overthrow we the foundation? What other God, Savior, Scriptures, justification, sacraments, Heaven do they teach beside us? Can all the masters of Seperation, yea can all the churches in Christendom set forth a more exquisite and worthy confession of Faith than is contained in the [39] Articles of the Church of England? Who can hold these and be heretical? Or, from which of these are we revolted?
But to make this good they have taught you to say that every truth in Scripture is fundamental; so fruitful is error of absurdities, whereof still one breeds another more deformed than itself. That Trophimus was left at Miletum sick, that Paul’s cloak was left at Troas, that Gaius, Paul’s host, saluted the Romans, that Nabal was drunk; or that Thamar baked cakes [2 Sam. 13:8-10], and a thousand of this nature are fundamental: How large is the Separatists’ Creed, that has all these articles?
If they say all Scripture is of the same Author, of the same authority: so say we, but not of the same use. Is it as necessary for a Christian to know that Peter hosted with one Simon, a tanner in Joppa, as that Jesus Christ the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary? What a monster is this of an opinion, that all truths are equal? That this spiritual house should be all foundation, no walls, no roof? Can no man be saved but he that knows everything in Scripture?…
You see then that both all truths must not of necessity be known, and some must: and these we justly call fundamental: which who so holds, all his hay and stubble (through the mercy of God) condemn him not: stil he has right to the church on earth, and hope in heaven: but whither every truth be fundamental, or necessary: Discipline (you say) is so: indeed necessary to the well-being of a church, no more: it may be true without it, not perfect.
Christ compares his spouse to an army with banners: as order is to an army, so is discipline to the Church: if the troops be not well marshalled in their several ranks, and move not forward, according to the discipline of war, it is an army still: confusion may hinder their sucess, it cannot bereave them of their name: it is as beautiful proportion to the body, an hedge to a vineyard, a wall to a city, an hem to a garment, ceiling to an house. It may be a body, vineyard, city, garment, house, without them: it cannot be well and perfect.
Yet which of our adversaries will say we have no discipline? Some they grant, but not the right: as if they said, Your city has a brick wall indeed, but it should have one of hewn stone; your vineyard is hedged, but it should be paled and ditched: while they cavil at what we want, we thank God for what we have; and so much we have, in spite of all detraction, as makes us both a true Church and a worthy one.
But the main quarrel is against but ministry and form of worship: let these be examined; this is the circle of their censure: No Church, therefore no ministry; and no ministry, therefore no Church… What would they have? Have we not competent gifts from aboue, for so great a function? Are we all unlearned, insufficient? Not a man that knows to devide the word aright? As Paul to the Corinthins, is it so that there is not one wise man amongst us? No man will affirm it: some of them have censured our excess in some knowledge; none, our defect in all: What then? Have we not a true desire to do faithful service to God and his Church? No zeal for God’s glory?…”
.
A Common Apology of the Church of England against the Unjust Challenges of the over-just Sect, commonly called Brownists… (London: Macham, 1610), sect. 4, pp. 10-11
“Now of Churches faulty and corrupted, some raze the foundation; others, on the true foundation build timber, hay, stubble. From those we must separate; from these we may not. Peter’s is eternal, ‘Whither shall we go from Thee; Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ (Jn. 6:68) Where these words are found, woe be to us if we be not found.
Amongst many good separations then, yours cannot be separated from evil, for that we should so far separate from the evil that therefore we should separate from God’s children in the communion of the holy things of God, that for some (after your worst done) not-fundamental corruptions, we should separate from that Church in whose womb we were conceived, and from betwixt whose knees we fell to God: in a word (as one of yours once said) to separate not only from visible evil, but from visible good, as all Antichristian: who but yours can think less than absurd and impious? Grant we should be clean separated from the world, yet if we be not, must you be separated from us?¹
¹ Neque propter paleam relinquim are am Domini, neque propter pisces malos rumpimus retia Domini. Augustine, Epistle 48
Do but stay till God have separated us from Himself: will the wise husbandman cast away his corn-heap for the chaff and dust? Shall the fisher cast away a good draught because his drag-net has weeds? Does God separate from the faithful soul, because it has some corruptions, her inmates, though not her commanders?”
.
The Opinions of Certain Reverend & Learned Divines concerning the Fundamental Points of the True Protestant Religion, & the Right Government of Reformed Churches ([Oxford] Downes, 1643), “Opinion of Joseph Hall,” pp. 1–2
“Those articles of religion wherein the divines of both sides [of the reformed and Lutherans] do fully agree are abundantly sufficient, both for a Christian man’s salvation and likewise for
the establishing of a firm and lasting peace in the Churches of God.
As for the rest… they are such as may perhaps not unfitly be sent to the divinity-schools, there to be thoroughly discussed: but by no means ought they to disquiet the peace either of any Christian soul or of God’s holy Church…
our good and gracious Savior passed over with silence and toleration great and grievous errors in comparison of these… and that too even in such as were of his own household and retinue.”
.
Amandus Polanus
A System of Christian Theology tr. ChatGPT-4 (Hanau, 1609-1610), bk. 7, Church & its Government
p. 309
“38. Although therefore in some assembly, either in doctrine, or in the administration of the sacraments, the worship of God, and morals, some vice may creep in, nevertheless the assembly does not cease to be in the Church of God, as long as it retains the foundation, which is Christ.
Just as Paul does not take away the name of the Church of God from the Corinthians and Galatians, even though false doctrines had begun to be spread among them, and some lived dissolutely. Nor is the Church to be denied immediately because of the neglect or cessation of ecclesiastical discipline.”
.
pp. 555-557
“22. The heretic is not to be confused with the schismatic: nor is every schismatic to be counted among the number of heretics. For although heretics often become schismatics, and conversely schismatics often become heretics, nevertheless the heretic and the schismatic differ.
For first, heretics, corrupting the sincerity of faith with false doctrines, do not always separate themselves from the Church: but schismatics, sometimes even retaining the purity of faith without the stain of heresy, break the bond of brotherly society out of ambition for honor or some function in which they do not want another to be preferred over them, or out of hatred and impatience of divine order and ecclesiastical discipline, or under the pretext of scandals which are committed everywhere.
23. Heretics properly strike against the truth of the doctrines of faith, as heretics: but schismatics against charity, as schismatics:
24. Those who at the same time stumble in the truth of faith and charity, and obstinately defending the error of faith separate themselves from the Church of God, they are at the same time heretics and schismatics.
25. Very often it happens in practice that some orthodox
individuals think differently from others, without strife or
schism: as Jerome and Augustine.
26. Schismatics either separate themselves entirely from the Church, or in part also from this or that Church in the name of particular offenses.”
.
Richard Bernard
Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, the Separation Schismatical... (London: 1610)
2nd Likelihood, p. 50
“But let him know, and all his associates, that we forsake not the Church of Rome for that they are not in a true constitution, or for external governement, simply considered, or for some light ceremonies, or for set prayer, and for the Church maintenance by tithes, or for commixture of bad with good, or for defects of a Church not fundamental, or for corruptions of a less nature, as these men do from us, without all warrant from the Word:”
.
8th Error of the Brownists, pp. 279-81
“I deny that want [lack] of future obedience in personal transgessions does argue that no Covenant has been made, or then to be disanulled: if so be, first, that the fundamental points of the Covenant be held by us, that is, that we do profess Him our God and no other; hold his Word to be our rule and none other; his sacraments to be the seals and none other: for in these three is the foundation of the Covenant, the persons one and the same, the writings one and the same, the seals one and the same: this binds each party to [the] other to perform the particulars of the Covenant thus made, and the party offending in some things for matter of fact, not disanulling any of these three, is only liable to reproof and punishment, but yet the Covenant does stand firm.
A man and a woman do covenant together lawfully in marriage, the word of mutual promise passes solemnly between them to performe mutual duties, and the man gives a token to confirm the profession of his love and truth therein, which she receives: now she after is a very disobedient wife, and breaks the particulars of the covenant; but herein is she just, she holds none other [than] her husband; she stands unto the general covenant, and she keeps the token thereof: Though she be disobedient otherwise in many things, yet is there a covenant made and remains, so as yet there is true man and wife.
And thus is it with his Church, as the example of the Israelites does show; of whom it is said that they were a stiff-necked people, Dt. 9:6, who often provoked God to anger, Ps. 95, and always resisted the Holy Ghost: Acts 7:51, yet had they covenanted with God, as Dt. 26:17, Moses tells them.
Secondly, if the Lord on his part break not, the Covenant holds: for though the Lord complain that Israel had broken Covenant, yet were they for all that his people, until He cast them off and chose another to serve Him. It cannot be proved therefore that a people have not covenanted with God because of their personal evils in the Church; nor that therefore they be none of the Lord’s people, except it can be also proved that God has cast them off and chosen others.
Now also I assume the latter part of the consequence, which is this: We have visibly covenanted with God to have Him for our God. We do hear the Word preached, we do profess faith to that Word, we entertain it as God’s Word; and we do receive the sacraments; our words, writings, and practice show this to be true. And therefore if these have made other people to be in Covenant with God, then the same do so make us in Covenant with God. And therefore also have we the form of a true Church.”
.
Thomas Draxe
The Christian Armory (London: Hall, 1611), bk. 2, ch. 6, p. 88
“…we must not separate ourselves from such a Church, except it err in the fundamental points of faith and true religion; but we must herein comfort ourselves that this schism is without heresy.”
.
Thomas Adams
The Happiness of the Church, or a Description of those Spiritual Prerogatives wherewith Christ has endowed her, considered in some Contemplations upon part of the 12th Chapter of the Hebrews (London, 1619), ‘To the General Assembly, and Church of the Firstborn which are Written in Heaven,’ pp. 66-67
“2. Whether a separation may be iustly made from our Church for some errors or corruptions of life. I know that diverse who were once among us, never of us, have put out their own lights, indeed excommunicated themselves. What’s their plea? That our assemblies are full of enormities. I answer:
That the defects and corruptions of a Church must be distinguished: they are either in doctrine or in manners. For doctrine, some errors are Citra fundamentum, some Circa fundamentum, others Contra fundamentum. Errors beside the foundation trouble, errors about the foundation shake, errors against the foundation ouerturn all. So long then as no foundation is harmed, it is not lawful depart until the Church separates from Christ, we must not separate from it.
In two cases there is warrant of separation:
First, when the substance of God’s worship is quite corrupted. What agreement has the Temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:16) When this is, verse 17, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, says the Lord,’ When Jeroboam had set up idols in Israel, the priests and the Levites left their suburbs and possession and came to Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chron. 11:14)
Secondly, when the substance of doctrine is quite corrupted. If any man consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, etc. (1 Tim. 6:3) ‘From such,’ verse 5, ‘withdraw thyself.’ Paul in the synagogue at Ephesus preached for the space of three months together. (Acts 19:9) But when diverse were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way, he departed from them, and separated the disciples.
In these two cases lawful, not else.”
.
Thomas Taylor
Two Sermons: the one A Heavenly Voice calling all God’s people out of Romish Babylon; the other An Everlasting Record of the utter ruin of Romish Amalek (Lonodon, 1624), A Heavenly Voice, p. 18
“2. None of the corruptions which they falsely term, are of that high nature as to call for a per∣sonal separation, because none of them are fundamental. The least corruption that we can certainly espy, which yet is not in constitution, but in execution, we must separate from, in judgment, in affection, in practice, but to separate personally for any error not fundamental, let them teach it them to whom all errors are alike, but we may not be so dull.”
.
Arthur Hildersham
152 Lectures upon Psalm 51… (London: 1635), Lecture 48, on Ps. 51:4 (1626), p. 243
“Yea, and although difference in judgment about smaller matters ought not to cause that alienation of affection, and strangeness either among ministers or people, as with many it does; to the great hindrance of the growth of the Gospel; yet towards such as oppose themselves against the truth in main and fundamental articles thereof, Christians are bound to show themselves strange, to shun all voluntary and unnecessary familiarity with them, to show them no countenance. If we shall receive such into our houses, or bid them Godspeed, we make ourselves partakers of their sins, 2 Jn. 10-11.”
.
James Ussher
A Brief Declaration of the Universality of the Church of Christ & the Unity of the Catholic Faith… (London, 1629)
p. 7
“Thus must we conceiue of the catholick Church as of one entire body, made up by the collection and aggregation of all the faithful unto the unity thereof: from which union there arises unto every one of them such a relation to and a dependance upon the Church-catholic as parts use to have in respect of their whole.
Whereupon it follows that neither particular persons, nor particular Churches are to work as several divided bodies by themselves (which is the ground of all schism), but are to teach and to be taught, and to do all other Christian duties, as parts conjoined unto the whole, and members of the same commonwealth or corporation…
Which makes strongly as well against the new Separatists, as the old Donatists: who either hold it a thing not much material, so they profess the faith of Christ, whether they do it in the catholic communion or out of it; or else (which is worse) dote so much upon the perfection of their own part that they refuse to join in fellowship with the rest of the body of Christians, as if they themselues were the only people of God and all wisdom must live and die with them and their generation.”
.
pp. 14-16
“Now in the next place, for the further opening of the unity of the Faith, we are to call unto mind the distinction which the apostle makes betwixt the foundation and that which is builded thereupon: betwixt the principles of the doctrine of Christ and that which he calls perfection.
The unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God here spoken of, has reference (as we heard) to the foundation: as that which follows of a perfect man, and the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, to the superstruction and perfection.
In the former there is a general unity among all true believers: in the latter, a great deal of variety, there being several degrees of perfection to be found in several persons, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So we see in a material building, that still there is but one foundation, though great disparity be observed in sundry parts of the superstruction: some rooms are high, some low, some dark, some lightsome, some more substantially, some more slightly builded, and in tract of time some prove more ruinous than others; yet all of them belong to one building, as long as they hold together and stand upon the same foundation. And even thus is it in the spiritual building also, whether we respect the practical part of Christianity or the intellectual.
In the practical we see wonderful great difference betwixt Christian and Christian: some by God’s mercy attain to a higher measure of perfection and keep themselves unspotted from the common corruptions of the world; others watch not so carefully over their ways and lead not such strict lives, but are oftentimes overtaken and fall fouly: that he who looketh upon the one and the other, would hardly think that one Heaven should receive them both. But although the one does so far outstrip the other in the practice of new obedience (which is the Christian man’s race) yet are there certain fundamental principles, in which they both concur; as a desire to fear God’s name, repentance for sins passed, and a sincere purpose of heart for the time to come to cleave unto the Lord. Which whosoever has is under mercy, and may not be excluded from the communion of saints.
In like manner for the intellectual part: the first principles of the oracles of God (as the apostle calls them) hold the place of the common foundation, in which all Christians must be grounded: although some be babes, and for further knowledge are unskilful in the Word of righteousness; other some are of perfect age, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
The oracles of God contain abundance of matter in them, and whatsoever is found in them is a fit object for faith to apprehend: but that all Christians should uniformly agree in the profession of all those truths that are revealed there, is a thing that rather may be wished than ever hoped for. Yet the variety of men’s judgments in those many points, that belong to theological faith, does not dissolve the unity which they hold together in the fundamental principles of the catholic Faith.
The unity of the Faith commended here [in Eph. 4:11-14], is a catholic unity, and such as every true Christian attains unto. ‘Till we ALL come in the unity of the Faith:’ says the apostle. As there is a common salvation, so is there a common Faith, which is alike precious in the highest apostle and the meanest believer. For we may not think that Heaven was prepared for deep clerks only: and therefore beside that larger measure of knowledge, whereof all are not capable, there must be a rule of Faith common to small and great; which as it must consist but of few propositions (for simple men cannot bear away many), so is it also requisite that those articles should be of such weight and moment that they may be sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation: that howsoever in other points learned men may go beyond common Christians, and exceed one another likewise by many degrees: yet in respect of these radical [root] truths, which is the necessary and common food of all the children of the Church, there is not an unity only, but such a kind of equality also brought in among all sorts of Christians, as was heretofore among the congregation of the Israelites in the collection of their manna; where he that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack.”
.
pp. 38-39
“He speaks there of Jesus Christ the Righteous: the Son of God, who is here in my text likewise made the object of this knowledge. ‘Thou art Christ the Son of the living God,’ [Mt. 16] is by Christ Himself made the rock upon which the whole Church is builded, ‘And other foundation’ (says St. Paul) ‘can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ Not that we should think that there were no other fundamental doctrine to be acknowledged but this alone (for the articles of the Holy Ghost, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the dead, eternal judgement, and such like other have their place also in the foundation), but because this is the most special object of faith, and the primary foundation of all the other.”
.
John Ball
A Friendly Trial of the Grounds tending to Separation… ([Cambridge:] Daniel, 1640)
ch. 8, pp. 155
“The churches of God have been evermore taught to prize and esteem these main and fundamental truths and ordinances of worship at a higher rate than that some petty dislike of this or that in the external form (when the matter is sound and good) should cause Separation.”
.
ch. 9, pp. 162-63
“And if the greater part be in error and so stiff that they would sooner persecute the better than reform, if it be not in matters fundamental or bordering thereupon, or noxious and pernicious to be concealed, I know not that either that innocent is allowed to separate from the exercises of religion for that cause, or bound to admonish them of their error. He that taught to suffer the tares rather than to pluck up the wheat with them, has showed a reason for this judgment (Mt. 13:29).”
.
ch. 11, p. 228
“In matters fundamental, as the profession of faith must be entire in all points of simple belief, so must the doctrine of the Church in all things concerning practice: but errors of inferior alloy, wherein godly men dissent pardonably one from another, both concerning faith and practice, may be found and maintained in the true Church.”
.
Francis Rous
Catholic Charity Complaining & Maintaining that Rome is Uncharitable to sundry eminent parts of the catholic Church, and especially to Protestants, and is therefore Uncatholic (London: 1641), ch. 9, sect. 3, pp. 231-34 Rous was a Westminster divine.
“And indeed there is no possibility of making an actual agreement in those lesser points, because of the different capacities and degrees of faith: And God in the Scripture has not promised such an actual agreement to all the members of the Church in all lesser points of doctrine; for He has not promised a full and uniform discovery of them to all: Yea, it has been showed out of your own great Doctor Stapleton (Ex. pacif. ch. 3), by a Roman Catholic, that in the discovery of small points the Church is not infallibly directed…
And thus may we come to a sight of the unity of faith in the Church; For in the explicits, that is, in fundamentals of absolute necessity which knit unto Christ the foundation, there is and ought to be an unity; and this substantial unity may cover the incurable differences in the lesser implicit points being held by infirmity, and not with contention, scandal, and schism: For unity in fundamentals does take away the damning censure of differences in lesser points when there is a will of believing right in these points, but a want of power to attain this belief.
And so these differences in lesser points not being put upon account for the will of unity in them, and for the real unity in fundamentals, this real unity in fundamentals is accounted an entire, or at least a solid and saving unity: So that the unity is not to be reckoned from this, that all do actually agree in this belief of all lesser points (for in diverse of these points diverse do necessarily differ) but because their unity in fundamentals, and a will of unity in these lesser points wherein they differ (the imputation of smaller differences being thus taken away) are accounted to them for an entire, or at least for a sufficient unity. And this truth is in not much unlike terms to be seen in Tertullian (Of the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1):
Regula quidem fidei una omninò est, sola immobilis, et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum, omnipotentem mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus Jesum Christum, etc.
‘The rule of faith is only unmoveable.’ And De Praes., ch. 12:
Quaeramus ergò in nostro et à nostris et de nostro, id(que) duntaxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire.
‘Let us inquire or dispute of that which may come into question without hurting the rule of faith.'”
.
Richard Stock
A Learned & Very Useful Commentary upon the Whole Prophesy of Malachi (London: T.H., 1641), on ch. 1, verse 9, pp. 177-78
Doctrine. Men ought not to separate themselves from a visible congregation or assembly, a visible Church, for the abuse of it, and the corruption of it, it being not in fundamentals. As here the prophet did not, neither read we of any prophet who left the Church, but in most corrupt ages remained there, reproving and threatening them, praying and mourning for them, but not forsaking them. It is that, Eze. 9:4, they are noted, as St. Augustine observes, that mourn for the corruptions of the time, not who separate themselves from the Church.
In the New Testament we find not Christ, nor his apostles to forsake the Church, but remain in it, though marvellously corrupt; teaching, reproving, correcting, mourning for it. So of the pastors of the six Churches of Asia; their corruptions noted, and their angels biding with them. To this purpose is that, Heb. 10:24-25, 38, 39.
Reason 1. Because no man ought to separate himself from the true Church of Christ: Now such is an assembly professing the true faith, notwithstanding other corruption; for as holiness, if it might be supposed without true faith, cannot make a true Church, but false doctrine and error in the foundation overthrows it for being a Church: So è contrà, corruptions in manners cannot make it no Church, when true faith is taught and maintained.
Reason 2. Because separation and excommunication from a particular Church is the most heavy and greatest censure of the Church; which as no man should incur by his evil behavior, so no man ought to inflict upon himself for the corruptions of others, who happily deserve to be separated themselves.
Use 1. To condemn all those who withdraw themselves from our assemblies because of corruptions amongst us, crying out of those who will remain among them, to the benefit of the good that is there to be had. But to such an one I say, as Augustine answered Petilian, That he did not well to leave Christ’s heap of corn, because the chaff was in it, till the great winnowing day; and that he showed himself to be lighter chaff, driven out by the wind of temptation, that flew out before the coming of Christ the Winnower. What folly is it for a man to leave the jewels and plate in the gold-finers shop, because of the iron tongs and black coals? What warrant have they, when as Noah left not the ark for all the unclean beasts?
Use 2. To teach every man not to be so offended for the corruption of the times, as to separate himself from the Church for them. If they had loved peace, they had not broken unity, says Augustine. And in another place, A vessel of honour ought to tolerate those things that are vile, and not therefore to forsake the house of God, lest himself be cast out as a vessel of dishonor, or as dung. That certainly which is, 1 Cor. 5:13, ‘Put away from your selves the wicked person,’ is to be understood of those who have authority, which if they exercise not, is their sin, not mine or thine: Shall I forsake the good, and the Church where I may be safe, for their evil? Nec quisquam sine consensu cordis sui ex ore vulneratur alieno. Let no man then separate himself; for why should a good, pure and sound member separate itself from those that are corrupt, and cut itself off, both to make the whole worse and to lose to itself the good it might have by abiding?”
.
John Davenant
An Exhortation to Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches... (London: R.B., 1641)
ch. 10, p. 113
“…the bands of brotherly communion ought not to be dissolved betwixt Christian Churches for all discords of opinions, but only for the opposing or denying of fundamental doctrines.”
.
ch. 12, p. 165
“…but they who, retaining all fundamentals of faith and God’s worship, differ from others and err in some consequences or doctrines of less moment, profess no new or other religion, but are convicted not as yet to have attained in that one only religion to perfect knowledge.”
.
John Dury
A Copy of Mr. John Dury’s Letter… intimating the Necessity of a Common, Fundamental Confession of Faith… (London: Underhill, 1643), pp. 2–3
“Now if it could be made plain to the divided Protestant Churches, that indeed the causes of their divisions are extra-fundamental, it may be truly and hopefully concluded that for conscience sake towards God and for their mutual edification and preservation against the encroaching power of darkness, they would be moved to leave off passionate disputations and laying aside the causes of their separation to compose their differences in brotherly love.”
.
Some French Reformed Divines
The Opinions of Certain Reverend & Learned Divines concerning the Fundamental Points of the True Protestant Religion, & the Right Government of Reformed Churches ([Oxford] Downes, 1643), “Opinion of some Famous Divines of the French Church,” pp. 1–2, 24–26
“the constant and earnest wish of all good men for these hundred years past… that the Protestant Churches which differ one from another about some points of religion, laying aside or at least moderating on both sides their over-tenacious adhering to their own opinions, may now at length be united and made up into one body…
we [the reformed and Lutherans] are not at variance about any fundamental point of Christian religion, or such wherein men may not safely be of either opinion without hazarding their salvation…
we make no doubt but every man would then readily wish for this much-desired communion, which none ever shunned or refused but out of a kind of religion and conscience, conceiving it unlawful to entertain a communion with any that are not of the same belief and opinion with themselves: so soon as men on both sides shall be wrought off from this superstitious conceit, they will gladly run and rush (as it were) into one another’s arms and embraces…
how foul and scandalous a thing, how hurtful to both sides, how dangerous and pernicious to the whole Christian world this Schism is which has hitherto divided and distracted us…
seeing we confess that whatsoever is of necessity for salvation to be believed or done by us, it is all clearly and plainly laid down in this Gospel, what hinders why we may not jointly confirm and ratify those articles wherein we both agree? and for those other points about which we differ, we may express them in such words and phrases as the sacred Scriptures afford us…”
.
John Brinsley
The Arraignment of the Present Schism of New Separation in old England (London: Field, 1646), pp. 24–25
“Unwarrantable [schism] either for the ground or manner…
Where a ground and cause is pretended, but it is but a light cause… some lesser errors in doctrine, not fundamental, nor near the foundation; some corruptions in or about the worship of God, but those not destructive to the ordinances, being not in substance, but in ceremony; and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in…”
.
Pierre Du Moulin
The Novelty of Popery, opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity… (London: White, 1662), bk. 1, ch. 7, pp. 14-15
“For there be some errors in light things, not fundamental in religion, upon which a separation may happen, by the pride and pertinacy of some pastors, even of them that are orthodox:
As the error of the Quartadecimani, who celebrated the feast of Easter precisely upon the fourteenth day of the moon of March; for which cause Victor, bishop of Rome, separated himself from their communion; wherein, although the error was on their side, yet the schism was on Victor’s side, and he was more guilty than they…
For no doubt but that such separations commonly happen by the ambition of the pastors that lead the people, who groan under that yoke, and desire concord, grieving for the separation. Yea it may happen that both the Churches that forsake their mutual communion are both in the wrong.
It may happen also, that the party that hath the truth on his side, is cause of the schism, by the harshness, or ambition, or want of charity of them that govern. As when two brothers are quarrelling, they are brothers nevertheless: So it is possible that two dissenting churches will be nevertheless members of the same body, in God’s account, whose wisdom is not obnoxious to our violence…
I could wish also that a man should not be pronounced an heretic that is ignorant of some article of Faith by a simple and negative ignorance, such as is that of infants; not by an obstinate ignorance, which arms itself with reasons against the truth. Thus the apostles were at first ignorant of the resurrection, and were not heretics for that.
I wish also that an error be not presently called an heresy, when it is about a light thing, not about the fundamentals
of Faith.”
.
Matthew Newcomen
The Duty of such as would Walk Worthy of the Gospel (London: 1646), pp. 41-42 Newcomen (c. 1610–1669) was a Westminter divine. He appears to have been presbyterian and then became a congregationalist, before being ejected in the Great Ejection (1662).
“Who are they that divide in judgement from all the Reformed Churches of Christ in the world, that have opinions and judgements differing from the opinions and judgements of all the Reformed Churches? we or the Anabaptists? we or the Separatists? we or the—?
Possibly they will all say they are of the same opinion with the Reformed Churches in fundamentals as well as we, and their differences are but in minutioribus. Now supposing this to be true (as it may be in some of them), why then do they transgress the apostles’ rule? Why do they not, if that it be in matters of lesser moment wherein they differ from us, why do not they keep their opinions private, and have their faith unto themselves before God [Rom. 14:22]?
Why do they upon so small differences (if the differences be so small) withdraw from communion with us and the rest of the Churches, and gather themselves into distinct and separate Churches; some of them not holding one body with us, others neither holding one body nor one baptism with us? Their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches, in doctrines that are fundamental; their holding one Head and one faith, does not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity and down-right schism, as long as they hold not one body, one baptism.
Schisma (says Augustine) est eadem opinantem et eodem ritu utentem solo Congregationis delectari dissidio. ‘Schisme is, when a man that professes the same faith and worship, is delighted only with the difference of an assembly or congregation. And again, Schismaticos facit non diversa fides sed communion is disrupta societas: ‘It is not a differing faith, but break∣ing the fellowship of communion that makes men schismatics.’ And again, Schisma est, Recens Congregationis ex aliqua sententiarum diversitate dissen∣sio: ‘Schism is a new or late dissension or disagreement of a congregation, arising from some diversity of opinion.’
It is Beza’s observation that the Corinthians did agree in the fundamentals of religion, and yet they had schisms among them, from whence he takes occasion to say,That [Greek], sive [Greek], est cum alij alijs hominibus sive externis ritibus it a sunt addicti, ut quamvis alioquin in ipsis religionis capitibus consentiant, tamen animis sint ab alienati et factiones quasdam ineant: ‘Schism or division’ (says he) ‘is this, when men are so addicted to some men, or to some outward rites, that though they do agree in the chief points of religion, yet they are estranged in their minds, and engage themselves into parties and factions’: Now who are they that though they professe to agree with us in doctrine, have yet made a secession, withdrawn themselves, gathered Churches, engaged parties? Consider and give sentence.”
.
Samuel Bolton
The Arraignment of Errour… (London: Kembe, 1646)
pp. 67-68
“So then did you know any to hold forth fundamental errours, such as are the overthrow of faith or destructive to the power of godliness, there is no countenance to be given to such, you make yourselves sharers with him in his sin and bring upon yourselves the same guilt. And therefore says Paul, Tit. 3:10:
‘A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sins being condemned of himself.’
These are the rules for undoing errors: Nay and were they defiling though not damning errors, were they but sinful, though not destroying errours, yet if they were evidenced to us, and manifest to us to be errors, we ought not to connive at them, to countenance them in their way, but to admonish, to reprove them, to exhort them and use all possible ways left by Christ to reclaim them.
But now when the things held forth are but merely opinion, or if more, yet they are not any way injurious to faith, or hurtful to the power and practise of godliness, then there may be more agreement, the difference of judgment should not in this case alienate affections, though you are not all of one mind, yet you are all of one heart, and here you differ only about the way to advance God’s glory. You have both cordial affections to God and Christ, you desire to bring Him glory, only you differ in the way; one thinks this way, and the other this, and in both it may be the Scripture is silent, or holds out as much for one as the other.
Now in this case why should there be falling out: certainly diversities of opinion, may be countenanced, and yet without sin, provided that it does not arise either from fickleness, unsettledness and inconstancy in us, or from pride, that we love to side and differ from others, or that it does not tend to make disturbance of the peace of the Churches of Christ.”
.
pp. 349-50
“…this accommodation is not impossible: if indeed it were, God does not bind us to the seeking after it…
If we look upon the nature of the things wherein they differ, they are not of such moment as to divide between brethren; their differences are not about fundamentals, but superstructures: there is no opinion expressly maintained by either side which is directly contrary to the substance of faith, or destructive to salvation; nay, whatever are such, they are condemned by both.
Nor [is] the difference in those matters wherein they differ so wide but they may be composed and brought together, if men will act humility and self-denial. It was said of the differences between Luther and the [reformed] Helvetians, that there was not any impossibility in respect of the things themselves; if their spirits could be reconciled, their causes might easily be reconciled… where the difference is substantial, I do not see but if humility and self-denial might take place, if interests might be waved, if pre-engagements might be slighted, even in those things there might be an agreement; certainly, God does not make the difference so great as we ourselves do make it…
It was the speech of one concerning the reconciliation of the German Churches: It is possible for the most hot and rigorous spirits to be reconciled, but it is easy for peaceable and moderate men to be agreed. The differences are not between enemies, but between brethren, and neither of them proud, imperious and contentious, but both of them humble, holy and peaceable…”
.
John Trapp
A Commentary or Exposition upon all the Epistles & the Revelation… (London, 1647), on 2 Cor. 6, verse 17
“Verse 17, ‘And be ye separate’. For gross idolatry and for fundamental errors only must we separate. Corruptions grew so great in the Church of Rome that it justly occasioned first the separation of the Greek Churches from the Latin, and then of the Reformed Churches from the Roman.”
.
William Greenhill
An Exposition continued upon the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth & Thirteenth Chapters of the prophet Ezekiel (London: 1649), on 11:19, ‘Helps to Unite our Hearts, or Uniting Directions,’ pp. 411-12
“1. Consider many things are darkly laid down in the Scriptures, and the scope of God and Christ therein, is not to cause contention, difference, and censuring: but to unite us more strongly in those things are clear, and to cause a forbearance of one another in things are dark and doubtful: Phil. 3:15-16:
‘If in anything you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walke by the same rule, and let us minde the same thing.’
Says Paul:
‘I confide not in my own works or righteousness, but look at Christ alone; I labour to win Christ, and be found in Him; I press after Him and none but Him, and mind nothing else as a means of salvation; if any be otherwise minded through ignorance, or weakness of Faith (as many were, who affected Mosaical rites and ceremonies) God shall reveal even this unto you; he will make known the truth unto you; nevertheless, though there be differences, let us forbear one another therein, and whereto we have attained, let us walk harmoniously and peaceably together, minding the same things.’
What is clear held out unto us in the Gospel, let us consent in, and walk answerably; in what is dark, doubtful, let us forbear each other, and stay till God reveal more. If we cannot unite in all, let us unite in what is clear. Things fundamental, and absolutely necessary, are clearliest laid down in the Word; they are expressly commanded, or held forth in Scripture, whether they be matters of Faith or practice, they are not things drawn out by remote consequences, and strength of men’s parts, but immediatly from, or in, the Word, and in these most may, or do agree, not being many in number; so far as we have attained in these, let us walk; and as King James says, in other things, place may be given to Christian liberty; and let us take heed how we charge men to hold fundamental errors, when fundamentals are few, Rom. 10:9; 1 Jn. 4:2, and men’s errors are extra-fundamentals.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI (1639-1642; 1668; Monergism, 2024), ch. 1, ‘Of the Holy Scripture’
pp. 83-85
“Before the rise of Luther, the Albigenses and others acted rightly in making a negative separation (for they did not communicate with the idolatry of the Papists), although before condemnation, persecution, and expulsion, they did not make a positive separation by forming another new visible Church. Where there are some fundamental errors in the Church, it is not immediately permissible to make a positive separation. Christ commanded to hear those who sit in Moses’ seat [Mt. 23:1-3], although they taught some things that overturned the foundation and rejected Christ.
Nor does separation from an Orthodox Church due to some errors within it separate from Christ; for only separation from Orthodox faith separates from Christ, which opposes internal communion with Christ and the Church. But external separation alone is not internal separation; indeed, he who is thus separated retains internal communion with the Church in Orthodox faith, and therefore with Christ.
We deem weak and feeble the argument of the Remonstrants [Arminians], who refuse to separate from Arians, Socinians, Anti-Trinitarians, Anabaptists, for they do not dare to consign all such to hell or ban them from heaven; as though it were not the Word of God, but our judgment concerning the salvation and damnation of men, that is the rule of our communion with the Church!
If, however, we are compelled, in external communion, to communicate with errors,¹ even non-fundamental ones, in a Church not erring in fundamentals, then it is permissible to make a partial separation, not a total one; a negative, not a positive one.² The reason is that it is never lawful to communicate with the unfruitful works of darkness: Eph. 5:11.
¹ [Note this phrase is ambiguous. It may mean being present amidst secondary errors, or being compelled to personally sin.]
² [Yet denominationalism, “by forming another new visible Church,” is a positive separation.]
…
the Papists do not possess true faith; they err in the fundamental truths. They do not have the Holy Scripture with us as the sufficient canon of faith and morals… They nullify the mediatorial office of Christ by adding other mediators and saviors to Him. They deny the satisfaction of Christ, provided by His bloody death and the obedience rendered on our behalf, as they attempt to satisfy God for sins by themselves and others… Thus, there can be no union in faith with them, for they subvert that faith.”
.
p. 87
“I do not deny that there is a broad distinction between one who hates and detests a fundamental article of faith and one who, by clear consequence, subverts such an article. For instance, the Arian denies and detests this: “Christ is God consubstantial with the Father,” as well as this: “Christ is true man, like us in all things except sin,” which the Marcionites not only deny but also hate and detest. The Papists and Ubiquitarians [Lutherans], by clear consequence, deny this proposition: “Christ is true man,” yet they profess it in words, love, and embrace it. Were there not a corrupt disposition toward evident consequences, they would not err in fundamentals; therefore, their error is by consequence, not direct. “
.
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbyterie in Scotland… (London: Bartlet, 1642), ch. 10, ‘Whether or not it be lawful to separate from a true Church visible, for the corruption of teachers… where faith is begotten by the preaching of professed truth?’
p. 123
“5th Consideration. The essential ingredients and reasons of a lawful divorce [from Romanism] are here:
1. We could not lie in one bed with that sometime sister Church of Rome, but our skin behoved to rub upon her botch-boil, and therfore we did separate from nothing but corruption.
2. There was there persecutions, and in that we are patients and ejected rather then departers on foot and horse.
3. A professed dominion over our consciences.
4. Necessity of receiving the mark of the beast, and so the plagues of the beast, to worship images, and the work of men’s hands, a necessity of professing fundamental errors that subvert the foundation of faith, did all necessitate our seperation.”
.
p. 133
“We acknowledge separation from corruption, but not from the worship of corrupters, when they keep the foundation; the Samaritan-Church had not the foundation, but worshipped they knew not what, neither was there salvation in their Church, Jn. 4:2; but there was the true God worshipped among the Jews and salvation amongst them.”
.
pp. 141-42
“3rd Argument. If Paul do not only not command separation in the Church of Corinth, but also command and approve their meeting together in Church-communion, 1 Cor. 5:4; 11:18, 20-22; 14:23; 16:2, where there was:
Schisms and contentious, 1 Cor. 1:12-13, envying and strife, 1 Cor. 3:3, incest, and incest tolerated, such as is not named amongst the gentiles, 1 Cor. 5:1, going to law with their brethren for gain before infidels, 1 Cor. 6, harlotry, vv. 15-16, eating at the idols’ table, 1 Cor. 8, keeping fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. 10:20-22, coming to the Lord’s Table drunken, 1 Cor. 11:21, eating and drinking damnation, vv. 29-30. A denying of a fundamental point of faith, the resurrection of the dead, and that with scoffing at it, 1 Cor. 15:35, murdering of weak souls, whom Christ had died for, 1 Cor. 8:12-13, Paul’s name despitefully traduced, 2 Cor. 10:8-9, etc.
Then it is unlawful to separate from the pure worship of God, because a Church is not constituted of visible saints and a people all taught of God.”
.
p. 149
“8th Conclusion. When we separate from a Church overturning the foundation of religion, as from Rome, we are to keep a desire of gaining them, howbeit not a brotherly fellowship with them.”
.
The Due Right of Presbyteries (London: Griffin, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, sect. 5, Question 3, In what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church?
p. 223
“The knowledge of points fundamental is necessary: 1. To obtain salvation. 2. To keep communion with a true Church; for we are to separate from a Church subverting the foundation and laying another foundation…
[John] Davenant says better, That such are fundamental, the knowledge whereof is simply necessary to salvation, if ignorance whereof does condemn. Doctor [Christopher] Potter calls them prime and capital doctrines of our religion, or of that faith which essentially constitutes a true Church and a true Christian; which is good…”
.
p. 229
“2. Though a Church retain the fundamentals, yet if we be forced to avow and believe as truth, doctrines everting the foundation of faith, against the article of one God, if we must worship as many gods as there be hosts, if Christ’s kingly, priestly and prophetical office be overturned, as we were forced in Popery to do, we are to separate from the Church in that case.”
.
pp. 230-31
“Some say the fundamentals amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted? I answer: There is a twofold eversion of the foundation: 1. One theological, moral and ecclesiastic, as the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which is in a ministerial way, with professed obstinacy against the fundamental truths rightly exponed, and such an eversion of the foundation makes the Popish Church no Church truly visible, whose breasts we can suck.
But for Lutherans, their subversion of the foundation by philosophic consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentals, and that not in an ecclesiastic and ministerial way, does not so evert the fundamentals, as that they be no visible Church. The learned [David] Pareus shows that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation, the dissention is in one point only anent the Lord’s Supper, not in the whole doctrine thereof, but in a part thereof, not necessary for salvation.”
.
“The separation from a true Church, where the Word of God orthodox is preached, and the sacraments duly administred, we think unlawful;”
.
pp. 253-55
“1. There is a separation Negative, or a non-union, and a separation Positive. Though a Church of schismatics retaining the sound faith, yet separating from [the] other [Church]…
2. If the whole and most part of the Church turn idolatrous, and worship idols (which is essential idolatry) we are to separate from that Church: the Levites and the two tribes did well, as Mr. [John] Ball says, to make a separation from Jeroboam’s calves; and the godly laudably, 2 Kn. 16:11, did not separate from the Israel and Church of God, because the Altar of Damascus was set up and because of the high places. Things dedicated unto idols, as Lutheran images, may be called, and are called, 1 Cor. 10:34, idolatry, yet are they idolatry by participation, and so the cup of devils, 1 Cor. 10. Paul does not command separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there.
3rd Consideration. There is a separation from the Church in the most part, or from the Church in the least and best part. In Achab’s time Israel, and the Church thereof, for the most part, worshipped Baal; Elijah, Micaiah, Obadiah, and other godly separated from the Church of Israel in the most part: Jeremiah wished to have a cottage in the wilderness (no doubt a godly wish) that he might separate from the Church all then for the most part corrupted, yet remained they a part of the visible Church and a part in the visible Church, and therefore did he not separate from the Church according to the least and best part thereof;
[Note that the difference above is over fundamental issues, not every degree of purity in fundamentally sound churches.]
The godly in England who refused the Popish ceremonies and Antichristian bishops did well not to separate from the visible Church in England, and yet they separated from the mainest and worst part, which cannot be denied to be a ministerial Church.
4th Consideration. If a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation, and yet retain the true faith of Christ, it is presumed God has there some to be saved, and that where Christs ordinances be, there also where Christ’s ordinances be, there also Christ’s Church-presence is; And therefore I doubt much if the Church should be separated from, for the case is not here as with one simple person, for it is clear, all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy, and that is yet a true visible communion, in which we are to remain, for there is some union with the head Christ, where the faith is kept sound, and that visibly; though a private brother remaining sound in the faith, yet being scandalous and obstinately flagitious be to be cast off, as an heathen, yet are we not to deal so with an orthodox Church, where most part are scandalous.
…
6. We may well hold that Ambrose says well (Commentary on Luke, bk. 6, ch. 1), that a Church wanting the foundation of the apostles is to be forsaken.
…
8. There may be causes of non-union with a Church, which are not sufficient causes of separation:
Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jews, though they rejected Christ, till they openly blasphemed, Acts 13:44-46; 18:16. And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment and said unto them, ‘Your blood be upon your own heads, I am clean, from henceforth I will go to the gentiles.’ There is a lawful separation, and yet before the Jews came to this, there was no just cause why any should have joined to the Church of the Jews, who denied the Messiah, and persecuted his servants, Acts 4-5, seeing there was a cleaner Church, to which converts might join themselves, Acts 2:40-42.”
[Note that the “cleaner Church” above respects fundamental issues, not any and every degree of purity in fundamentally clean churches.]
.
A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience... (London: 1649), ch. 7, ‘What Opinions’, pp. 98-99
“[Margin note:] Schism and actual gathering of churches out of churches cannot be tolerated.
3. Such opinions and practice as make an evident schism in a Church and set up two distinct Churches of different forms of government, and pretending to different institutions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated, etc. for each pretending their fellow Churches to be of man, and so of the devil, though they should both make one true invisible Church, agreeing in all fundamentals and many other truths, yet sure the whole should be a kingdom divided against itself, and this destroys peace and unity.
And if Paul could not endure the divisions of one and the same Church of Corinth, though they pretended not to be different Churches, for those that said they were of Paul professed they could not be disciples of Peter, but he sharply rebuked them as carnal men and such as divided Christ, and by consequence must say Paul was crucified for them and was their redeemer, and so, if obstinately they had proceeded in that separation, Paul would have gone on to higher censures of the Church: far more could he not endure gathering of true Churches out of true Churches, which is the professed practice of Independents:
And yet both sides pretending the spirit of discerning could say, ‘The Spirit testifies to my soul that Paul is the only called preacher,’ and the other, ‘Nay but to my discerning, Cephas or Peter is the only man that I can hear or follow.’ And a third, ‘Nay, not any on earth, nor any ministry will I acknowledge but Jesus Christ, whom the heavens must contain till the last day is my only, only preacher.’ Now if a Jezabel come in and say no ministry is to be heard but Christ and turn away all from hearing the Word, and not suffer Sergius Paulus or any other to hear Paul or any godly minister, sure Jezabel should be a perverter of the right ways of the Lord and so not suffered.”
.
London Provincial Synod
A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government & Ministry… (London: Meredith, 1650), pp. 118-21
“Objection 2: Though we do feparate from you, yet we cannot stand charged with schifm because the nature of schism consists in an open breach of Chriftian love, and it is such a separation which is joined with a condemnation of those churches from which they separate as false churches, which we are far from.
Answer:
We grant that to make up the formality of a schismatic, there must be added uncharitableness, as to make up the formality of a heretic there must be added obstinacy.
But yet as he that denies a fundamental article of faith is guilty of heresy, though he add not obstinacy thereunto to make him a heretic, so he that does unwarrantably separate from a true Church is truly guilty of schism, though he add not uncharitableness thereto to denominate him a complete schismatic.
A reverend brother of your own [in congregationalism] (Thomas Goodwin, in his sermon on Zech. 4), calls Brownism a bitter root of rigid separation. And we beseech you with the spirit of meekness to consider what bitter fruits have sprung from your more moderate separation: what great and woeful breaches have been made upon the blessed grace of charity: what harsh and rigid censures some of you have passed upon our persons and government… on purpose to make us and it odious, and thereby to render your persons and way the more amiable to the people…
And for our parts, we do here profess that it is and shall be our great care to study purity and charity, as well as verity and unity; and purity of members according to the Word, as well as of ordinances.
We abhor an over-rigid urging of uniformity in circumstantial things. And are far from the cruelty of that giant, ‘who laid upon a bed all he took; and those who were too long, he cut them even with his bed; and such as were too short, he stretched out to the length of it.’ God has not made all men of a length, nor height. Men’s parts, gifts, graces differ; and if there should be no forbearance in matters of inferior alloy, all the world would be perpetually quarrelling. If you would fully know our judgments herein, we will present them in these two propositions:
1. That it is the duty of all Christians to study to enjoy the ordinances of Christ in unity and uniformity as far as it is possible; for the Scripture calls to unity and uniformity, as well as to purity and verity: and surely, it is not impossible to obtain this so much desired unity and uniformity, because that God has promised that his children shall serve Him with ‘one heart,’ and with ‘one way,’ and ‘with one shoulder.’ (Jer. 32:39; Zeph. 3:9) And that in the days of the Gospel, ‘There shall be one Lord, and his name one.’ (Zech. 14:9) And Christ has prayed that we ‘may be all one, as the Father is in Him, and He in the Father.’ And He adds a most prevalent reason, ‘that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.’
Nothing hinders the propagation of the Gospel so much as the divisions and separations of Gospel-professors. If then it be God’s promise and Christ’s prayer, it is certainly a thing possible to be obtained, and a duty incumbent upon all true Christians to labor after.
2. That it is their duty to hold communion together as one Church in what they agree; and in this way of union mutually to tolerate and bear with one another in lesser differences. And here that golden rule of the apostle takes place:
‘Let us therefore as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule; let us mind the same thing.’ (Phil. 3:15-16)
This was the practice of the primitive Christians. All such who professed Christianity held communion together as one Church, notwithstanding the difference of judgments in lesser things and much corruption in conversation [conduct].
We beseech you therefore Brethren, that you would endeavor to keep:
‘the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; for there is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, and one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.’ [Eph. 4]
For our parts, we do here manifest our willingness (as we have already said) to accommodate with you accoding to the Word in a way of union; And (such of us as are ministers), to preach up and to practice a mutual forbearance and toleration in all things that may consist with the fundamentals of religion, with the power of godliness, and with that peace which Christ has established in his Church;
but to make ruptures in the body of Christ and to divide church from church, and to set up church against church, and to gather churches out of true churches, and because we differ in some things, therefore to hold Church-communion in nothing, this we think has no warrant out of the Word of God and will introduce all manner of confusion in churches and families; and not only disturb, but in a little time destroy the power of godliness, purity of religion, peace of Christians, and set open a wide gap to bring in atheism, Popery, heresy, and all manner of wickedness.”
.
John Reading
A Guide to the Holy City, or, Directions & Helps to an Holy Life containing Rules of Religious Advice… (Oxford: Robinson, 1651), ch. 7, p. 53
“7. A particular Church of any one denomination, may fail in some points of doctrine and manners, and yet continue a living member of the true Church, if it fail not in fundamentals, and things simply necessary to salvation: for the light of truth has its degrees with men, and so has saving grace its intentions and remissions. The moon in the wane is the same which we sometimes see in the full.
The Church of Ephesus, lost her first love, Rev: 2:4. The Church of Galatia was transported by false apostles into some dangerous opinions, Gal. 1, etc. The Church of Israel in Elijah’s time had in a great part forsaken the very covenants of God, 1 Kings 19:14, yet were there some names left, 7000 knees which had not bent to Baal.
Now though no particular Church is exempt from the censure of the catholic, yet a Church is not presently to be forsaken by particular members thereof for some foul blemishes, nor many wicked men therein, though we must know that God sometimes for such things removes the candlestick from certain places, as from those seven famous Churches of Asia. ‘Tis not the place, but the saints which make the Church.”
.
The Scottish Protesters
The Representation, Propositions & Protestation of Diverse Ministers (Leith: Tyler, 1652) Signed by Cant, Rutherford, Trail, Nevay, Livingston, J. Guthrie, P. Gillespie, Cleland, Sempil, Johnston, etc.
p. 4
“What offence given to the weak, who see… men’s interests preferred to the Lord’s; sinful mixtures make way for sinful separations…”
.
p. 7
“We beseech you to consider how great a snare your former actings which were not to edification have been to some people, to tempt them to the way of Separation, and to the shaking off the government of this Church; from which, as we desire to be kept free, as from a course highly displeasing to God, and impedimental to reformation, so we desire you may not tempt them further and lay new snares in the way of any, by your not right using of so precious an ordinance of Christ as are the assemblies of this Church.”
.
p. 12
“We trust all who are acquainted with the principles and practices of our worthy predecessors, and the learned and godly non-conformists in England, will easily see how far we are from their judgments who follow the ways of Separation.
We hold it our duty, firmly to adhere to the Church of Scotland, wherein, through the Lord’s goodness, we do this day enjoy the purity of doctrine and worship, and the government which Christ has appointed in his House, though there be corruptions in the constitution of a pretended Assembly.”
.
Anonymous, An Answer to the Declaration of the Pretended Assembly at Dundee & to a Printed Paper entituld, The Protestation given in by the Dissenting Brethren to the General Assembly, July 21, 1652, Reviewed & Refuted etc... (Lieth, 1653)
p. 85
“Here he bends all his endeavors to make it appear that the Protesters incline to separation, but he answers not what is said in the Protestation for their vindication, to wit, that their ways are agreeable to the principles and practices of their predecessors and the Non-conformists in England.”
.
p. 86
“…this is the old prelatical song against the non-conformists, because some of their number turned separatists, therefore, to say they were all for separation, though they keeped Christ’s middle way between extremes, and did much more against separation by word, write and print than all the prelatical party. And I may say the like of the Protesters, that they have taken more pains by word and writ, to prevent and remedy the declining of some to the ways of Separation than all that are for the Publick Resolutions have done.”
.
Scottish Resolutioners
Member of the General Assembly
The Protestation given in by the Dissenting Brethren, to the General Assembly, July 21, 1652, Reviewed & Refuted (Leith: Tyler, 1652)
pp. 5-6
“Let them [the Protesters] take heed if this be not a main step to Separation (which in words they seem to abhor), when as they protest and profess they will not hear us, so they would cast on us a kind of necessity to hold them as heathens and publicans;
But to prevent this they have found a way of their own, and (as if they had not been of us) they are gone out from us, and setting up to do their own business without us, as they seem to intimate in the last page of their printed Paper after the Protestation, contrary to the very fundamentals of the discipline of our Kirk, which is, and has ever been professed to be by presbyteries, synods and national assemblies, duly subordinate one to another, all which their course overturns, while they walk in another way to make the matters of their propositions practicable, as they say.”
.
p. 16
“But they would make some clearing here by telling us that:
‘All who are acquainted with the principles and practices of our worthy predecessors, and of the learned and godly non-conformists in England, will easily see how far they are from their judgments and practices who follow the ways of separation.’
[1.] Bel•ke they still dwell beside evil neighbors, but which is worse, they are hardly believed, when men call to mind and consider how now of a long time still they took the patrociny [patronage] of all that were suspected to follow those ways.
2. What progress some of their chief and cried up men have made in those ways.
3. What affection they still carry to them and how familiarly they converse with them, even although excommunicated.
4. But especially how unavoidable separation is upon their grounds: For if it be a matter of conscience for them to join with others in civil duties that necessarily belong to the incorporation whereof both are members, sure much more in ecclesiastic [affairs].”
.
James Sharp
A True Representation of the Rise, Progress & State of the Present Divisions of the Church of Scotland (London, 1657)
p. 21
§24. Fourthly, the other branch of our [Protesting] Brethren’s assertion, concerning godly men’s not joining with an army so constituted, it so gross, that all who condemn withdrawing from exercises of divine worship, agreeable in the matter of divine institution, as a sinful separation, will abhor it: seeing by their denial of the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawful necessary duty, because of the personal sin to fellow-actors in it, they homologate with the tenent and practice of separatism…
Yea, one of our Brethren, now at his rest in the Lord, being desired by them to handle the controversy against the Separatists, after he had studied it accurately for a time, did profess ingenuously before his removal (as is known to some of us, and others who were ear-witnesses) that he found it impossible to maintain the truth against Separatists, retaining their principles upon which they had gone against the Commission of the Church.”
.
p. 22
“…and so [these examples brought forward by the Protesters] do not at all touch our case of joint acting in arms for just and neces∣sary defence of subjects of one nation, habitually and antecedently incorporated, and now in common hazard.
And for these alleged [verses] from the New Testament, they are such as are alleged by Separatists for separation from Churches for the the sin of fellow-members (as that 2 Cor. 6:14-15, etc.), which yet we believe judicious Separatists themselves will judge to be impertinently applied to a separation in the case [of civil, military defense] now in hand.”
.
p. 33
“That by giving out themselves in these meetings as the generality of the godly throughout the land, or delegates in a sort from them, they do cast an imputation upon the bulk of the national Church beside, who are against their way, and do not join with them in these courses, as not only wrong in that matter, but as not godly, some very few excepted.
Which as we know to be a most false imputation (not many of these, of any rank, who owned the cause from the beginning, going along with them). So it is an evidence of a strange divisive and separating spirit in our Brethren.”
.
Joseph Caryl
The Moderator: endeavoring a Full Composure & Quiet Settlement of those many differences both in doctrine & discipline which have so long disturbed the peace & welfare of this Commonwealth… (London: Bellamy, 1652), ch. 8, pp. 57-58 Caryl was a congregationalist.
“And concerning the bounds and limits of this forbearance, all will undeniably acknowledge that it ought not to be extended indifferently unto all persons, opinions and practises, but that these four propositions are agreeable to the truth of Chri∣stianity:
…
Secondly, that it is not the mind of Christ that any of his servants should profess themselves willing or obliged to bear with any person which does endeavour, and with any doctrine or practice which does tend to overthrow the faith in his name, which is delivered to the saints (Jude 3), or to destroy the life and power of godliness either in the private or publick profession of religion (Tit. 1:10-11; 2 Tim. 3:5-8; Gal. 5:7-13), or to dissolve the bonds of holy communion amongst Christian brethren (Phil. 3:2; Jud. 19; Rom. 16:17-18), or to abolish the orderly relations and obligations natural and moral, without which human societies cannot stand (1 Tim. 5:8; Mt. 15:4-6; 1 Tim. 4:3), or to put down the authority which God has set up in and over human societies for the administration of justice therein (2 Pet. 2:10; Rom. 13:1-8).
…
Fourthly, that in matters of greater weight, which are not merely circumstantial, but are conceived to be determined by the Word, yet so, as that it is differently understood: in this case the mind of Christ is that the rules of Christian charity and mutual edification, be inviolably observed with all long suffering and forbearance. And this course ought to be continued so long, either as there is hope to gain the advantage of loving conferences, whereby differences may be reconciled, and mistakes and scandals prevented and taken out of the way; or so long as there is cause to think that God may reveal his profitable truths to such as err not wilfully, but through weakeness of judgment and harmlessly, Phil. 3:15-16 and 2 Tim. 2:22-26.”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653)
‘An Explication of some Passages in the foregoing Propositions’, p. 10
“2. Yet we thought not meet to put these our principles down in our agreements [amidst ministers]: but retain them as our own private thoughts: because being no fundamentals, nor near the foundation, we can agree with those that differ from us in this point of judgment, so they agree in practice…”
.
p. 37
“But God usually chastises men for such disorders, and suffers those same professors [professing Christians] to be our heart’s-grief and scourges (by turning to doctrinal or practical evils) who break God’s order and the churches’ unity in the over-valuing of our parts.”
.
p. 74
“We do in the very first article of our Agreement [of Baxter’s Chuch-Association] disclaim a present engaging ourselves for any party, as such: or against any… we only desire a unanimous agreement in practice, so far as we are already agreed in judgment, that our discord or strangeness may neither hinder our further edification, nor yet deprive the Church of God’s ordinances, or of the beauty, strength and other benefits of union.”
.
pp. 94-95
“2. I do not speak against men’s seeking a reconciliation with Rome on just and honest terms. I think it one of the happiest works in the world, could it be accomplished: And I think the French are the only people to be first dealt with to that end. And I long to see providence so turn things about as that there might be a council first of these two nations for the attempting of such a work. And I am past doubt that it would be the happiest way to pull down Antichrist (if the Pope be he) that has been yet of late undertaken.
But if ever such a thing be accomplished, it must be by uniting in one creed, as containing all things sufficient to salvation, which must be wholly taken out of Scripture and not such as the Trent Confession is: Upon which agreement they may openly acknowledge each other for brethren and true Churches, without compelling each other to uniformity in the lesser matters, but bearing with each others’ differences.
I wish England such rulers as will faithfully prosecute such a pacific enterprise, without sinful compliance and betraying of the truth. Though I confess when I consider their principles and practices, I am afraid bishop Hall is in the right, that There’s no peace with Rome. Yet no fears must hinder men from any just and necessary enterprise.”
.
Three Treatises tending to Awaken Secure Sinners… (London: Rothwell, 1656), ‘To the Right, Honorable Serjeant Glyn’, n.p.
“That right means be used with speed and diligence for the healing of our divisions and the uniting of all the true Churches of Christ (at least in these nations; and O that your endeavors might be extended much further) to which end I shall mention but these two means of most evident necessity:
1. That there be one Scripture-creed, or confession of Faith, agreed on by a general assembly of able ministers duly and freely chosen hereunto, which shall contain nothing but matter of evident necessity and verity. This will serve:
1. For a test to the Churches, to discern the sound professors from the unsound (as to their doctrine) and to know them with whom they may close as brethren, and whom they must reject.
2. For a test to the magistrate, of the orthodox to be encouraged, and of the intollerably heterodox, which it seems is intended in the 37th Article [of the 39 Articles] of the late formed government, where all that will have liberty must profess (faith in God by Jesus Christ), which in a Chri∣stian sense must comprehend every true fundamental or article of our Faith: And, no doubt, it is not the bare speaking of those words in an unchristian sense that is intended (As if a Ranter should say that himself is God, and his mate is Jesus Christ).
2. That there be a public establishment of the necessary liberty of the Churches to meet by their officers and delegates on all just occasions, in assemblies smaller or greater (even national when it is necessary), seeing without such associations and communion in assemblies, the unity and concord of the Churches is not like to be maintained. I exclude not the magistrate’s interest or oversight, to see that they do not transgress their bounds.
As you love Christ and his Church and Gospel, and men’s souls, neglect not these unquestionable points of his interest, and make them your first and chiefest business, and let none be preferred before Him till you know them to be of more authority over you and better friends to you than Christ is…”
.
The True & only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches, the Desirableness of it & the Detection of False Dividing Terms (London: Hancock, 1680), pt. 2, ch. 5, ‘What are the terms necessary to the office and exercise of the sacred ministry?’
p. 204
“§10. I. The subject or matter [of a minister] is a man: II. The necessary Disposition is:… 3. That he be a Christian. 4. That he have necessary abilities for the essentials of the office-work. And those are: 1. The understanding at least of the essentials of religion and ministry. 2. A will to perform the work of the ministry. 3. Ability of utterance to do it, and all the necessary executive power.”
.
pp. 218-19
Ҥ34. II. So much for what is necessary to the being of the sacred office: Now what is necessary to the well-being. And indeed, though the essential unity of the Church lie not upon this, yet the peace and concord of it does, and that so much as that no other means without this will attain it: And the want of what is necessary ad bene esse in the ministry and bishops [or ministers], is it that has caused the common calamities.
§35. And I. Nothing is more wanting hereto than better qualifications in the persons:
1. That there be a strong wit, and good acquired gifts of knowledge, and a strong and lively faith from divine illumination, and good acquaintance with the oracles of God: A pastor or teacher should not only know the essentials of Christianity, which every Christian knows, but also the integrals [things that complete the whole of Christianity] and many accidents. And both essentials and integrals should be known by him by a more clear, distinct and orderly understanding, not only above the vulgus fidelium, (common Christians) but above the better sort of the flock. And some store of natural and common knowledge called learning is needful hereunto: But especially more illumination, faith and holy wisdom and skilfulness in matter, sense and method of the Word of God.”
.
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.
“The grand case of the Christian world is, What is the true center and rule of concord? Could they find out this, it would hold men of various tempers to it.
I. Christ first laid down the description and measure of Christianity:
In the baptismal Covenant; and ordained that all should be accounted Christians in foro Ecclesiae who by baptism were solemnly devoted to Him, in a professed belief and Covenant, dedication and vow to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: These he would have called Christians or his disciples, and this is their Christening, and so ever called in the Church.
2. And next He made it his new (that is Last) and Great Command that all his disciples should love each other [Jn. 13:34], and live in eminent unity and peace [Acts 2:41-47]: which He accordingly wrought them to by the first pouring out of his Spirit, Acts 2-4.
II. The apostles founding the Church in this baptismal vow or Covenant and mutual love, exhorted accordingly all the baptized to love each other, and to receive even the weak in faith, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom. 14-15, oft vehemently charging them to be of one mind [Phil. 2] and live in love and peace [2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 6:23; 1 Thess. 5:13; Jude 1:2], and to beware of them as not serving Christ but their own bellies [Phil. 3:19], who were for divisions, 1 Cor. 1:10-11; Rom. 16:17. And though they came with pretences of order, wisdom or piety, such good words and fair speeches were noted to be engines to deceive the hearts of the simple, Rom. 16:17[-18].
And whereas the objection seemed unanswerable: How can they so agree, who are of several judgements about good and evil? Paul often warns them to hold fast the form of sound words, and sums up (as 1 Cor. 15:1-4) the articles of their Faith, and charges them that so far as they had attained, they should walk by the same rule, and mind the same things, and if in any thing they were otherwise minded, stay till God re∣vealed the matter to them, Phil. 3[:15-16]. He oft charges them to be of one mind and judgement (thus far) and to live in love and peace, and to do nothing by strife and vain glory, but in honor to prefer others to themselves [Rom. 12:10]; and not to strive about words that profit not [2 Tim. 2:14], nor about unnecessary questions, seeing such disputings and strivings gender to ungodliness [1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23], and fret like a canker, and pervert the hearers minds: Yea he directs the pastors to edify souls rather by a teaching than a disputing way [Rom. 14:1; Phil. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:5], and to convince gainsayers, by meek instructing opposers, to see if thus God will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth [2 Tim. 2:25]: for the minister or servant of the Lord must not strive [2 Tim. 2:24]; Love is their work to be effected in others, and love must be their principle, and love must be their mode and means, even loving others as themselves: Oft are they called by Christ and his apostles from masterly opinions, aspirings and endeavors, and to be as little children [Mt. 18:3-4]; and the servants of all, and as stewards of Gods mysteries and helpers, not lords of the Church’s faith, and not to domineer over the flock of Christ, but to oversee them not by constraint but voluntarily: And what cannot be done by light and love, is not to be done by them at all: The magistrate and not they, must use the sword; but not to make men believers (for he cannot).
…
And the certain truth is, that he knows neither the interest nor the ignorance and weakness of man, nor the nature of knowledge, who does not know that the frailty and employments of mankind are such as that there never will be an universal concord in very many, or uncertain, unnecessary things; And O that I could write it on all men’s hearts, or doors at least, that the Christian world will never have concord but in a few, certain, necessary things.
Therefore Paul said to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 11:2-3:
‘I am jealous of you with godly jealousy: For I have espoused you to one husband, etc. But I fear lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in (or towards) Christ.’
O mark these words all ye contentious Church-tyrants, dogmatists and superstitious ones. Read and study them well.
God laid down the terms of the Church’s concord in seven unities:
1. One Body or Church-catholic; [Eph. 4:4]
2. One Spirit or Holy Ghost, as the soul of that Church; [Eph. 4:4]
3. One hope, or heavenly felicity hoped for; [Eph. 4:4]
4. One Lord of the Church, our Head and Savior; [Eph. 4:5]
5. One Faith, or creed, or symbol of our belief, and belief thereof; [Eph. 4:5]
6. One baptismal Covenant; [Eph. 4:5]
7. And one God and Father of us all [Eph. 4:6], who is above all, through all and in us all. Eph. 4:3-6.
And it is the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, that on these terms we are charged to keep, [Eph. 4] vv. 2-3, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love. [Eph. 4:2]
But now [in 2 Cor. 11:3] comes the Serpent (note 1. the author) and by subtilty (2. note the means) even as he beguiled Eve (3. Note the precedent) which was by promising her more knowledge and exaltation to be as God; and he corrupts men’s minds, (4. mark the effect), though it is knowledge and advancement of mind that he promises and pretends: Even by drawing them (as to higher Power, Knowlege or Holiness) from the Christian simplicity (5. mark what the corruption of religion is). And what is this Christian Simplicity which they forsake, and how are they thus corrupted from it?…”
.
The True & only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches, the Desirableness of it & the Detection of False Dividing Terms (London: Hancock, 1680), pt. 2, ch. 5, ‘What are the terms necessary to the office and exercise of the sacred ministry?’, pp. 222-23
Ҥ40. II. It is greatly needful to the well-being of the ministry and the success that doctrine be kept sound: And therefore:
1. That the Christian simplicity be retained, and many subtle and curious decisions be not made necessary: A few great, necessary certain truths are easilier preserved than multitudes of uncertain controverted niceties.
2. It is needful that such as are ordained ministers, be tried men, of sound understanding in that which they must teach and do, and therefore that both the ordainers and the hearers try them. This account of their understanding is better than the imposing of human forms upon them for subscription: Not but that teachers should know more than the flock, that is, than the essentials; nor that I presume to condemn all the Churches that impose their confessions to be subscribed in their own and not in Scripture-words, while they keep only to necessary, certain things: But I shall afterward prove that this way, though tolerable, is not best, but unnecessary and dangerous:
1. The Scripture affording us apt words enough to form our confessions in, which are past controversy;
2. and there being no probability of bounding men’s impositions of this kind, when once they set upon this way;
3. and most confessions of that nature now extant, having some needless words which other Churches or good Christians do dissent from:
4. And the ancient Creeds understood (which the ordainers must try) and the old catechistical verities being sufficient to this use.
5. And there being means of restraining men from preaching and vending heresies which are more safe and congruous.
3. I add therefore that a certain confession containing the certainest and needfulest integrals of religion should or may well be drawn up as a law, forbidding all upon meet penalties to preach or speak against them, without any subscribing, promising or professing.
4. And upon proof of the violating of such a law, and preaching against such articles it is sufficient that both the Church and the Christian magistrate in their several ways may judge them and by just penalties correct them (of which more after in due place). For it is very hard so to form long confessions (beyond the old creeds, Lord’s Prayer, Decalogue, and the general belief of Scripture) and this not in Scripture-terms, which shall not have some words which sound and honest Ministers cannot assent to (without lying, which they will not do):
But to silence many words which yet we conceive true, and forbear speaking against some things which yet he cannot profess assent to, there are very few sober men but will do. And an error never spoken or written hurts not others, nor is to be judged, being not known; Non apparere here is as non esse. And if it be vended, the person may be judged as well as if he had sworn, subscribed or promised. And they that will tell us yet what evil may befall secret whispering errors without such oaths, subscriptions or promises, do by this over-doing dangerously undo; and lest man should be man and the Church imperfect, on pretence of avoiding a possible unavoidable hurt, they will set up knaves that will say any thing, shut out honest men, and necessitate divisions, confusions and persecutions, where they can never stop on this side banishing or killing or continued imprisoning multitudes of faithful men, and never the more attain their ends. Sound doctrine may be kept up as far as is to be hoped by the aforesaid means.”
.
Jeremiah Burroughs
Irenicum, to the Lovers of Truth and Peace. Heart-Divisions Opened… (London: Robert Davvlman, 1653)
ch. 6, p. 34
“…whatsoever a man holds, though his conscience be never so much taken with it, yet if it cannot stand with the power of godliness, but destroys it, if this man be in a Christian society after all means used to reduce him, if he still perseveres in it, he is, notwithstanding his conscience, to be cast out of the society of the saints;
This is not a little matter, if a man has any conscience in him, it cannot but be a dreadful thing to him: If poison be got into a glass, and you cannot wash it out, the poison and glass too is to be thrown into the sink: Such a man as this is, with the conscience that he has, is to be thrown upon the dunghill. If a man by his wickedness cuts himself off from the mystical body of Christ, the Church may cut him off from his visible, he has forfeited his Church-priviledge.”
.
p. 54
“FIrst, though men be known to err in judgment in things not fundamental nor destructive, yet if after such knowledge of them, they would keep their judgments to themselves, so as not to hurt others or disturb the peace, most men of moderate spirits, if not all, hold that such men are not to be punished either by Church or State.”
.
pp. 55-56
“Our brethren of Scotland writing against the tyranny of Prelates, when they were under it, in that book entitled, English and Popish Ceremonies [by Gillespie], have this passage:
‘If the error of conscience be about things unnecessary, then it is tutior pars, ‘the surest and safest way’ not to urge men to do that which in their consciences they condemn.’
And the ministers of the protestant Churches in France, giving their judgments, De pace inter Evangelicos procuranda, How Peace amongst the Protestants in Germany may be had, set forth by [John] Duraeus, say thus:
‘Let all matters controversal be brought into such a certain model as may give satisfaction to both parties; and that if it be possible, framed out of the very words of Scripture: and let no man require anything else of his brother.’
[Jerome] Zanchi, on the 4th Commandment, has this notable speech, ‘That which I say,’ says he:
‘is diligently to be observed, that those who would stir up princes to have all people, kingdoms, commonwealths which (not overthrowing the fundamentals of religion), differ from them in anything, condemned of heresy, excluded from friendship, driven out of their territories: these are no friends,’ says he, ‘either to their princes or to the Church of Christ.’
Many think they do great service to Christ, the Church and State, if they can stir up magistrates to suppress whatsoever they conceive are errors; it may be their hearts are upright in the main, they aim at peace, but certainly they cause much disturbance in Church and State.
Bishop [John] Davenant in a little book entitled his, Exhortation to Brotherly Love amongst Churches, the ninth chapter, has this title:
‘That brotherly communion between Churches evangelical is not to be cut asunder because of diverse opinions about questions controversial.’
And in the beginning of the 10th chapter:
‘This is to be premised: The bonds of the brotherly communion of Christian Churches ought not to be dissolved upon every difference of opinions, but only for the denying or opposing fundamentals.’
Here see the moderation of a prelate. Thus Cyprian of old delivered his opinion and practised it accordingly, differing from many of his brethren, but withal professes:
That he meant not to prescribe or give laws to any, that he would not contend with any of his colleagues so as to break divine concord and the peace of our Lord; that he was far from judging or censuring any of his brethren or cutting off from his communion any that were of a different mind; and that in such case none ought to constrain his colleague by tyrannical violence (therein glancing at the violent proceeding of Stephen to whom he wrote) to a necessity of believing or following what he thinks meet. (Epistle 72, to Stephen; Epistle 73, to Jubajanum)
This modesty and charity of Cyprian is very often and very deservedly commended by St. Augustine (Contra Donatists, bk. 1, ch. 18; bk. •, chs. 1-2), says Dr. Potter, an episcopal man.”
.
p. 65
“Although in matters fundamental there is no fear that godly able men wil err, yet let charity be stretched to the full latitude of it, and reverence of men in place raised to the uttermost height; yet if they will meddle with such things as are doubtful and controversal amongst godly and peaceable men, and force them upon others, that confidence of theirs that shall put them out of fear of erring, shall be to me a ground of great fear that they will err.”
.
ch. 21, p. 149
“The least truth is so precious that we must rather lose our lives than deny it; you must do and suffer much to maintain truth, but this in an orderly way.
First, you must be grounded in the main fundamentals of religion; you must be strong in the faith, and after that labor to edify yourselves in all the [further] truths of God so as one may be helpful to another.”
.
ch. 28, pp. 207-8
“11… But when we complain of our divisions for making much against the cause of Christ, or work of reformation, we do not complain against men, because they cannot all understand things alike. But this we complain of:
1. That all men who profess godliness, have not joined in opposing that which they believe cannot stand with godliness, by all the ways that God has put into their hands.
2. That they have not joined to promote those ways of godliness, which they are convinced to be so.
3. That they have not joined to study what ways and means may be found out to ease the hearts and consciences one of another, to bear with one another, so far as Christ would have them be helpful to, and bear with one another.
It is this that has made such a stop in the work of reformation. A peaceable, humble, and quiet discussing of things furthers that reformation that Christ would have.
Do you think that Christ would be pleased with such a reformation wherein the lesser part should give up their consciences and practices to the judgments of the greater? Such a kind of slubbering over matters might soon be, but Christ must have all the matters of his worship and doctrine consented to, and practiced from a principle of faith. Let us join with all our might in all we know, and with peaceable, quiet, humble spirits seek to know more, and in the meantime carry ourselves humbly and peaceably towards those we differ from, and Christ will not charge us at the Great Day for retarding his cause, the great work of reformation in hand.
12. These our dissensions are against a great part of the Covenant of Grace which God has made with his people in Christ, and those many promises of so much peace that there is to be in the times of the Gospel. We by these do that which tends to make void the Covenant…”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London: A.M., 1654), bk. 4, ch. 22, ‘Schism’, pp. 376-77
“Tota ratio Schismatis, the very essence of a schism consists in the separating from the Church, I say, from the true and orthodoxal Church. It is a renting or dissolving of that unity which ought to be amongst Christians; See Mr. [Stephen] Marshall’s Sermon on Rom. 12:4-5.
It was a memorable speech of Calvin, who said he would willingly travel all over the seas and countries in the world to put an end to the differences that were in the Reformed Churches. [John] Cameron well distinguishes of a double schism:
1. Negative, which is a bare secession or subduction, and is unlawful. Non separatio sed causa facit Schismaticum [Not the separation but the cause that makes the schismatic]. Cassander.
2. Positive, when there is a certain consociation, which uses ecclesiastical laws, the Word of God and administration of the sacraments separatim [in a separated way], which he calls setting up an altar against an altar; this is called schism Antonomastic [Greek], and [Greek], says he [in] De Ecclesia.
Different forms of Churches and Church-government in one state must needs lay a foundation of strife and division therein. It is no wisdom (says Mr. [John] Dury in a letter [about congregationalists]) in a state, to reject an approved way of government, which all the best reformed Churches have received all this while, and acknowledged to be God’s way, and by experience found to be safe, sound; and instead of it to take up another, which it is not yet known what it is, nor was ever tried but in two or at the most three churches, and that for the space of a few years. The slighter the cause of separation, the greater the fault of schism; when men hold the same Faith and orthodox truths, yet separate for lesser matters.
The true saints in the 7 Churches of the Revelation were never bid go out of them though they were very corrupt, as they were out of Babylon, Mr. [Richard] Vines. The first separatist in the Scripture (says one) was Cain, Gen. 4:16. Enforcements to love are clear, 1 Cor. 13:1. That question of Separation in Scripture is dark. See Mr. [George] Gillespie, Miscellaneous Questions, ch. 10 and 15, and Mr. [Thomas] Manton on James 3. 17. Schisma est secessio in religionis negotio vel temeraria vel injusta, Cameron, De Ecclesia. Schism is a causeless separation from external communion with any true Church of Christ: Mr. [John] Ball, Against Separation, ch. 8. Schism is a breach of the unity of the Church. Dr. Field, bk. 3, Of the Church, ch. 5.
We do not leave communion of true Churches for corruptions and sins, but only abstain from the practice of evil in our own persons, and witness against it in others, still holding communion with the Churches of Christ.”
.
William Jenkyn
An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude... (London: Maxey, 1654), on verse 19, Observations, p. 593
“To conclude this, separation from Churches, from which Christ does not separate, is schismatical; now it’s clear in the Scripture that Christ owns churches where faith is sound for the substance, and their worship, Gospel-worship, though there be many defects and sinful mixtures among them. And what I have said concerning the schismaticalness of separation because of the sinful mixtures of those who are wicked in practice, is as true concerning separation from them who are erroneous in judgment; if the errors of those from whom the separation is made, be not fundamental, and hinder communion with Christ the head.
And much more clear (if clearer can be) is the schismaticalness of those who separate from and renounce all communion with those churches which are not of their own manner of constitution and modelled according to the platform of their own particular church-order. To refrain fellowship and communion with such Churches who profess Christ their Lord, whose faith is sound, whose worship is Gospel-worship, whose lives are holy, because they come not into that particular way of church-order which we have pitched upon, is a schismatical rending of the Church of Christ to pieces…
Herein likewise those separatists among ourselves are heinously faulty who censure and condemn all other churches, though their faith, worship and conversation be never so scriptural, merely because they are not gathered into church order according to their own patterns. In Scripture, Churches are commended and dignified, according as their fundamental faith was sound and their lives holy; not according to the regularity of their first manner of gathering.”
.
Nathaniel Hardy
Wisdom’s Character & Counterfeit deliniated in Two Sermons… (London: 1656), sermon on James 3:17, p. 14 Hardy (1618–1670) was an English presbyterian minister who turned episcopalian.
“She [Wisdom] is studious of ecclesiastical peace: to that end she knows how to distinguish between substantials and ceremonials; nor dares she rent Christ’s seameless coat because the fringe is not every way complete.
Between fundamentals and circumstantials, matters Fidei Catholicae, et scientiae theologicae [of the catholic Faith and between theological wisdom], necessary to be believed, and problematically disputed, allowing a latitude of opinion in some things, to those who hold the foundation; in a word, she abhors, as to injure the truth of Christ by error, so to disturb the peace of the Church by schism.”
.
Edward Reynolds
The Whole Works… (London: Holdsworth, 1826), sermon 14, “Brotherly Reconciliation” (1657/1659), pp. 155-57
“The second means for healing divisions in the church is to have… some fundamental doctrines wherein all agree: this is the basis of unity and concord in the church.
The ancients call it the rule of faith, seed of doctrine, the catholic faith, the character of the church, that which is common to small and great (Irenaeus, [Against Heresies] bk. 1, ch. 3; Nazianzen, Orations 14, 40; Augustine, Enchiridion, ch. 7; Tertullian, Of the Prescription, ch. 13–14; Of the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1; Athanasian Creed; Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 1 [Preface]; Augustine, Epistle 57; see [Robert] Parker, Of the Descent [1611], bk. 4, §3. 1 Cor. 3:10–11; 2 Tim. 1:13; Col. 1:23; Eph. 4:13; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal. 1:6; Rom. 6:17; 12:6; 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 1 Cor. 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:3; Tit. 1:1; Phil. 1:27; Rev. 14:1)…
2. Where there is this agreement in fundamentals, there ought to be mutual and fraternal affections, notwithstanding differences in other things; no reproaches, no exasperations, no individuous consequences, no odious imputations, no uncharitable digladiations; but an owning of one another as brethren and discussing and ventilating of the points in difference with the spirit of love and meekness, saying to one another, as Abraham to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife between thee and me, for we are brethren.’”
.
Richad Lawrence
Gospel-Separation Separated from its Abuses; or the Saints’ Guide in Gospel-Fellowship: whereby they may be Directed not only to Preserve the Purity, but withal the Unity of Gospel-Worship: by a well-wisher to Sion’s Purity and Unity (London: Calvert, 1657), p. 73-79 This work has an imprimatur by Joseph Caryl.
“4. The fourth sort of erroneous persons which I judge holy Churches and saints ought to separate from, are such as err in fundamentals or foundation points of religion, holding opinions that lay the ax to the root of the Tree of Life.
Now as these sorts of errors are most dangerous to be permitted, so they are most difficult to single out; for though it be a thing out of doubt that there are foundation doctrines which the Church of God ought to prefer in order to its being before its peace and unity, yet it remains very doubtful whether several of those precious and substantial truths that are highly to be prized and much contended for, and are by several godly and sound Christians esteemed foundation points, be so or no: that is, so to be esteemed foundations as the persons not believing them or holding error contrary to them (and are otherwise in the main gracious), be thereby made incommunicable: But as in the former cases, so in this, I shall decline coming to particulars as a work above my capacity and shall only tender my thoughts in some few general rules; and so leave it to them who are more able to add.
1. First, I judge that errors against the foundation points of religion must be of such a nature and tendency as do strike at the very root of saving-grace and tend to unstate the the person holding them from a possibility of salvation, he living and dying therein; for so Paul argues, 1 Cor. 15:14, concerning the resurrecti∣on of the dead:
‘If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and our faith is also vain.’ And also verses 17-18, ‘And if Christ be not raised, your Faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished.’
2. I judge they must be errors contrary to the general tendency and scope of Scripture and to the doctrines of salvation plainly and evidently therein expressed which all true believers concur and agree in: And therefore says the apostle:
‘If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,’ 2 Cor. 3:3; and so chapter 11:3, ‘But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit which ye have not received, or another Gospel which ye have not excepted, etc. ye might well bear with him.’
And so Gal. 1:6-8, ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that has called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel: Which is not another; but there be some which trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven preach another Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached, let him be accursed.’
Now it is evident that that bringing in another Gospel was a joining circumcision and the works of the Law with faith in Christ in justification, contrary to the very essence of Gospel faith, as they held it.
Objection: Why, how did they hold it? Did not you before number this among one of the errors Paul permitted in the Church of Rome, etc. and pressed the Church to union, without separating from it?
Answer: They held it rigidly, imposing it upon others as of necessity to salvation, ch. 2:14 and 6:12. For where the same error was held more moderately, as we observe before in the Church of Rome and Corinth, etc. the apostle deals milder with it; there he says, ‘Circumcision is nothing, nor uncircumcision is nothing,’ 1 Cor. 7:19. ‘Is any man called being circumcised; let him not be uncircumcised,’ verse 8.
But when they come to hold it imposingly and positively, as in this verse, he then changes his voice: then ‘O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth?’ etc. ch. 3:1-4, then, ‘Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be cir∣cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, Christ is become of none effect unto you,’ ch. 5:2-4.
So that the manner of holding an error alters the case of its fundamentalness much: It was Peter’s separating from the saints differing minded, and dissimulation, rather than his error, ch. 2:11-14, that made Paul withstand him to the face, verse 11…
That if those errors and heresies the Scripture mentions as dangerous and unsufferable in the Church of God, which the Churches and saints of God are onely exhorted to reject and withdraw from, was all either of a scandalous profane nature, denying the power of godliness, on the one hand, or contrary to a godly life, inconsistent with true grace, or striking at the foundation of saving faith on the other hand: Then the Churches and saints of God, who desire not to be wise above what is written at this day, ought only to reject and withdraw from such…”
.
John Cotton
A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Observations, Reasons, and uses upon the First Epistle General of John (London: Parkhurst, 1658), on 1 Jn. 2:19, pp. 156-57
“Use 2: It may teach us what to judge of the Seperatists, or Brownists…
1. Because they seperate where Christ keeps fellowship, Rev. 1:18, and that He walks with us, we argue, because He is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life, and edifies many souls thereby, and therefore surely Christ has fellowship, and shall man be more pure than his Maker? where Christ vouchsafes fellowship, shall man renounce it?
…
2. But they say that our Church consists of a mixed multitude, so was that 2 Chron. 20:13, when Jehoshaphat assembled all Judah before the Lord, there was a mixed multitude (Num. 11:4), and they did it out of fear, and yet it was a true Church, and so is ours, though there be a mixed multitude. And yet this falling off, because it is not from the main doctrine, but from the skirts, and some circumstantials, therefore they do not fall utterly from Christ, but yet it is not possible but they weaken their faith.”
.
James Durham
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or a Treatise
concerning Scandal… (Edinburgh: Higgins, 1659)
“Thou wilt also find [in this volume]… what things are to be forborne, and what is to be done in order to uniting, and that as well in closing doctrinal differences, not fundamental nor nigh the foundation…”
.
pt. 3, ch. 1, p. 278
“Thus contentions were hot in the primitive times for meats and such things which were neither of themselves destructive to the foundation of Faith on either side, at least in that time, and so were not heretical; nor did they break off communion in Church-ordinances, and so were not schismatical;”
.
pt. 4
pp. 315-16
“by way of precept there is an absolute necessity of uniting laid upon the Church, so that it falls not under debate whether a Church should continue divided or united in these [in thesis]… seeing that union is both commanded as a duty and commanded as eminently tending to the edification of the Church, and therefore is so frequently joined with edification?
Nor is it to be asked by a Church what is to be done for the Church’s good in a divided way, thereby supposing a dispensation, as it were, to be given to division and a forbearing of the use of means for the attaining thereof; or rather supposing a stating or fixing of division, and yet notwithstanding thereof, thinking to carry on edification?”
.
pp. 316-18
“where union cannot be attained amongst orthodox ministers that agree in all main things (for of such only we speak)…
that men should by agreement state a division in the Church, or dispense therewith, and prefer the continuing of division as fitter for edification than union, we suppose is altogether unwarrantable.”
.
“That as union is ever a duty, so we conceive if men interessed will do their duty, there can be no division amongst orthodox divines or ministers but it is possible also to compose it, and union is a thing attainable. For:
1. We are not speaking of composing divisions that are stated upon the fundamental things; nor are we speaking of removing all differences, as if all men were to be one in judgment in every point of truth; there may be difference where there is no division, as has been said.
Nor, 3. when we speak of men’s doing their duty, do we mean a full up-coming of everything in knowledge and practice…”
.
“That in endeavoring union and healing men would not straiten it to an universal union in everything, in judgement and practice, but would resolve to have it with many things defective that need forbearance in persons that are united, which men may take up in these particulars:
1. There may be difference of judgement in many things, I mean in such things that are consistent with the foundation and edification; and such a forbearance would be resolved upon, and to do otherways were to think that either men had no reason at all, or that their understandings were perfect, or at least of equal reach.
2… certainly, if people ought to carry even to corrupt ministers who yet destroy not the foundation, as ministers, in the duties that becomes them to ministers in communion with them, while they continue such, then certainly ministers ought to keep that communion with ministers, that becomes their relations, seeing they are still ministers in that respect, as well as in the other.
And if this corruption will not warrant separation in other ordinances, as was said in the close of the second part, then neither will it warrant division in the ordinance of government.”
.
p. 320
“What cannot warrant a breach where there is union, that cannot warrantably be the ground to keep up a division;”
.
p. 323
“…union has the advantage over division, because:
It is a commanded mean tending to edification, which division is not.
2. Division has no less nor fewer inconveniencies following it, nor [is] less destructive to the Church than union in the case supposed; yea, schism is one of the greatest hurts that can come to an orthodox Church, it being next to heresy in doctrine; and therefore no particular evil can be laid in the balance with it.
3. The ills of division are most inevitable, for the ills that follow union, through God’s blessing, may be prevented; it is not impossible, but in the way of division it is, because itself is out of God’s way.”
.
p. 328
“…we may lay down these negative conclusions concerning the upmaking of a breach amongst godly and orthodox men, where a Church has harmony in the fundamental points, faith, worship and government, and where the thriving of the Gospel is mutually designed.”
.
ch. 10, p. 354
“Possibly also union in fundamental things, being accorded unto, it may make way for moderating affections in other things less fundamental. This method was ever urged by Bucer, Beza and other Reformers, who keeped conferences at first with the Lutheran party…”
.
ch. 11
p. 357
“For doctrinal differences of judgment, there are three ways to close them (it is to be adverted, that the difference is not supposed to be in any fundamental thing)…”
.
p. 359
“there are many truths which are not decided by any judicial act; and amongst other things, sparingness to decide truths that are not fundamental judicially has been ever thought no little mean of the Church’s peace, as the contrary has been of division.”
.
ch. 13, pp. 368–69
“…the business about Easter and ceremonies… ordinarily such debates pretend some lawfulness or unlawfulness in the thing contended for and are to be counted amongst the jangling debates that the men of God are to eschew…
1. That, as there is a necessity of suffering some difference in doctrine, so is there also a necessity to bear with some differences in circumstances in the external manner of worship, etc. and men would not soon offend at every difference, nor be displeased if it proceed not from affectation of singularity, unfaithfulness or some other corrupt rise. And we will find great condescendency in the greatest men both of old and late in things that are not sinful in themselves for keeping of union in the Church: and thus far the apostles’ practice of becoming all things to all will warrant. Zanchius in an epistle to this purpose gives both many examples of and reasons for this.
2… the condemning of the way and manner used by others as having some great absurdity in it, and the pressing of their way, even in circumstances, upon others; These and such things are to be eschewed: and so indeed there is no way to peace in these things but to forbear; for it is more easy to forbear some new thing than to make others alter what is old, except there be some reason in the matter to move to this.”
.
p. 381
“We are not here speaking of such matter as is fundamental, but such as is consistent with soundness of judgement in the main, and piety in these who may be upon either side.”
.
pp. 387–88
“where there is nothing like a party or equality, but the division is in the same one Church betwixt a greater and smaller number, and the greater will not be induced to remove their determination; It is no way sinful to the lesser to join with them notwithstanding thereof they having their own freedom and liberty cautioned, as was formerly said; Yea, this seems not unexpedient that they should do for the good of the Church.”
.
ch. 21, p. 426
“The judicious and great divine Calvin does upon this account exceedingly aggrege the divisions amongst some English in Frankfort [over the Anglican ceremonies], who… did even there contend for matters of little moment. This (says he, Epistle 200) was exceeding intempestive, or untimeous, and exceeding offensive to the Church of Christ, and unbecoming their case:
And although he utterly disapproved these ceremonies, as unbecoming the Church of Christ, yet does he (Epistle 206) press moderation on both sides, using these words… ‘As I did exhort these who were not of one mind with you to stretch themselves with all possible moderation, so it did displease me that there was upon the other hand by you nothing ceded or remitted.’”
.
Heaven upon Earth… (Edinburgh: Anderson, 1685), “To the Readers”
“so there will readily still be different sentiments and apprehensions as to some lesser and lower truths further removed from the fundamentals of religion (where about all are agreed) and so proportionably as to practices among even truly godly men; it not being to be supposed that while saints sojourn and are militant here on earth, the intellectuals of all of them will be of the same size, or cast into the same mold, that their light will be of the same clearness, and that they will be all of equal mortification…
So it speaks the necessity of mutual Christian forbearance, compassion and sympathy.”
.
Collected Sermons of James Durham, ed. Chris Coldwell (Naphtali Press & Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), vol. 1
7. ‘A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12’, p. 923
“…when many have been in the fault, there has been a forbearance [in exercising Church discipline]… ‘I would they were cut off that trouble you’ (Gal. 5:12). Why then would he [the apostle Paul] not cut them off? Because there was such a distemper among the Galatians, they were so bewitched and led away after the false teachers, and Paul’s authority was questioned; therefore he held himself at a wish and will not put forth the authority he had against those false and corrupt men.”
“Rule Two. We must have a respect to the ordinance itself, that it be not made contemptible, that the discipline of Christ’s house be not rendered obnoxious to reproach and contempt; and as in the first reformation of religion, when men were coming out of popery and were ready to fear and spurn at discipline, and knew not the difference between the popish yoke and Christ’s yoke, in that case and in that time there was forbearance on this account.”
.
Lancaster Presbyterians
The Censures of the Church Revived… (London: Eversden, 1659) sect. 4, p. 36
“We shall here declare what offences are censurable with this greatest and last censure of excommunication, according to the order that is there prescribed, and which, as it requires, ‘that it be inflicted with great and mature deliberation, and after all other good means have been essayed;’ so it appoints in these express words:
‘That such errours in practice as subvert the Faith, or any other errours which overthrow the power of godliness; if the party who holds them spread them, seeking to draw others after him; and such sins in practice as cause the name and truth of God to be blasphemed, cannot stand with the power of godliness; and such practices, as in their own nature manifestly subvert that order, unity and peace which Christ has established in his Church; and particularly all those scandalous sins, for which any person is to be suspended from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, obstinately persisted in; these being publicly known, to the just scandal of the Church; The sentence of excommunication may and ought to proceed, according to the directions after following.
But the persons that hold other errors in judgment, about which learned and godly men possibly may and do differ, and which subvert not the faith, nor are destructive to godliness, or that be guilty of such sins of infirmity as are commonly found in the children of God: or being otherwise sound in the Faith and holy in life (and so not falling under censure by the former rules) endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; and do yet out of conscience not come up to the observation of all those rules which are or shall be established by authority for regulating the outward worship of God and government of his Church; the sentence of excommunication for these causes shall not be denounced against them.'”
.
Thomas Watson
A Divine Cordial… (London: Parkhurst, 1663), ch. 9, p. 107
“Where there is union in fundamentals, there ought to be union in affections.”
.
Thomas Walley
Balm in Gilead to Heal Sion’s Wounds… (Cambridge: S.G., 1670), p. 17 Walley was a New England divine.
“Let those that agree in fundamentals and have union with the same Head, walk together in love and peace: this we are pressed to Phil. 3:16. Why should there not be a hearty love between those that are of the same Faith?”
.
Francis Fullwood
The Doctrine of Schism Fully Opened & Applied to Gathered Churches... (London: 1672), ch. 8, pp. 44-45
“1. What is schism from the Church of England? Sure it is not a denying its doctrine, or holding anything contrary thereunto; he that holds perversum Dogma [a perverse dogma] only, is an heretic, no schismatic, as St. Jerome teaches (on Titus 3).
Mr. [Matthew] Newcomen, a learned presbyterian, as I observed in my last, lets the Separatists know that their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches in doctrines that are fundamental, their holding one Head and one Faith, does not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity, so long as they hold not one Body, one baptism.
For he cites Beza, another learned presbyterian (Annotations on 1 Cor. 1:10). So that you may be willing to subscribe to the 39 Articles, and yet be schismatics from the Church of England.”
.
Richard Steele
Various Puritans, The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate... vol. 4 (of 6), ed. James Nichols, 5th ed. (1659-1689; London: Tegg, 1844), pp. 222-23
“religious differences should be managed religiously; that is, piously and charitably. This may be; it is possible; for it is prescribed and pressed: ‘Let us not therefore judge one another any more.’ (Rom.14:13) ‘But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brought?’ (Rom. 14:10) and ‘Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace.’ (Rom. 14:19)
And this should be: for charity is a grace of an universal extent; we owe it to all, – to the weak, to the ignorant, to the peevish, to the proud, to the good, and to the bad: ‘Owe no man any thing, but to love one another.’ (Rom. 13:8)
And it is of that necessary connection with other saving graces, that we can neither have faith nor hope, unless we have charity; yea, ‘the greatest of these is charity’ (1 Cor. 13:13). And herein the true church of Christ hath ever excelled. The fathers of old, in their dealing with the Donatists, would account them their brethren, when they could not prevail with them for a reciprocation. And it is a golden saying of Bernard:
‘I will cleave to you against your will; I will cleave to you even against my own will: when ye are moved, I will be quiet; I will give place to anger, that I may not give place to the devil.’
And there is great reason for such a temper: for every difference in religion creates not a different religion: while men do hold the Head, they must needs be of the body. Where the same substantial doctrine is avowed, accidental variety is very tolerable, especially where the peace of God’s Church is not infringed. It was worthy bishop [Edward] Reynolds’s conclusion:
‘Where the same straight road to heaven is kept, a small difference of paths hinders not travelers from coming to the same inn at night.’
So neither should they bitterly contest about the next way, who steadily own the same Guide, the same rule, the same end; only, every one has not so clear an eye, nor such opportunity to know the more obscure points pertaining to the Christian religion, which others have. Therefore in these things Luther’s motto is best: ‘Where there is anything of Christ, there is love:’ and this love ‘will cover,’ not one or two, but ‘the multitude of sins’ and infirmities (1 Peter 4:8).”
.
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu
Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), ‘Whether from the proposed Reformed and Lutheran union, union with the Roman Church follows,’ pp. 950-57 Latin
“I. Since a division arose among Protestants regarding certain key points of the Christian religion, and those who follow the Helvetic, French, and Belgic Confessions have openly separated from those who adhere more closely to the Augsburg Confession [1530], the former, known specifically as the Reformed, have always tried to reconcile with those [Lutherans] of the Augsburg Confession, and have attempted various ways to establish ecclesiastical peace and remove the schism between the two groups.
II. Although these latter ones have often rejected the offered peace [by the Reformed] and many of them still seem very averse to it, sometimes the effort has met with success. For example, a hundred years ago at the Synod of Sandomierz, ministers who taught the Gospel of Christ according to both the Augsburg Confession and the Confession of the Waldensian Brethren and the Helvetic Churches in both Poland, Lithuania, and Samogitia came together in a common confession and were reconciled. Recently, in the Colloquium of Kassel, between the theologians of Marburg and Rinteln, a mutual communion was agreed upon despite remaining disagreements on what were considered fundamental issues.
III. Furthermore, in this century, there have been among other theologians of the Augsburg Confession some highly learned and celebrated men who publicly declared in their writings their desire for such ecclesiastical peace between the two Protestant parties and outlined the means to achieve it. For instance, Matthias, Bishop of Strängnäs in Sweden, in his book Northern Olive Branch, and George Calixtus, professor of theology at the University of Helmstedt, in his book Judgment on Theological Controversies between the Reformed and Lutherans.”
.
Elucidation of the Status of Controversies about the Church Militant, bk. 5, ch. 1, ‘On the Nature and Definition of the Church’ in Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan, 3rd ed., tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683)
p. 1052
“However, most others describe the visible Church as the assembly of those who profess the true and salutary doctrine of Christ and legitimately use the sacraments instituted by Him, and also observe the lawful order of discipline. Some others more briefly say it is the assembly of those who profess the true religion, along with their children. Thus, the Anglican Confession, Chapter 25, Article 30.
Therefore, they do not want any heretical churches to constitute part of the visible Church, but exclude from it those who are properly called heretics; nor do they place outside it all who err in matters of faith and sin in the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline; but only those who deny and subvert the fundamental teachings concerning faith, discipline, and the sacraments.
Therefore, among the many particular churches that are contained within the communion of the true Church, they note various degrees of purity and perfection; nor do they immediately deny a church to be a true Church of Christ if it is not in all respects pure in doctrine or in the rest of worship, rites, and the sanctity of discipline, and if it has some errors in saving faith, some abuses in the use of sacraments, some superstitions in divine worship, and some allowance of scandals in the sanctity of discipline, provided that in the meantime it retains the fundamental and saving doctrine and practice of faith and worship. These are the words of the confession or declaration of the Polish Churches, publicly read at the Thorunien assembly in 1645, and printed and published the following year.
And this is the common opinion of our theologians, as can be seen in John Calvin, Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 12 and following, and in the illustrious Mestrezat in his French treatise on the Church, Book 2, Chapter 4.”
.
p. 1,056
“As for schismatics, that is, those who separate themselves from true Christian churches for some slight cause, whether in doctrine or discipline, our theologians distinguish between the authors of the schism and the people deceived by them. As for the authors of the schism, since they break the bond of charity, they acknowledge that they cannot belong to the invisible Church, whose bond and communion consist in faith, hope, and charity.
But concerning the deceived people or those born in schism, they are less rigid and believe that there can be good men among them, not alien to the body of Christ but joined to it by true faith and charity; nor do they entirely exclude schismatic churches from the visible Church if they retain the foundations of doctrine and discipline, since they reserve this honor only for those who deny and overthrow the fundamentals of faith and discipline.”
.
Thomas Jekyll
Peace & Love Recommended & Persuaded in Two Sermons… (London: 1675), 1st Sermon, p. 14 Jekyll (1646–1698) was an Anglican conforming minister.
“Doubtless, no opinion that does not thwart the fundamentals of religion should make a separation, and destroy our love and charity; and that, because we have only probable arguments for our opinions, but we have an express command for our love; one excellent property of which, is, that it ‘Bears all things, suffers long, and is kind:’
And indeed, if we do but consider the long suffering of God towards us, how much he bears with us every day, we have all the reason in the world to make that excellent character and property ours, and as much as may be, to bear with one another, to support, and not devour the weak; to strengthen, and not confound the feeble knees; to raise up, and not to trample upon those that are down; and by this means we may do more good, than by all the violence we can use, since a gentle persuasion accompanied with kindness, will reach farther than the strong∣est argument urged with hatred and ill nature.
Christianity should appear with all the ornaments of a meek and quiet spirit, and show a love mixed with sorrow, towards those that are strangers or enemies to it; and this will make them esteem the love that’s showed them, the persons that show it, and praise the religion that moves them to it, and sooner than anything else, persuade them to be of it.”
.
Thomas Long
The Character of a Separatist, or Sensuality the ground of Separation… (London, 1677) Long (1621–1707) was a conformed Anglican clergyman and royalist.
Dedicatory Epistle
“the great and uncontroverted fundamentals of religion wherein they agree with us in judgment, might reconcile their affections in those lesser things wherein they differ. Opinionum diversitas et Opinantium unitas non sunt [Greek], Hales, of Schism, p. 215. How unreasonable and irreligious a thing it is to contend for ceremonies to the neglect of the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy and faith…”
.
Picture & Character of a Separatist, pp. 25-26
“And therefore when they that separate do plead that they agree with us in the fundamentals of Faith, they do not excuse, but aggravate their schism in violating the unity of that Church which is sound in the Faith. (St. Augustine, Contra Faustus, bk. 20, ch. 2) For ’tis not diversity of Faith, but the breach of unity that makes a schismatic.”
.
William Thomas
An Apology for the Church of England, in Point of Separation from it (London: Leach, 1679), pp. 80-82 Thomas (d. 1689) was a Welsh Anglican bishop.
“I shall recommend to you Mr. [William] Perkins’ Exposition of this [Scripture] testimony (on Jude 19), comparing it with his comment to the same effect on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, the 2nd verse, and his doctrinal observation is this (I shall only abbreviate that descant he has enlarged):
It is a great sin for a man to separate himself from the assembly of God’s people, Heb. 10:25. It is our duty to keep unity, Eph. 4:3. Upon this occasion he starts this question: Whether if there be errors in the Church, we may separate ourselves?
His judicious resolution is this: Errors are either practical in manners or doctrinal in tenets. For vicious manners we may not separate; Lot did it not. The Jews might not do it from the scribes and Pharisees, because they sat in Moses’s chair.
Though we may not separate from such corrupt persons in the public assemblies, yet we may in private conversation, 1 Cor. 5:11.
If the Church err in doctrine, it is to be considered whether the error be in a point substantial, fundamental or not? if in a point substantial, fundamental, whether upon infirmity, or obstinacy? if of frailty, we may not separate, as in Corinth and Galatia.
If a Church err in the foundation openly, obstinately, a separation may be made, 1 Tim. 4:5 (yet the error being in some, not in all, it remains a Church, as Corinth did).
If the error be in smaller points, not fundamental, we may not separate: They which build upon the foundation of hay and stubble of erroneous opinon, may be saved, 1 Cor. 3:25.
Mr. Perkins concludes that no man can separate from the Church of England with a good conscience, since it teaches, obeys, believes the doctrine of the prophets and apostles. In the most justifiable cause of separation he requires examination, conviction, censure (or condemnation). To separate without examination is not piety, but frenzy. No man can judge aright of that (says the Philosopher, Aristotle, bk. 1, Ethics) whereof he is ignorant. No man can well determine, what he does not well discuss. Qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat.”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994)
vol. 1, p. 48
“…the more strict Lutherans who (to render a union with us [Reformed] more difficult) extend fundamentals more widely than is just, turn almost every error into a heresy and make necessary those things which are indifferent so as more easily to prove that we differ on fundamentals.”
.
vol. 3, p. 141
“Every secesion is not evil and schismatical, but only that which is made rashly and unjustly. Since this cannot be said of ours [from Rome] (which had the most weighty and highly necessary causes), schism cannot be charged upon us…”
.
Alexander Ross
A Sermon preached before the… Lords Commissioners, of his Majesty’s most honourable Privy Counsel, at Glasgow (Glasgow, 1684), p. 34 This Ross (1647?-1720) was bishop of Edinburgh, the second son of Alexander Ross (d. 1678).
“Therefore, since schism stands so justly chargeable as leveling a most forcible battery for the ruin and supplantation of these dearest concerns of Christianity, it’s hardly conceivable what miserable inconsideration acts those men who make so light of the Spirit of Unity: and ’tis certain that nothing less than the most incurable and fundamental overturnings can warrant a separation or rupture:
And it’s a matter next to a miracle there should be any thing in the world (if not condemned by Scripture in the plainest and most down-right terms) maligned which is any way fitted for the preservation of unity.”
.
John Flavel
Planelogia, a Succinct & Seasonable Discourse of the Occasions, Causes, Nature, Rise, Growth & Remedies of Mental Errors... (London: Roberts, 1691), pp. 438-39, 446 Flavel was a presbyterian.
“And I make no doubt but some opinions as well as practices render men unmeet for Church-communion, Tit. 3:10; 2 Jn. 10. All opinions which overthrow doctrines necessary to be believed, which the apostle comprehends under the name of Faith; and all such opinions as are inconsistent with an holy life and te power of godliness, which the apostle comprehends under the name of a good conscience, 1 Tim. 1:19-20. Whosoever shall hold or maintain any such opinions as these, he is either to be kept out, if not admitted; or cast out, if he be in Church-fellowship.
In receiving such you receive but spies and incendiaries among you. What a fire-brand did Arius prove, not only in the Church of Constantinople, but even to the whole world? Men of graceless hearts and erroneous heads will give a continual exercise to the patience of sober Christians… if they can be discerned before they be admitted, a little preventive care would be of singular and seasonable use to the tranquillity of Church-societies.”
.
“Be deeply affected with the mischievous effects and consequents of schisms and divisions in the societies of the saints, and let nothing beneath a plain necessity divide you from communion one with another; hold it fast till you can hold it no longer without sin.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical-Practical Theology, ed. Joel Beeke, tr. Todd Rester
(Reformation Heritage Books), vol. 5, bk. 7, ch. 1, §35
“The Lutherans on the contrary, by defect, decline fraternal fellowship with the Reformed, who by no means differ from them in the foundation. The Reformed pursue a middle way: (1) they reject the Socinians’ Samaritanism, that is, fraternal fellowship with those who err in the foundation, and render it useless to us (1 Cor. 3:12 with Rom. 10:3–4; Gal. 5:4), being adduced:
(1)… (c) by reasons, because the fellowship of the mystical body rests upon the unity of the fundamental faith (Eph. 4:4–5).
(2) With churches that err concerning the foundation, that is, which teach such things whereby, through necessary consequence, the foundation is made to fail, they do not want to rashly break church fellowship, unless perhaps they exclude us (1 Cor. 3:12; Eph. 4:4–5; Col. 2:19), after the example of Paul, who due to errors of this sort, by no means separated from the churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Colossae.”
.
Gilbert Rule
The Good Old Way Defended (Edinburgh: Anderson, 1697), sect. 10, ‘Of Schism’ Rule was a Scottish, divine-right presbyterian minister.
pp. 250-52
Ҥ5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a holy zeal, charging such as apostates from the Church and breakers of her peace, who held opinions contrary to the essential and fundamental, or any of the great articles of the Christian Faith, so that they placed the unity of the catholic Church in a harmonious consent to these great truths.
Irenaeus ([Against Heresies] bk. 1, ch. 3, p. 53, edition Cologne, 1625), having given a short account of the chief articles of the true religion, has these words:
hanc igitur praedicationem, et hanc ••dem adepta Ecclesia, quamvis dispersa in uni∣verso mundo, diligenter conservat, a• si in una eademque domo habitaret, ac similiter iis fidem habet, ac si unam animam unumque et idem cor haberet; at∣que un• consensu hoc praedicat, docet ac tradit, ac si uno ore praedita esset. Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum, una tamen et eadem est vis traditionis; nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt; nec quae in Hispania, neque in Galliis; neque in Oriente, neque in Aegypto, neque in Lybia, aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt, sed quemadmodum Sol Creatura Dei unus et idem est in universo Mundo; ita & praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet, & illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt.
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, bk. 4, ch. 27) cites Irenaeus condemning Tatianus, the author of the sect of the Encratitae, and saying of him, [Greek], he reckoned his opinions a falling from the Church, or a breaking her unity. The same Historian, bk. 4, ch. 24, gives account of Egesippus narrating, how long the Church remained a virgin, teaching and believing nothing but the Law and the prophets, and what the Lord Himself taught, and he mentions particularly the Churches of Corinth, Rome and Jerusalem; and then shows how heresies arose, whose authors he calls false Christs, false prophets and false apostles, and of them he says, [Greek],they divided the unity of the Church by their corrupt doctrines against God, and against his Christ. Several other citations might be brought to this purpose, but these may be sufficient.
I do not question but that there might be other things which might be called schism, even with respect to the universal Church, as if any should bring in idolatrous, or superstitious worship, contrary to the rules of the Gospel, or should violate any of the necessary and laudable canons of General Councils, and should set up societies in oppositi∣on, not only to one or few, but to all the societies of Christians, or all the soundest of them…
§6. There is another sort of unity much regarded among the ancients, which though the breach of it had as bad influence on all, or most Churches, and so on the catholic Church: yet it properly respected neighbor Churches, either which were united by the bond of one government, a provincial, or lesser synod, being made up of them: or only living in the vicinity of one another, or having frequent occasion of correspondence; they who were not under any uniting bonds, but these commune to all the parts of the catholic Church, yet had an unity of kind correspondence, mutual assistance, as occasion offered, acquainting one another with their affairs so far as it was of any advantage: admitting the members of other Churches to communion with them on occasion, refusing communion with such members of other Churches as were by them excommunicated: and this unity was then broken when these acts of friendship were shunned or refused, especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another: or when occasional communion was either shuned by them who so joined in another Church or denied to such sojourners if they desired it: or when one Church showed rage, fury and bitterness against another because of what they differed about.”
.
p. 255
“§ 9. I now come to consider what apprehensions modern writers have had of schism… I choose one, whom, I think my [episcopal] antagonist will not except against, the learned Bishop of Worcester, in his Irenic. p. 109, the sum of whose discourse is: all are bound to join into some Church society; and being so joined, should continue in that society till his communion with them becomes sin. Now for what makes it sin to continue in Church communion, and consequently warrants separation; he supposes that corruption in the essentials of the constitution of the Church may warrant it…”
.
Anthony Horneck
The Blessed Advantages of Peace & Peacemakers In a Sermon preached at the Savoy in London upon the Fifth of St. Matthew, verse 9, ‘Blessed are the Peace-makers…’ (London: Aylmer, 1697), pp. 29-34
“2. It is not a bare union of men that makes a Church a true Church, but that union must have truth for its foundation; else you know thieves and robbers and highway-men and pirates, and buccaneers, because they agree among themselves, might lay claim to this title, and the most perverse heretics, because they agree in certain points, might say they are the true Church…
…
And indeed, that which justifies the Protestant Churches’ separation from her [Rome], or breaking peace and communion with her is:
1. Because she would impose that upon the consciences of men which Christ and his apostles never imposed.
2. Because she has turned the spiritual worship of the Gospel into carnal and mechanical devotion and introduced innumerable superstitions…
…
5. Because rejecting the supreme authority of the Scriptures, which are the sole rule of Faith, she has made her pretended head, and such councils as he shall call or approve of, the sole dictators and expositors of the doctrine of Christ, requiring blind obedience to their decisions…
The divisions among Protestant Churches are to be deplored so much the more because the points they differ in are inconsiderable and might easily be composed if men had but peaceable tempers and were resolved to lay aside interest and carnal respects, and punctilios of honor and credit, etc. for they all agree in fundamentals, all are satisfied that the Church of Rome has notoriously deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel; and the matters in difference, are things in which salvation is not concerned.
And upon that account their labours deserve great commendations, who heretofore and very lately have endeavored to reconcile the Protestant Churches into a perfect union: A blessed work. Blessed are the peacemakers, that endeavor to make peace among the jarring members of Christ’s Body; and though they may fail of success, yet they shall not lose their reward.
In the meanwhile those who widen or heighten these differences, and incite the respective parties to hatred, and wrath, and animosities one against another, to be sure are no children of the God of peace, and had need at least before they die make public satisfacti∣on for the dreadful effects their heats and passions do produce. But as this peace among Protestant Churches is very much to be wished and prayed for…”
.
1700’s
William Burkitt
Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the Four Holy Evangelists… (London, 1700), On Mt. 16
“Observation 4. Our Savior does not command his disciples to separate from commmunion with the Pharisees, and oblige them not hear their doctrine; but only to beware of the errors that they mix with their doctrine. We may, and ought to hold communion with a Church, though erroneous in doctrine, if not fundamentally erroneous.
Separation from a Church is not justifiable upon any other ground than that which makes a separation betwixt God and that Church: Which is either the apostasy of that Church into gross idolatry; or in point of doctrine, into damnable heresy.”
.
Gavin Hamilton
Just Reflections upon a Pamphlet entitled, A Modest Reply to a Letter from a Friend to Mr. John M’millan ([London] 1712), p. 36
“If he [the opponent] judge the terms of our communion lawful [in the Church of Scotland], then he must either join and keep communion with us, or maintain that a Church, the terms of whose communion are lawful, or, to keep to our these [thesis], in which there are no sinful terms of communion imposed, is yet to be separated from.
This is a new tenet, never known before among men that called themselves presbyterians. I think they had reason, who, when these [separatist] men began to call themselves ‘the true presbyterians of the Chuch of Scotland’ [after the Glorious Revolution of 1689], they called them ‘the new presbyterians’.”
.
John Currie
ch. 2, In which sundry propositions anent separation are laid down
“2nd Proposition. There may be different sentiments without separation.
And hence the apostle exhorts all to “forbear one another in love” (Eph. 4:1-6), and to “walk by the same rule whereunto we have already attained.” [Phil. 3:15-16] If the sentiments of all were the same, there had not been need for any such exhortation. As long as we see but in part, as we think others should allow us to differ from them, we ought to forbear such as differ from us, I mean in things not fundamental.”
.
“12th Proposition. Where a Church has turned so corrupt that we cannot have communion with her without sin, in that case, such as separate, though the smaller party by far, they are the true Church; and, though they separate they are not the separatists, for ’tis certain, in such a case, the fault or crime of schism is in these that occasion it.
And no doubt as Rutherford says (Due Right, p. 255):
“When the greatest part of a Church makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the Church of Separatists.”
Surely he means of declared defections from the truth in fundamentals; for, in the immediately preceeding paragraph, he says:
“There is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if it be a true Chuch) and go to a purer and a cleaner.”
‘Tis certain, defection from the truth in lesser things does not unchurch a people; However, when defection from the truth is made in fundamentals, and her standards of doctrine are corrupted, and we [be] required to approve thereof, that alters the case: As in the case of the Church of Rome before the Reformation, then such as adhered to her were the separatists, and not such as made a secession or separation from her.”
.
ch. 3, Where some things are instanced, which, though just ground for fasting, mourning and lamentation, yet are not sufficient causes of separation from a Church of Christ
“And 1st, albeit there be errors, and errors of a heinous nature among some in a Church, this is not sufficient ground of separation from that Church, nay, not though these errors should remain uncensured.
For, as was noticed above, there were some in the Church of Corinth who had drunk in this gross error, “That there is no resurrection of the body;” hence the apostle asks, “How say some among you, there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12) The interrogation plainly intimates there were some among them who denied that great and fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion; and yet this Church of Corinth was a true Church of Christ, from which it was not lawful to separate.
So, in the Church of Pergamos, there were some uncensured who held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and yet she was a true Church of Christ, right and approven in the main. So, in the Church of Thyatira, “that wicked woman” Jezebel was tolerated without being censured, though she taught the Lord’s servants to commit heinous iniquity.
So, though there should be sundry persons leavened with gross errors in the Church of Scotland at this day, this is no sufficient ground for a secession or separation from her. I own it is a sin, and I think a very heinous sin in any Church, to wink at errors, or not to censure for, and be zealous against them, especially if of a heinous nature, as are some of these wherewith some among us have been charged…
…
And as [John] Owen justly (Exposition, p. 174) observes, “There may be a fundamental error in a true Church for a season, where the Church errs not fundamentally,” citing for proof of this, 1 Cor. 15; 2 Tim. 2:18.”
.
ch. 6, section 4
“11th Objection: This Chuch [of Scotland] is erroneous in her doctrine, therefore ’tis sinful to keep communion with her.
This is a heavy charge indeed; and, if it was true that her declared or professed doctrine is corrupt in fundamental points and we required to approve thereof, I should think it sufficient ground of separation:”
.
Against a Positive Separation from True Churches in Erecting or Maintaining Distinct Bodies, Government, Worship, etc. except where sin is required for union and people perish for lack of a Gospel ministry
Order of
Intro
Articles 2
Quotes 35+
.
Intro
What is a “True Church”; Separation Distinguished
A “true Church”, as seen on this page and elsewhere, was most often defined by the reformed, with precedents from previous Christian tradition, by what regularly constituted the catholic, visible Church, namely the notes or marks of Christ’s Church: (1) the preaching of the Gospel, (2) the substantials of the sacraments, and (3) a basic obedience to the Word, or Discipline.
Separation was classically distinguished, notably by John Cameron (d. 1625) in the Post-Reformation (from long, previous, Early Church precedents), into a negative separation and a positive separation. Negative is a withdrawal so as not to sin, yet one does not set up different assemblies, government, worship, etc. (1 Kn. 18:3-4, 13; 19:18; Dan. 3; 6:10; Eze. 9:4) A positive separation is when one sets up “altar against altar” (a phrase from the early Church based on: 1 Kn. 12:26-33; 2 Kn. 16:10-16; ch. 21; Hos. 8:11; 10:1-2).
.
God’s Word
There simply is no verse in the Bible which warrants splitting Christ’s Body over secondary issues which do not tend to overturn the fundamentals (or the very life) of the Christian Faith and that Body. The passage most often used to justify such is 2 Cor. 6:14-18:
“for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?… Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing;”
However this is a selective quoting of the passage, wrenching it contrary to its context. Paul in the passage is clearly calling for persons to come out of the pagan, unbelieving world into the Church, the spiritual family of God:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?… And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
The Christian principle (reformed to the Word) documented and expounded here at length rules out denominationalism.
.
Exception:
Partially-Conforming English Puritans after 1662
To explain the exception to the rule, and the ground for it: While one ought not to separate further from the Church than one must,¹ a true Church may require something sinful for union with it (such as swearing something to be true which is not true), whether for ministers or laypersons. This warrants a negative separation, or withdrawal, from the sin, albeit not necessarily from the people or worship.² This situation was arguably the case in England at the Great Ejection of 1662 and after.³
¹ Richard Baxter: “1. all that separate for a wrong cause, 2. or further than they separate from Christ, or than Christ would have them separate, do sin.” Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (RBO, 2024), p. 85
² See ‘On Impurities in Worship’.
³ Baxter gives a list of 12 things imposed on laymen he considered sinful in The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London: Parkhurst, 1689), ch. 4, pp. 22-23. For his list of 40 sinful things imposed on ministers, see pp. 17-22. For Baxter’s fuller explication and arguments regarding these same things, see The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), section 8, pp. 141-55 (laymen) and section 9, pp. 155-207 (ministers).
Richard Baxter was a main leader of the majority‡ of the non-conformists (including the presbyterians) during that era. He condoned, supported and led ministers positively setting up churches in areas where there was no functional Gospel ministry,† as an extension of the ministry of Christ and of the Anglican Church in the land (the latter partaking of the former), though this was outlawed.¹ So far from being against the established churches, Baxter sought to peaceably sustain, encourage and support them, as well as to unify with them so far as it was possible; and would not accept members from them in his church except they provided sufficient reason.
‡ Travis Fentiman, “Editor’s Extended Introduction”, p. 161 in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025)
† Baxter, The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace… (London, 1679), pp. 101-103; An Apology for the Nonconformists’ Ministry… (1668-1669; 1675; London: 1681), p. 23; see also: ‘Baxter – Gathering of Separate Churches’.
This was also the practice of the majority of the Scottish presbyterian, non-conformist ministers in the same era, contra the minority Cameronians: Maurice Grant, The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), pp. 86-89. Yet that the Anglican Church required sin in that era is much more clear than that the Church of Scotland did. The non-fundamental Scottish issues pertaining to Church government could be lawfully accommodated; see Fentiman, “Extended Introduction”, pp. 102-11 in English Puritans, Refutation of the Errors of Separatists.
¹ See Baxter, Question 80, ‘May or must a minister silenced or forbid to preach the Gospel go on still to preach it against the Law?’ in Christian Direcotry (London: White, 1673), pt. 3, Christian Ecclesiastics, Cases of Conscience, pp. 854-55, where he distinguishes between unnecessary and necessary preaching, and where it is tolerated versus not.
The Anglican Church’s imposing of sinful terms of union was schismatic. While this does not justify other ministers and Christians being schismatic, yet where persons perish for lack of a fundamentally adequate Gospel ministry, and it is forbidden in the sphere of order (which is secondary) to set up Gospel ministry and churches (where such should be set up), the necessity of people’s eternal salvation may override such a sinful prohibition.¹
¹ See ‘Natural Law, in Necessity, Over-Rules Positive Law when They Conflict’, ‘On Doing the Greater Good when Possible’ and ‘On the Ethical Principle of Avoiding the Greater Material or Miserable Evil’.
In such a case, this is not “altar against altar”, but, as Matthew Henry, who shared a similar outlook, in his tract on schism noted, is rather “altar by altar”. (Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism, 1690, p. 32)
None of this, though, justifies true Churches not uniting where they can, in at least Christianity’s fundamentals, where no sin is required in a consensus union. That many things which are often considered sinful (and are hence held to justify separate denominations in many people’s minds) are mistaken and do not actually entail sin, but may be lawfully and uprightly accommodated with a good conscience on principles obliging from the Word, see:
English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025)
.
Articles
1600’s
Hildersham, Arthur – pp. 164-67 of Lecture 35 (1609) in 108 Lectures upon the Fourth of John… (d. 1632; London: Miller, 1632)
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 10, ‘Whether or no it be lawful to separate from a true Church visible for the corruption of teachers and the wickedness of pastors and professors, where faith is begotten by the preaching of professed truth?’ in A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (1642), pp. 120-49
.
Quotes
Order of
Calvin
Alley
Belgic Confession
2nd Helvetic Confession
Bullinger
Mornay
Perkins
Bernard
J. Hall
4 Ex-Separatists
Dawes
Taylor
Gilgate
Denison
N. Rogers
Randall
Otes
Abbot
Sibbes
Stock
Steuart
Rutherford
Westminster, London Ministers
Pagitt
Featley
Calamy
Brinsley
Seaman
Jenison
London Presyterians
Reading
Firmin
Fergusson
Leigh
Jenkyn
Cotton
T. Hall
Dickson
Baxter
Corbet
Currie
.
1500’s
John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 10-11, p. 22-23
“10. We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the Word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God…
When the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority… far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. II, sec. 1, 10, and Chap. VIII, sec. 12). For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his Word and sacraments is maintained, He regards as deserters of religion. So highly does He recommend her authority, that when it is violated He considers that his own authority is impaired. For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth,” (1 Tim. 3:15)…
11… How perilous, then, nay, how fatal the temptation, when we even entertain a thought of separating ourselves from that assembly in which are beheld the signs and badges which the Lord has deemed sufficient to characterise his Church!…
If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in Word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without Word and sacraments, we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture…
12… in the administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from Its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith…”
.
William Alley
The Poor Man’s Library Rapsodiæ G.A. Bishop of Exeter upon the First Epistle of Saint Peter... (1560; London: Day, 1565), Lecture 7, Now to the Romish Church, Response, 3. Schismatical, p. 246 Alley was the Anglican bishop of Exeter during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
“Schismatical is such as was the schisms of the Donatists [in the Early Church], which separated themselves from the true Church of God under the pretense of a more absolute life and a more perfect holiness…
But none of these [kinds of schisms] can be justly imputed unto us declining from the Romish Church, for that departing is without all blame, which is not from a true Church, but from a false Church: not from the people of God, but from the persecuters of the people of God, not from the articles of the Faith and sound doctrine of the church, but from errors which darken the articles of the Faith and from the wicked traditions of men, which specially is not done by any lightness but by necessity, not for the desire of innovation but for true religion’s sake, and to recover the true Faith according to the testimony of the eternal verity, that leaving the fellowship of darkness, we may be gathered again in true light, placed with Christ and all his members.
So we at this day have forsaken that Romish Sea full of false doctrine and idolatry, and flowing with the innocent blood of martyrs, and have embraced the evangelic and apostolic doctrine, and so Christ Himself being head of the Church, which is the commmunion of all saints believing in Christ.”
.
The Belgic Confession 1561
Article 29, ‘The Marks of the True Church’
“The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church – and no one ought to be separated from it.
…
Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.”
.
The 2nd Helvetic Confession 1566
Intro
This confession was authored by Henry Bullinger at the commission of the German reformed Palatinate Elector Frederick III, and was the most widely received of the 1500’s reformed confessions. It was not only received by the Swiss Cantons and the Palatinate, but was also sanctioned by:
“the Reformed Churches of Neufchatel (1568), Basle, France (at the Synod of La Rochelle, 1571), Hungary (at the Synod of Debreczin, 1567), Poland (1571 and 1578), and Scotland (1566)… It was well received also in Holland and England. It was translated not only into German, French, and English, but also into Dutch, Magyar, Polish, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish.” – Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, §55
.
ch. 17, Of the Catholic and Holy Church of God,
and of the One Only Head of the Church
“Dissensions and Strife in the Church. We are reproached because there have been manifold dissensions and strife in our churches since they separated themselves from the Church of Rome, and therefore cannot be true churches… We know, to be sure, that the apostle said… “While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh?” Yet we cannot deny that God was in the apostolic Church and that it was a true Church, even though there were wranglings and dissensions in it. The apostle Paul reprehended Peter, an apostle (Gal. 2:11 ff.), and Barnabas dissented from Paul. Great contention arose in the Church of Antioch between them that preached the one Christ, as Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 15. And there have at all times been great contentions in the Church, and the most excellent teachers of the Church have differed among themselves about important matters without meanwhile the Church ceasing to be the Church because of these contentions…
…
Outside the Church of God there is no Salvation. But we esteem fellowship with the true Church of Christ so highly that we deny that those can live before God who do not stand in fellowship with the true Church of God, but separate themselves from it… and hence we teach that those who wish to live ought not to be separated from the true Church of Christ.”
.
Henry Bullinger
Fifty Godly & Learned Sermons divided into Five Decades… (d. 1575; London: Newberrie, 1577), 5th Decade, Sermon 2, “That there is one catholic Church”
p. 842
“Moreover, where we read that diverse names are given to the Church, we must not imagine that there are many Churches in the world, neither is that body to be separated, which can bear or suffer no kind of division.”
.
p. 843
“Wherefore I cannot marvel enough at the corrupt and scismatical manners of certain men, who separate themselves for every light cause, from the most wholesome and pleasant company or society of the Church.
For you shall find in these days, captious and phantastical men, not a few, which of many years have had fellowship with no Church, nor as yet have fellowship with any. For in every man that is, they find some kind of fault, in themselves only they find nothing worthy reprehension. Therefore they conceive with themselves a wonderful fashion of the Church, which except they see somewhere established after that fashion which they themselves haue devised, they contend (with shame enough) that there is as yet no true Church of Christ in the world.”
.
p. 850
“And because in this matter it chiefly behoves to know who is truly said to be an heretic or whom is a schismatic: of these matters I will first of all speak these few words. St. Augustine thinks that this difference there is between an heretic and a schismatic:
That a heretic does corrupt the sincerity of faith and doctrine of the apostles with his wicked doctrine;
and a schismatic, although he sin not at all against the pure doctrine and sincere faith, yet he rashly separates himself from the Church, breaking the bond of unity.
And surely he properly is an heretic, whosoever he be that contrary to the Scripture, which is the Word of God, against the Articles of Faith,¹ or against the sound opinions of the Church grounded on the Word of God, through hope of any temporal commodity, of his own brain and fleshly choice chooses, receives, teaches, follows strange things, and stiffly retaining does both defend them and spread them abroad.
¹ [This likely refers to the Apostles’ Creed, which was also known as the 12 Articles, and around which Bullinger’s Decades was roughly organized.]
By the imperial edict of Augustus Cesar, Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, they are defined to be catholics or Christians who continue in that religion which St. Peter taught the church of Rome and which blessed Damasus and St. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, did teach, that is to say, confessing according to the teaching of the apostles and doctrine of the Gospel the only Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in equal majesty and in an holy Trinity. And again they are by them declared to be heretics, who follow contrary opinions, whom they accompt both mad and infamous, and worthy of punishment.
And he is a scismatic, whosoever he be that separates himself from the unity of the true Church of God, and either himself gathers together new assemblies, or joins himself to congregations gathered by others, albeit in doctrine he err little or nothing.”
.
Philip Mornay
A Notable Treatise of the Church in which are handled all the Principal Questions that have been moved in our Time concerning that matter [in controversy with Romanism] (London: Barker, 1579)
ch. 2, n.p.
“The catholic or universal visible Church is the assembly of all those which make profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world, distinguished (as we have said) into many particular Churches, all which do make but one body. Of all these particular, as members and parts of one and the self-same body, some are pure, other some are impure, some more, and some less sound, and some at this day are sick even unto death…
Those that are of the purer and sounder Churches, we call them sound and true Churches, consenting to the true doctrine, which is the name, that for the most part, the ancient fathers have given them. The others we call the erring, heretical or schismatical Churches, according as they err, either in faith or in charity, against the square and right rule of Christ, or against the rule of his Church, either in the one or in the other, notwithstanding every one in his degree.”
.
“And in the Acts we read that the faithful continued in the doctrine of the apostles, in the communion and breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42), which is no other thing but a brief description of the true Church of Christ, instructed by the Word, in true faith and knit together in true charity, through the communion that is in Him.
The which thing St. Ambrose teaches us saying (De Salubr., ch. 7), that the catholic Church is that where God speaks with his servants: and St. Augustine also (contra Cresco. Gramat., bk. •, ch. 11 etc.), where He places the ministry of ministers and pastors of the Church, in the Word of God and sacraments. Let us yet add hereunto the third mark of this Church, albeit it be not of the substance, but outward, to wit, the lawful vocation of pastors and ministers of the Church, which have the administration of the things aforesaid.”
.
Conclusions, n.p.
“And because that all the doctrine of Christ is faith and charity, we call those that are impure in the doctrine of faith, heretical Churches, and those that have separated themselues from the unity, which they do through lack of charity, schismatical.”
.
William Perkins
An Exposition of the Creed (1595), on the Church in A Golden Chain (Cambridge, 1600), p. 497
“Thus we see where at this day we may find the true Church of God. Now I come to the third question; and that is: At what time a man may with good conscience make separation from a Church. Answer:
So long as a Church makes no separation from Christ, we must make no separation from it: and when it separates from Christ, we may also separate from it;”
.
1600’s
Richard Bernard
Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, the Separation Schismatical... (London: 1610)
1st Likelihood, pp. 38-39
“Secondly, it is plain that the Scripture teaches no Separation from a true Church, with condemnation of it as a false Church.
Thirdly, no example in Scripture given of any separating from true Churches for corruptions; but either for gross idolatry, visible pictures set up to be worshipped, as among the Israelites, or for open blasphemy against Christ’s very Person. (Acts 19:9)”
.
p. 47
“I noted wherein they were schismatics… for separating themselves from true Churches, with condemnation for some corruptions, and holding themselves the only pure Churches:”
.
p. 48
“Those, though otherwise never so godly, that separate from true Churches, like Novatus and Lucifer, for a stricter course of discipline; like Donatus for some bad ones in the Church, as they supposed; like Andius for some lesser corruptions and abuses, they be schismatics. This is the judgment of ancient Churches, for which see at large, Mornay, On the Church, p. 35.
But our late Separatists do divide themselves from us upon like grounds: for a more strict discipline with Novatus and Lucifer; for that good and bad are mixed together, with Donatus; and from lesser corruptions among us with Andius. Therefore are these also schismatics.”
.
8th Error of the Brownists, pp. 277-88
“Lastly, there may be corruption in the translation of the Word and in the Church’s interpretation of the Word, and so false doctrines arise and be maintained; yet not being in the fundamental points of the Covenant before mentioned, the Church may be a true church, though corrupted.”
.
Joseph Hall
.A Common Apology of the Church of England against the Unjust Challenges of the over-just Sect, commonly called Brownists… (London: Macham, 1610)
sect. 7, p. 20
“And when you haue all done, the Separatists’ idol, [the] visible constitution [of the Church], will prove but an appendance [appendage] of an external form, no part of the essence of a true Church: and therefore your separation no less vain than the ground…”
.
sect. 46, p. 111
“…every true Church is God’s Sion: every Church that holds the foundation is true, according to that golden rule, Eph. 2:21. Every building that is coupled together in this cornerstone grows unto an holy temple in the Lord: No adversary, either man or Devil can confound us, either in our evidences, or their own challenges: we may be faulty, but we are true…”
.
sect. 49, p. 118
“…we must prove ourselves the true Church of God: Thus we do it:
We are true Christians, for we were baptized into the name of Christ; we truly profess our continuance in the same faith, into which we were baptized: we join together in the public services of God: we maintain every point of the most ancient Creeds: we overthrow not the foundation by any consequence;
Therefore whateuer is wanting to us, whatever is superfluous, in spite of all the gates of Hell, we are the true Church of God.”
.
4 Former Brownists
The Profane Schism of the Brownists or Separatists, with the Impiety, Dissensions, Lewd and abominable vices of that impure sect, discovered by Christopher Lawne, John Fowler, Clement Sanders, Robert Bulward, lately returned from the company of Mr. [Francis] Johnson, that wicked brother, into the bosom of the Church of England, their true Mother (London: Stansby, 1612), ch. 11, p. 62
“But master [Francis] Johnson [a leader of Separatists] has set Jerusalem on fire, by kindling the wild fire of Separation, even upon true Churches, through his schismatical doctrine, that in the meantime he might sing the words of the angel spoken upon the destruction of Rome, saying, ‘It is fallen, it is fallen, Babylon that great, etc.'”
.
Lancelot Dawes
Two Sermons preached at the Assizes holden at Carlile touching sundry Corruptions of these Times (Oxford: Barnes, 1614), 1st Sermon, pp. 32-34 Dawes (1580–1653) was an Anglican clergyman.
“Are the wicked intermixed with true and zealous professors? What shall we then say to the old Donatists (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 1, ch. 7), and the Brownists, and Anabaptists, which separate themselves from the true Church, say with those in the prophet, ‘Come not near us for we are holier then ye.’
Me thinks I may say unto them as Constantine said to Acesius, a Novatian Bishop: Let them make a ladder for themselves to ascend into heaven, here is no place for them on earth, as long as this world shall last, the Lord’s wheat shall grow up with the tares.(Mt. 13:29) Christ has spoken it, and Christ is truth, ‘if there be in them any charity, they will assent to this verity’ (Sit in illis charitas et congaudeant veritate, Augustine, Cor. 2:6).
‘Yea but light has no communion with darkness, nor bitterness with honey, nor life with death, nor the unbeliever with the infidel.’ It is the objection of Petilian the Donatist against Augustine. But his answer is that when they eschew the darkness, they forsake the light: when they flee from death they flee from life also:
Attendis Zizania per mundum, & triticum non attendis, cum per totum vtraque sint iussa crescere? attendis semen maligni, quod ad finem messis separabitur; et non attendis semen Abrahae, in quo benedicentur omnes gentes?
Dost thou mark the darnel, and dost thou not remember the wheat? Dost thou think upon the seed of the serpent, whose head shall be crushed; and dost thou not think upon the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? When thou fleest from the chaff, thou forsakest the good wheat, which is mingled with it. When thou separatest thyself from the seed of the wicked, thou seperatest thyself from the seed of Abraham. When thou thus dividest thyself from the hypocrites that are in the true Church, thou cuttest thyself from the Church, and a member taken from the whole must needs perish.
If thou wilt think upon this with that heedfulness that thou shouldst, thou wilt not forsake the green pastures of the Lord that are besides the waters of comfort (Ps. 23) because of the goats; nor leave God’s house because of the vessels of dishonor; nor run out of the Lord’s floor, because of the chaff; nor separate thyself from the wheat because of the tares, which shall at length be bound in a bundle and cast into the fire; nor burst the unity of the Lord’s net because of the bad fish, which swim in it, (which, when the net is brought to land, shall be cast away), but as a father speaks: tolerare potiùs propter bonos cōmixtionem malorum, quam violare propter malos charitatem bonorum; rather for the good to tolerate the bad than for the bad to forsake the good. (Augustine, bk. 3, Contra litt. Petit., ch. 3)”
.
Thomas Taylor
Christ’s Combat & Conquest: or the Lion of the Tribe of Judah Vanquishing the Roaring Lion, assaulting Him in three most fierce and hellish temptations, expounded... (Cambridge: Legge, 1618), verses 5-6, pp. 165-66
“3. That place must needs be holy where the Lord dwells as a Master in his house, teaching, ordering and supplying all necessaries. Where Christ, the holy Son of God, walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, being conversant among the flocks of shepherds… Surely, this is Bethel, the house of God, and the gate of Heaven.
This teaches us not to despise our [Anglican] assemblies, nor to think our churches unholy for some corruptions. Look upon Jerusalem, Mt. 23:37; you shall see the eleven tribes were apostates, there were in it dumb dogs, Isa. 56:10, there were scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. At this time the doctrine of the Law was corrupted by the false glosses of the Pharisees, and the Temple was almost a den of thieves, full of buyers and sellers. Yet for all this, the evangelist calls it ‘the holy city,’ even when it had more corruptions in it than the Church of England has at this day. Why?:
1. Because there the service of the true God was set up in the Temple, the Word preached, sacrifices offered, and the meetings of the Church of God.
2. Because as yet they had not received a bill of divorce.
Have we not the Word truly preached, and the sacraments for substance truly administered? And for discipline, I will say, I wish we had the execution of so much as the Church allows. Or, when did the Lord give us a bill of divorce? Or, what Church has convinced us that we cannot be acknowledged for a true Church? If they say, they of the Separation have, I answer:
1. They have labored to discover some errors, but none fundamental in us, nor without as many in themselves.
2. We… must not think it strange if some unstable persons forsake our communion, since in the golden and flourishing age of the apostles there were some such, Heb. 10:25.”
.
William Gilgate
Certain Reasons, proving the Separation, commonly called Brownists, to be Schismatics (London: Stansby, 1621), n.p. Gilgate was an English minister.
“Reason 2. They that consenting with others in the doctrine of salvation by Christ, do nevertheless separate themselves from them as touching spiritual communion, are schismatics (1 Cor. 1:10-11; Jud. 19)…
They that without just cause, renounce all spiritual communion in public with a true Church, are schismatics…
The Church of England is a true Church of God…
The Gospel of our saluation is the word of truth. The Church of England upholds as a pillar, the Gospel of our salvation. Therefore it upholds 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 they are to be accounted true teachers, 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 retains this foundation of the Christian Faith and builds not upon it any doctrines overthrowing the same.”
.
Stephen Denison
An Exposition upon the First Chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter (London: Field, 1622), on 2 Pet. 1:2, p. 8 Denison was a London minister.
“Secondly, we must plant ourselves under a powerful ministry: we must repair to the tents of the shepherds, Cant. 1:8.
Thirdly, we must wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father, Acts 1:4; we must not separate from God’s true Church.”
.
Nehemiah Rogers
A Strange Vineyard in Palæstina in an Exposition of Isaiah’s Parabolical Song of the Beloved, discovered: to which God’s Vineyard in this our Land is Paralleld (London: Haviland, 1623), pp. 73-74
“Now further, in that the prophet [Isaiah] speaks in the present tense, ‘My beloved has a Vineyard:’ albeit the whole Church of Israel and Judah was at this time so generally corrupted, as that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there was nothing found but wounds, swellings and sores, full of corruption (as he had before testified [in Isa. 1:5]). We observe that:
([Margin note:] Doctrine: A true Church may be corrupted with error and idolatry)
Albeit a Church be corrupted with error and idolatry, yet it is still to be accounted God’s Church, till He has divorced and forsaken her. Thus in the days of Eli (1 Sam. 2:24, 29), Israel was called God’s people; and so his Church, albeit they were not then separated from all false ways, and Eli’s sons (sons of Belial, says the text, v. 12, who knew not the Lord) remained amongst them. So Moses calls Israel God’s people when he was upon the Mount (Ex. 32:11), and yet at that time they were in the very act of their idolatry, which was not unknown to Moses, for God Himself informed him thereof (vv. 7-8). So in this our prophet’s time, albeit this people were sunk deep in rebellion and idolatry, yet for all that God Himself does call them his people, ‘Israel does not know, My people does not consider.’ (Isa. 1:21-22, 29; 2:6, 8; 65:11; 1:3)
Turn we our eyes from the estate of the Church in these times to after times, as it was under the Gospel, and we shall see the truth of the point propounded. Look upon Jerusalem in our Saviour Christ’s time, and we shall see the eleven Tribes were become apostates (Mt. 23:37), and the Church amongst them was wonderfully corrupted both in doctrine and manners, as appears by our Saviour Christ’s severe reproof of both (Mt. 5:21); yea the temple itself was almost become a den of thieves, full of buyers and sellers. Yet at this time it was the true Church of God, else the evangelist would never have called it ‘the Holy City.’ (Mat. 4:5 & 27:53) In Saint Paul’s time the Corinthians were called the Church of God (1 Cor. 1:1-2), and yet at that very instant some of them were in an heresy (2 Cor. 12:20-21), others in incest, and othersome that had not repented of their filthiness. (1 Cor. 5:1) Such was the estate of the Churches of Asia, yet the title of true Churches was given to them. (Rev. 2 & 3)
Those therefore that condemn the Church of England for a no-Church, and make a separation from it in regard of the errors and corruptions that are in it, are far from the spirit of Christ, and the prophets and apostles, who never made any schismatical and bodily separation from any true Church, for the corruptions (though gross) that were therein found.
I deny not but blemishes are in every Church (for what Church ever breathed in so pure an air as that it might not justly complain of some thick and unwholesome evaporations of error and sin?), but because our Mother wants some beauty, has she lost her face? Because she is black, has she no comeliness at all? [Song 1:5-6] What is it they charge us with, but with corruptions? (for fundamental error they can discover none). Now do corruptions in a man make a false man, or a corrupt man? So that though they make the worst they can of our Church, they can make it but a corrupt Church, and not a false Church.
We have the true Word of God preached, the true sacraments of Christ Jesus administered, which all divines in all the reformed Churches in Christendom, which now are or have been, do hold to be the infallible tokens of a true Church, and are reciprocally converted with the true Church. We maintain every point of the most ancient Creeds; we overthrow not the foundation by any consequence. And as yet we have not received a bill of divorcement. As for discipline (the want whereof they charge us with) our Church is not destitute of it altogether…”
.
John Randall
Twenty-Nine Lectures of the Church… (London: Kyngston, 1631). Randall (1570–1622) was an English puritan.
pt. 1
Lecture 9, p. 145
“Doctrine: Whatsoever company or congregation of men do openly profess the saving truth of God, the same congregation and company is to be held and reputed a true visible Church. The truth of this doctrine holds generally in all congregations whatsoever of that quality from the greatest to the least, and from the best to the worst…”
.
pp. 196-97
“5. Lastly, there are some that have been possessed, as members of the Church, and yet either of their own accord have made a voluntary separation, and so have dismissed themselves, as schismatics do…”
.
p. 207
“so long as we have the Word, and sacraments openly embraced and obeyed by some amongst us, we are still a true Church, though we should be in a miserable and fearful estate, because the wicked, if they were not rooted out would be likely at length to overthrow the Church.”
.
pp. 208-9
“And secondly, whereas they allege that we let the wicked continue in our Church without separation, whereas we should cut them off when we find them to be hypocrites. I answer:
We doe separate, as much as in us lies, for we labor to have them separated from us, and also we labor to separate ourselves from them.
First, we labor their separation from us, desiring their removal, bewailing their wickedness, and our condition that live in Mesech and Kedar, and reproving them for their sins; and if that will not serve, complaining against them to those that are in authority, that they may bee excommunicated, and withal we are instant with God by prayer to stir up the hearts of such as are in authority to execute his ordinances upon them: we do what we can to separate them from us, and it comes sometime to pass, that many are so separated from us; but if they should not, that indeed were the Churches sin, and a foul sin too; yet it destroyes not the true being of our Church.
Secondly, if we cannot get them separated from us, yet we separate ourselves from them, and that is the separation that the Scripture so much beats upon in private persons, as we are more conscionable, so we doe more separate from them, from their wills, affections and courses; yea, we must separate as much as conveniently we may from their persons, at least from their sins, which for our parts we are persuaded to be the chief separation that the Scripture intends.
Yea, but this is a secret separation, say they, under hand, not openly known. Nay, this is a notorious and known separation: For first, it is ingenuously professed on our part, to the moving of their after-hatred and despite against us; we disclaiming them that are lewd, swearing and profane wretches, and that openly, not caring who know it; and likewise it is known on their part, they upbraiding us therefore very reproachfully, with the names of Puritans, Precisions, holy Brethren, and such like, because we will not accompany with them; if this be not an holy and a plain separation, what is?…
Yea, but say they, ye should separate from them in the assemblies, from the Word and the sacraments? I answer: Rather the wicked should separate from us in these things: where the assem∣bly and business are naught in themselves, as at playhouses and such like, there the good must separate: but where the assembly and business is good in itself, there the bad must separate; and the reason is good, for it is none of theirs, and the good must tarry and be present, for it is their own right; and it is sin to refuse God’s ordinances for the pollution of others, 1 Sam. 2:17, 24… yet our holiness being true in us, and openly professed and practiced, it shall be enough to make us a true visible Church, yea, and an holy congregation in God’s acceptation, and in the charitable estimation of our brethren.”
.
p. 214
“Doctrine:… the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments, and profession of obedience to the requiring of them both (that is, to that which they both require) are the chiefest and most infallible marks of a true visible Church. (Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 10, on Acts 2:42)
.
pt. 2
p. 151
“First, for schismatical Churches, that is, such as embrace and profess the common saving faith of the catholic Church; but yet have separated themselves from the outward communion of those particular visible Churches, that sometimes they have been, and should be members of: the cause of such schisms is sometimes pride, discontent, weakness, willfulness, pretended zeal, a factious spirit; always it is Satan’s instigation, and man’s acceptation: whatsoever the cause be, and how great soever the schism be, though they be justly condemned as schismatical, in regard they are rent from the outward fellowship of such visible congregations as they belong unto, yet because they hold correspondency with the catholic Church in matters of saving faith, and accordingly profess the same, they [the schismatics] cannot be denied to be true visible Churches: Such were the Donatists of old, and such are the Brownists at this day…”
.
pp. 167-68
“…he [Luther] erected no new Church, but by his ministry brought many faithful out of their impure and unsound [Roman] Church, into a more sound and pure Church, not only, for matters of ceremonies (for then he had been a schismatic to separate from them), but for matters of substance…”
.
Lecture 28, p. 200
“We are charged by the Separatists that we preach canons, and man’s constitutions, as God’s Word; But we answer: These are not taught for doctrines, but only serve for some passage and carriages touching God’s service, specially in Church government…”
.
Samuel Otes
An Explanation of the General Epistle of Saint Jude (London: Purslow, 1633), sermon 19, p. 227
“The Church of Corinth was defiled with many sins, and horrible outrages, both in life and doctrine, they were deriders, sectaries, incestuous, profaners of the Lord’s Supper, deniers of the most essential article of the resurrection; yet so long as the ministry of the Word and sacraments was not utterly rejected, Paul acknowledges them a glorious Church.
Certainly tares and unclean vessels are in the Church, yet let us endeavor ourselves to be good corn, and not go out of the Church, but follow the counsel of Augustine: Corripiat homo, quod potest, quod non potest, patienter ferat; Let a man reprove what he can (without danger of schism) and what he cannot, let him patiently suffer, but let him never make separation.”
.
Robert Abbot
A Trial of our Church-Forsakers... (London: Payne, 1639) Abbot (c. 1588 – c. 1662) was a partially conforming English, puritan divine.
p. 29
“The true matter of a true church is such as profess saving truth taught in the Scriptures, and [this] is proved thus:
That which makes a man a true member of a true church, that does make a true church (for members doe constitute the whole): but profession of saving truth makes a true member of a true church; for Simon Magus, upon his profession was admitted a member, till he fell away (Acts 8:13, 37, 38): and the eunuch upon the same profession was admitted too by baptism, and for ought we know continued forever.
Now, that we in the church of England do profess saving truth, according to the Scriptures cannot be denied.”
.
pp. 30-31
“For profession brings a Church into outward fellowship with Christ’s body (as bad servants with a good master) and so into the way of being savingly of the body of Christ if they resist not, grieve not, quench not, or despise not the Spirit of grace.
Secondly, for the form of a true Church, that is Christ united unto the persons professing his saving truth. For as the form of a man is his soul united to his body, so the form of a Church, which is the body of Christ, is Christ united unto it.
Now, that Christ is united unto our Church is proved thus: because He gives the law of union to us as to the body, and makes it effectuall for conviction, or conversion, to serve the living and true God. As a king is united to his subjects by his laws, and executions of them for rewards and punishments: so is Jesus Christ to our Church. As the head united gives laws to the body for safety: so does Christ give laws to us for our salvation in his Word.”
.
sect. 17, pp. 245-46
“Have ye had a care to keep a Christian state to Christ’s honor? Have ye loved public assemblies to that end and use? Have ye not forsaken the assemblies of Christ’s people for no just cause? Is not that a true church which professes the name of Christ according to his Word, whereto it submits as the rule of the religion it has? Is not that a true Church which enters covenant with Me, as all the Christians in the world by entering into my school by baptism?”
.
Richard Sibbes
A Consolatory Letter to an Afflicted Conscience… (London: Coules, 1641), pp. 4-5
“But you will say: ‘England is not a true Church, and therefore you separate; adhere to the true Church.’
I answer: Our Church is easily proved to be a true Church of Christ:
First, because it has all the essentials necessary to the constitution of a true Church: as sound preaching of the gospel, right dispensation of the sacraments, prayer religiously performed, and evil persons justly punished (though not in that measure as some criminals and malefactors deserve); and therefore a true Church.
…
But I hear you reply: ‘Our Church is corrupted with ceremonies and pestered with profane persons. What then?’
Must we therefore separate for ceremonies, which many think may be lawfully used? But admit they be evils, must we make a rent in the Church for ceremonious rites, for circumstantial evils? That were a remedy worse than the disease.
Besides, had not all the true Churches of Christ their blemishes and deformities, as you may see in the seven Asian Churches (Rev. 2–3)? And though you may find some Churches beyond sea free from ceremonies, yet notwithstanding they are more corrupt in preachers (which is the main), as in profanation of the Lord’s Day, etc.”
.
Richard Stock
A Learned & Very Useful Commentary upon the Whole Prophesy of Malachi (London: T.H., 1641), on ch. 1, verse 9, pp. 177
“Reason 1. Because no man ought to separate himself from the true Church of Christ: Now such is an assembly professing the true faith, notwithstanding other corruption; for as holiness, if it might be supposed without true faith, cannot make a true Church, but false doctrine and error in the foundation overthrows it for being a Church: So e contra [from the contrary], corruptions in manners cannot make it no Church, when true faith is taught and maintained.”
.
Adam Steuart
Some Observations & Annotations upon the Apologetical Narration [of the Congregationalists of the Westminster Assembly], humbly submitted to the Honorable Houses of Parliament... (London: Meredith, 1643), ‘Annotations upon’ Steuart (1591–1654) was a Scottish presbyterian and professor of philosophy.
pp. 17-18
“You [congregationalists] acknowledge the Churches under episcopal government in England, and under presbyterial in France, Holland and Scotland for true Churches and their ministry for a true ministry.
But here I desire, with many others, to know what you understand by true Churches, and a true ministry: whether a metaphysical, logical, or a moral verity?
If you understand that they be true Churches veritate metaphysica entis et transcendentalis [by the metaphysical and transcendental truth of being], such as Du Plessis and many of our divines grant unto the Romish Church, viz. that she is a true Church (as a pocky [covered with pock marks, i.e. sick] whore is a true woman), howsoever her flesh be so consumed with corruption that she cannot live, but must die of it, and that none can touch her without danger of being infected with her sickness; for she is a harlot and a whore, howsoever clothed with scarlet: we thank you for your favor; you hold us in the same category with Rome.
If you hold us a true Church veritate logica [by logical truth], and morally, for a pure Church, wherefore desire you a toleration? Wherefore will ye not join with us and communicate as brethren with us?
But you add a little after the middle part of this section, that you both did and would hold a communion with all those Churches, as with the Churches of Christ. But what communion is this you hold with these, rather than with Papists, Brownists, Anabaptists in England and the Lutherans? If ye say in doctrine, that union is not external, since:
[1.] You testify it not by your external communion in the sacraments with us, for you will not admit all those to your communion that we admit to ours.
2. Neither will those [congregationalists] of New England, whom you cry up and extol so highly, admit those of our Church to their communion, or to be members of their Churches, unless of late they have changed their opinion and you and they temporize in conforming your opinions to the times and commensurate them to political aims for toleration.
3. Neither know we whether they will communicate with us; at least their writings and letters from New England, which heretofore we have seen, testify no such thing; so that in this you dissent from them, unless they within this year dissent from themselves.
…
But howsoever you pretend this real profession of communion with us, yet you overthrow it by your restriction afterwards, viz. to such as you know to be godly that came to visit you in your exile, but you will not admit all the members of our Churches, but such as you only judge, not we, to be members of our Church.”
.
p. 22
“…yet is not that so safe, wherein you dissent from us all… when the point wherein they dissent is not of great importance: For the less it is, the greater is the schism.”
.
p. 38
“4. What if many churches, yea all the churches, should offend one, should that one church gather all the rest together, judge them all, and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement, separate herself from them all? If so, we should have separations and schismes enough, which should be continued to all posterity to come.
…
7. What if the churches in their judgements should differ one from another, in such a case should they all by schisms separate themselves one from another?”
.
pp. 56-58
“Your second grievance is that you are grievously slandered with the reproach of schism. Schism is a pertinacious separation from the true Church after sufficient conviction. And as heresy is contrary to faith, so schism is contrary to charity: the one abandons the unity of faith, the other the unity of charity. And as heresy is always accompanied with stubbornness after sufficient conviction, so is schism also.
If therefore the [Westminster] synod, or any other assembly, or any of your brethren should sufficiently convict you, and afterward you should separate yourselves, or desire a separation from us, I think no man could deny you to be schismatics; neither do I believe that, in such a case, you would or could honestly deny it yourselves. But so long as the synod or others do not do so, I dare say nothing. As for myself, I truly believe that you are very learned, pious, and honest men; and although you may fail by infirmity, yet I do not believe that you err out of malice, and consequently that you are not schismatics thus far…
§24. Page 24–25. But you prove that you are not, and cannot be, schismatics by three reasons.
The first is this: If you are schismatics, or guilty of schism, it must either relate, you say, to a differing from the former ecclesiastical government of this Church established—then who is not involved in it as well as we?—or to that constitution and government that is yet to come; and until that is agreed on, established, declared, and actually exists, there can be no guilt or imputation of schism from it. But neither of these is true, as you have confirmed it. Therefore—
Answer: Although I do not hold you to be schismatics, yet I cannot think you prove it well. For that disjunctive proposition may be denied as not containing a full enumeration of all causes or reasons of schism; for a Church may be schismatic not only for separation from this or that Church, but much more for separation from all Churches, as your accusers may say of you: namely, that you have abandoned the communion of all other Churches, both Protestant and Papist; and that, if you could not or would not join in union with Churches ruled by episcopal government, you might have joined yourselves to other Reformed Churches with which the Church of England maintained union and communion. So the greater your separation was, the greater your schism. Yet it cannot be said that it was schism formally, but only materially; for it lacked the essential form of schism, which is conviction and stubbornness, without which schism no more can be made up than heresy.
[The London presbyterians, however, rightly distinguished between persons involved in a schism, though they be not complete schismatics characterized by stubbornness and contempt.]
For it is the form that gives being to the thing. It had only the matter or material cause of schism—namely, separation from all Churches—which cannot make up schism formally, any more than a man’s body alone, which is his material cause, can formally make a man.
Men may still be called schismatics materialiter et dispositive—materially and by disposition—when they cannot actually resist an actual government, but are resolved, without sufficient cause, to resist or oppose that government which they judge will be established by those who, by God’s ordinary providence, have power to do it. And so your opponents may still say that you are guilty of schism materially and by disposition, if they see you aiming at any toleration, which is the next step to separation. Thus they may answer your disjunctive proposition by denying both your assumptions; for there are many who have not separated themselves from all Protestant Churches, and who are not inclined to oppose the form of government to be established, much less to seek toleration.
Your second reason to free yourselves from the charge of schism is this, in substance (page 24): If you had been guided by the spirit of schism, you would have formed a party when you had the opportunity.
But you did not do so when you had the opportunity. Therefore—
You prove the connection by saying that such behavior is characteristic of those led by the spirit of schism. You prove the assumption: Although you had great provocations—
(1) misunderstandings of your opinions;
(2) incitements to the State not to allow you the peaceable practice of your consciences, which the Reformed Churches abroad allowed you;
(3) slanders in print;
(4) prejudice that you were ashamed of your opinions or unable to defend them;
(5) books printed against your opinions—
yet you did not form a party. And because, although you had many opportunities to make and increase a party, you did not attempt it in the least. You prove that you had many opportunities:
Because you found that the spirits of people in this kingdom who profess or pretend to the power of godliness were ready to receive impressions and to be cast into any mold that has the appearance of a stricter way.
Because the mists gathered about you began to clear.
Because you did not publish your opinions by preaching, though you had the pulpits free; nor in print, though the presses were more free than the pulpits.
Answer: Your opponents will deny the assumption; for if neither you nor your associates formed a party, how is it formed in this kingdom?” [Steuart goes on to challenge their points.]
.
pp. 61-65
“[Contra a civil toleration of sects:] 1. Because it cannot but open a door to all sorts of erroneous opinions.
2. It is dangerous for the State; it may breed factions and divisions between all persons of whatsoever relation—between the magistrate and the subject, the husband and the wife, the father and the son, brothers, sisters, the master and the servant—when the one is of one religion or ecclesiastical government, and the other of another, as you have experienced. The son may refuse to receive any communion with the father, and the brother with the brother, and so dissolve all natural, civil, and domestic bonds of society.
3. No State in Christendom, where there is one only religion established, will admit the public exercise of any other, or endure a schism in that which is already received. Wherefore then should it be done here?
4. If it be granted to our brethren, I cannot see how it can well be denied to other sects. If it be said that other sects differ more from us than they do, it is all one; magis et minus non mutant speciem [more or less does not change the species] in the matter of toleration. For then all must be tolerated, some more, some less. And some of our brethren grant all this argument. And if we distinguish so, you must declare and expound clearly what sects and what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not—an inextricable question, which no mortal man, apparently, is able distinctly to determine. And some may say: the less the difference is, the less need there is for a toleration to be granted to such a sect; for the less it is, the greater is the schism.
5. God in the Old Testament granted no toleration of diverse religions or disciplines; and the New Testament requires no less union among Christians than the Old among the Jews.
6. Either our brethren assent to our doctrine and are resolved likewise to assent to the discipline which (God willing) shall be established by common consent, or they do not. If they grant the first, what need they any other toleration than the rest? If the second, it should first be discussed wherein they are resolved to dissent, and afterwards considered whether it is of such importance that, in consideration thereof, they dare not in good conscience entertain communion with us.
7. They are not pressed to be actors in anything against their consciences. Therefore they need not be suitors for a toleration; or if they be, it may justly be refused.
8. It is against the nature of the communion of saints to live in sects apart, without communicating at the Lord’s Table—which very hardly will be avoided if toleration be granted.
9. Because Scripture exhorts us evermore to unity, which cannot be easily procured by a toleration of sects, which cannot but daily beget new schisms and divisions.
10. Because the difference among the members of the Church of Corinth in the time of Saint Paul was greater, and yet they communicated together; indeed, the Apostle exhorted them to mutual communion and forbearance of sects and divisions.
11. Because the opinion of our brethren resembles too much that of the Donatists, who separated themselves from other churches under pretext that they were not so holy as their own. Neither is it unlike the convents and monasteries among the Papists; for as they all profess one doctrine with the Romish Church, and yet every order has its own discipline—Saint Francis one, Saint Dominic another—and in every order one general, and in every monastery one abbot, prior, or president, so all your churches believe one doctrine together with us, and every one of your churches has one minister, as their convents have a particular abbot or prior. You only differ in this, that you have no general, or anything answering thereto, to keep you in unity and conformity.
…
13. We have but one God, one Christ, and one Lord, one Spirit; we are one body; we have one faith and one baptism, whereby we enter into the Church. Wherefore shall we not have one communion, whereby to be spiritually fed, and one discipline to be ruled by?
14. If churches have disciplines or governments different in their species, then the churches must be different in their species also; for all collective bodies or consociations that are governed are differentiated by their different governments, as we see in civil government, in the constitution and distinction of states, kingdoms, and republics. Wherefore, as many diverse governments as there are in churches, so many different species of churches must we admit. I speak here of the Church considered according to her visible form. But the consequent is false, since there is but one Church. Therefore—
15. Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any toleration to diverse sects and governments in the Church; wherefore then will you be suitors for that which they never granted?
…
17. Besides all this, Scripture forbids all such toleration as that of Jezebel. (Rev. 2:20) There must be no such speeches among us as “I am of Paul,” “I of Apollos,” “I of Cephas” (1 Cor 1:12); nor that some are “Calvinians,” as you term us, some “Independents,” some Brownists, some Anabaptists, etc. We must all be Christ’s; we must all think and speak the same things (v. 10). Otherwise men are carnal. Neither has the Church of God a custom to be contentious. [1 Cor. 11:16] Neither does the apostle permit schisms. [1 Cor. 12:25] We must not quit our mutual meetings, as others do, and as must be done in a public toleration. They that trouble the Church must be cut off. [Gal. 5:12]
18. Such a toleration cannot but expose our churches to the calumnies of Papists, who always object to Protestants the innumerable number of their sects, whereas they pretend to be nothing but one Church.
19. From such a toleration follows all that we formerly deduced out of Independency.
…
21. Neither can it but overthrow all ecclesiastical government; for a man being censured in one church may flee to another, and being again suspended in that other, from thence to another, and so scorn all the churches of God and their censures; and thus this order by necessary consequence will breed all disorder.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries (London: Griffin, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, sect. 5, Question 3, In what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church?, p. 232
“The separation from a true Church, where the Word of God orthodox is preached, and the sacraments duly administred, we think unlawful;”
.
London Ministers, Westminster
A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, pp. 12-13
“What opinion the sober and eminent non-conformists have of communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold:
1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former, and must be owned by all them that hold she is a true Church: for to own it to be such, and yet to separate totally from it, would be to own and disown it at the same time: So say the members of the [Westminster] Assembly of Divines:
‘Thus to depart from true Churches, is not to hold communion with them as such, but rather by departing to declare them not to be such.’ (Papers for Accommodation, p. 47)
…
Such a Separation would (as has been said) unchurch it. This would be to deny Christ holds communion with it, or to deny communion with a Church with which Christ holds communion, contrary to a principle that is, I think, universally maintained (Jenkyn, on Jude, v. 19 [pp. 589-90]; [Richard] Alleine, Vindiciae Pietatis, 2nd pt., pp. 139-40; Vindication of Presbyterian Government, pp. 112-13; [John] Cotton, on John, [on 2:19] pp. 155-56).
‘The error of these men,’ says Mr. [Thomas] Brightman (On Revelation, ch. 3 [p. 131]) ‘is full of evil, who do in such a manner make a departure from this Church (by total Separation) as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and that there could be no hope of salvation to those that abide there. Let these men consider that Christ is here feasting with his members; will they be ashamed to sit at meat there, where Christ is not ashamed to sit? Further, this would be a notorious schism;’
…This therefore is their avowed principle, that total Separation from the Church is unlawful: And this the old non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists ([William] Ames’s English Puritanism; [Robert] Parker, On the Cross, pt. 2, ch. 91, §21; Baxter, Defence, p. 55); and the Dissenting Brethren [of the Westminster Assembly] did declare on their part (Apologetical Narration, p. 6):
‘We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof, etc. that we both did, and would hold communion with them as the Churches of Christ.’”
.
Ephraim Pagitt
Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London: Wilson, 1645), ‘Of the Brownists’
18. ‘Of their Prophesying’, pp. 63-64
“Mr. de Cluse in his prophesy [preaching amongst the Brownists] labored to prove separation from a true Church for any corruption, obstinately stood in this doctrine, was by another in prophesying there showed to be absolutely contrary to the place, Rev. 2:24; which how unsoundly it was concluded by our teacher was then observed by many…
If these things be so, and be not redressed by the 〈◊〉 of this prophesy we must (according to Mr. de Cluse’s doctrine) make a new separation. How oft do the [Brownist] Brethren except one against another’s prophesying, by which, much heart-burning and strife is kindled between them? These things being well considered, I pray you well to mind whether this new way of prophesying on the Lord’s Day can be for the edification of the Church or not.”
.
23. ‘Schism a great sin’, p. 72
“To depart from the Church of England is a departing from the Church of God: let them consider, the Church of Corinth had many faults in it, as many as the Church of England has, and as great ones too; and yet [it] was God’s Church for their faults. St. Paul blames some there for their civil jars impetuously, they traffering them and their suits to the courts of infidels, 1 Cor. 6:7. Others for their wicked connivence and indulgence towards the incestuous, 1 Cor. 5; others for their vile profaneness in their sacred assemblies, 1 Cor. 11:32. Yea, others for heresy, 1 Cor. 15…
But the example of Christ Himself writing to the seven Churches of Asia may be our best direction, charging five of them with several faults, and with crimes of a large size, yet he does call them Churches.
Moreover, is not the forsaking the Church of God, a forsaking of God Himself?”
.
Daniel Featley
The Dippers Dipped, or the Anabaptists Ducked & Plunged… (London: Bourne, 1645), ch. 1, p. 27 Featley was a Westminster divine.
“Yet with these heretics and schismatics [the Donatists], our Jacobites, Brownists and Barrowsts symbolize; for, as the Donatists refused communion with the catholic Church in regard of some scandals they observed in it, so do these separate from the true Church of England in regard of some abuses, and, as they term them, popish corruptions in it. As they excluded all from hope of salvation who were not of their pure precise sect, so these go not much behind them in their uncharitable censures of all those who are not of their fraternity…”
.
Edmund Calamy the Elder
The Door of Truth Opened: or a brief and true narrative of the occasion how Mr. Henry Burton came to shut himself out of the church-doors of Aldermanbury... (London: Meredith, 1645), pp. 5-6 Calamy (1600–1666) was a presbyterian Westminster divine.
“…Mr. Calamy in his Fast Sermon, Sept. 24, 1645, did call upon his people to be ashamed and confounded… ‘That while the parliament is sitting and laboring to settle things, and while the [Westminster] Assembly of ministers are studying to settle religion and laboring to heal our breaches, [churches] should be separating from us.’…
He [Calamy] never thought, much less preached, that we should join with a defiled Church in her defilements. It is one thing to join with a Church in her corruptions, another thing to separate from a true Church because of some defilements that may be in it. And this is that for which we think people ought to be ashamed and confounded; Because for some few (and those but supposed) defilements, they separate not only from defilements, but from the true Churches of Jesus Christ and engage themselves into separated congregations and do not wait and tarry to see what reformation the Parliament will make. And this is no more than five (as we remember) of your [congregationalist] brethren [at Westminster] have written as their judgement in print.
And therefore what Mr. [Henry] Burton writes in his margin to prove that every one ought today, before tomorrow, to separate from present defilements, is but to fight with his own shadow. For though we must separate from the defilements of a Church, yet we are not to separate from a Church for every defilement that is in it. The Church of Corinth had many defilements in it, as many we believe as the Church of Aldermanbury [that Burton exited]; And so had diverse of the Churches to which Christ wrote. And yet neither Christ, nor his apostles does persuade the people to separate from those Churches, because of the defilements. And if this doctrine were true doctrine, we believe men will soon find cause to separate from some of their churches as well as ours.”
.
John Brinsley
The Arraignment of the Present Schism of New Separation in old England (London: Field, 1646)
pp. 14-15
“…a man may be a schismatic, forsaking communion with a true Church, and yet not be an heretic, in as much as he may rightly believe all the articles of the Faith.
…
Other divisions there are which are with separation, when men shall withdraw themselves from fellowship and communion with a true Church, so breaking themselves off from the body. And this (says our judicious [William] Ames)¹ by way of special appropriation, deserves most rightly to be called by the name of ‘schism’: in as much as heresy in this division is perfected and brought to a head, as also most clearly manifested, and declared, viz. in refusing of due Church-communion.
¹ Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur et apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda, idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularium recte vocatur Schisma [But because this division is chiefly brought about and becomes evident in the refusing of due ecclesiastical communion, therefore that separation, by the appropriating of things to oneself, is rightly called ‘schism’]. Ames, Cases of Conscience on Schism
Which refusal may be either partial, or total. Partial, in some particular acts and exercises, wherein a man cannot (or at least conceives he cannot) communicate without sin. Total, a rejecting, and renouncing of all religious communion. This latter all divines look upon as a schism, and that most properly so called.
Which (again) may be either from the Church, or from a Church. From the Church catholic, the whole Church. That was properly Donatism (the direct error of the Seekers at this day): Or from a particular Church; and that is properly Separatism.”
.
pp. 19-22
“2. And as it is opposite to charity, so it is injurious to Christ, who seems by this means to be (as it were) divided. So Paul urges it in the third verse after the text, ‘Is Christ divided?’ Using this as an argument to induce his Corinthians to eschew all such divisions and schisms (1 Cor. 1:13), in as much as Christ Himself seems hereby to be parted and torn in pieces; the unity of his mystical body being hereby dissolved, and Himself made the head of two disagreeing bodies; which is dishonorable and monstrous to conceive of Him.
3. As it is injurious to the head, so to the body. As to Christ, so to the Church. And that many ways:
1. Shaming it. The Church’s unity is her glory. ‘My Dove, my undefiled is one’ (Cant. 6:9). Now to break this unity, to divide the Spouse of Christ, as the Levite’s concubine was, into many pieces (Jud. 19:1), what a shame is this? A shame in special to the Church, from which this separation is made. Paul, writing to his Corinthians of their excluding the poor from communicating with them, tells them that herein they shamed them. (1 Cor. 11:22) They shamed them which had not as themselves had.
2. Despising and contemning it. So Paul there again charges it. Or despise you the Church of God? Why, wherein did they despise it?
This they did (as by other ways, so) by their schismatical practices, dividing themselves from their brethren, making their love-feasts and the sacrament itself (both which were instituted and ordained for bands of union) to be an occasion of fomenting their divisions; namely, by celebrating them apart from their brethren. So the apostle there taxes them (v.21): In eating, every one takes before other his own supper. Each prevented the other. This they did in their love-feasts. And this most probably they did in the Lord’s Supper itself (as Parcus conceives of it),¹ communicating apart, each faction by itself: those that were of Paul by themselves, and those which were of Peter by themselves, and those which were of Apollo by themselves; none of them staying for those which were of Christ (the best and truest piece of the Church), nor yet one for another; but each seeking to prevent the other, that so they might communicate apart.
¹ Adò divisi erant, ut invicem communicare sacram cenam non dignarentur. Singulae factiones id agebant ut alia aliam praeverteret. Paulini, verbi gratia, primi venientes suam cenam celebrabant, non expectatis Petrinis, Apollinis, etc. [They were so divided that they did not deem it worthy to receive the holy supper together. Each faction aimed to get ahead of the others. The followers of Paul, for example, arriving first, celebrated their own supper without waiting for the followers of Peter, of Apollos, etc.]
This Paul calls here their own supper [v. 21]; in as much as they so made it, by appropriating it each to themselves and their party, contrary to the institution of Christ. Christ had instituted it, that it should be a communion, a common Supper, wherein the whole Church should communicate together. But they, by their celebrating it in such a separated way, had made it their own supper. A foul perverting of the ordinance; not only an abusing and corrupting of it, but plainly a destroying of it. So Paul there tells them in downright words in the verse foregoing: ‘When you come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.’ What then? Their own supper. Of such dangerous consequence is it to celebrate this ordinance of God, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, in a separated way (1 Cor. 11:20). If Paul’s judgement may be taken in the case, it is not only a corrupting, but a perverting of the ordinance: a celebrating not of the Lord’s Supper, but of our own Supper.
Which whoso do, what do they therein but despise and contemn the Church of God? namely, that Church from which they so separate. Now this, if it be a true Church, can be no small evil. To contemn and despise a private Christian, by shutting him out from desired communion, there being no just cause for it, is a great evil. But to despise and contemn a Church, a true Church of Christ, by shutting it out from communion, and by separating from it, this is a far greater.
3. As the Church is hereby despised, so it is disquieted. Even as it is in the natural body, if there be a solutio continui [a breaking of continuity], so as it be divided and parted, it breeds smart and pain, which sometimes puts the body into feverish distempers. And surely such are the symptoms of schism. The mystical body cannot be rent and torn by divisions, but it goes to the heart of all the sensible members of it. The divisions of Reuben were great thoughts of heart (Jud. 5:25). Reuben, dwelling on the other side Jordan, kept themselves separate, not joining with their brethren against their enemies, but stood as neutral, regarding more their own private than the public interest. And possibly they were divided among themselves, distracted with several opinions what they should do: some would join, others would not. Now these divisions were great thoughts of heart, working many strange impressions in the minds both of themselves and others; of very sad consequence to all the tribes of Israel.
And truly, such are divisions in the Church of God, specially when they are boiled up to complete and perfect schisms (as it is in the case of separation, specially when it comes to the setting up of Churches against Churches). O these are sad thoughts of heart to the Israel of God; causing grief to the particular members of the Church, and great disquiet and disturbance to the whole Body. Oft-times breeding those feverish distempers, those un-Christian heats of hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, envyings, yea, and murders too, as the apostle puts them together (Gal. 5:20). These, all these, are the fruits of schism, by reason whereof there cannot but follow a dreadful combustion in the Body of the Church, tending to the great trouble and disquietment of it.
4. As the Church is hereby disquieted, so hindered. As disquieted in the peace, so hindered in the edification of it. We know what it was which hindered the building of Babel, even a schism in their tongues, division of languages. (What do we think a schism in their hands would have done, if one had fallen to pulling down what the other built up?) And surely, there is no one thing that can more hinder the building of Jerusalem, the edification of the Church, than this, when Christians shall be divided in their heads, hearts, tongues, hands; in their judgments, affections, language, practice. How should the work of the Lord now go on? Even as it is in civil wars: whilst the parties are contending, the commonwealth suffers. So is it in Church-divisions: whilst the parties are contending, the Church suffers. As it is with a ship brought to the back-stays: one sail bears the one way, and another another; in the meantime the ship stands still. The wall and temple of Jerusalem went slowly on in troublous times. So will Church work do, wherever schisms and factions break it.
5. Again, as the Church is disquieted and hindered, so endangered by it.¹ As disquieted in the peace of it, and hindered in the edification of it, so endangered in the state of it. The cutting off of one member from the body is dangerous to the whole. What is the dismembering of a Church? The withdrawing of communion with it, the breaking off of all fellowship and communion with it by an actual and positive Separation. Certainly, this cannot but endanger the state of that Church from which this separation is made. Which, if it live and continue, is no thanks to them who have thus withdrawn themselves, who by their separation have done what in them lies to destroy it. Thus is schism injurious to the Church of God.
¹ Hoc consensu stat et subnixa est salus Ecclesiae [On this agreement the safety of the Church stands and is supported], Calvin on the text. Corpus Organicum non potest dissecari quin pariter et totum et partes intereant [An organic body cannot be cut in pieces without both the whole and the parts perishing together]. Peter Martyr on the text.”
.
Lazarus Seaman
The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe, or a Vindication of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches, and Protestant Divines, from misrepresentations concerning ordination and laying on of hands... (London: T.R., 1647), ‘Answer to the Tract bearing title, The Judgment of the Reformed Churches’, p. 54 Seaman (d. 1675) was a Westminster divine.
“But (if I mistake you not) you yourself and many others in these times… pretend to acknowledge the Church of England and her assemblies to be true Churches, and yet separate yourselves from them…”
.
Robert Jenison
The Faithful Depositaty [sic] of Sound Doctrine & Ancient Truths maintained against all oppositions of science, falsely so called… (Newcastle: S.B., 1649), p. 22 Jenison (1584?–1652) was an English puritan cleric and academic.
“Let them also see how they can answer it, who pretend to acknowledge the Church of England and her assemblies to be true Churches and yet separate themselves from the same.”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & Ministry (London: Meredith, 1650)
“…To beseech and intreat you, as brethren, to consider, what a sin it is, to separate from Churches, which you yourselves acknowledge to be true Churches of Jesus Christ; and that, while they are endeavouring more and more after a reformation according to the Word; and to set up Churches of another constitution; Is not this to set up Church against Church? and as the ancients were wont to express it, altar against altar?
And whereas you should rather join with us, and put to your helping hand to reform the nation, and to bring our Churches into the order of the Gospel; do you not rather weaken our hands by dividing from us and dividing of us; and thereby obstructing and hindering the glorious work of reformation? For what with the prelatical on the one hand, that will not come up to a Scripture-reformation, and with you on the other, that will not join with us while we are endeavoring after a Scripture-reformation, the building of God’s House ceases in most parts of the kingdom; and instead of a reformation, we see nothing but deformation and desolation.
If we be the Church of Christ, and Christ holds communion with us, why do you separate from us? If we be of the body of Christ, do not they that so separate from the body, separate from the head also? We are loath to speak anything that may offend you; yet we intreat you to consider that if the apostle calls those divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into diverse formed congregations of several communion in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, ‘schisms,’ 1 Cor. 1:10, may not your separation from us, and profession that you cannot join with us as members, and setting up congregations of another communion be more properly called schism?
The Greek word for schism signifies rending; and sure it is, that you rend yourselves from us, and not, as from Churches of the same rule, but as Churches differing in the rule, with a dislike of us, and a protestation that you cannot join with us as fixed members without sin…
You gather churches out of our churches, and you set up churches in an opposite way to our churches; and all this you do voluntarily (not separated, but separating, non fugati, sed fugientes) and unwarrantably, not having any sufficient cause for it; and notwithstanding all this, yet you acknowledge us to be the true Churches of Jesus Christ, and Churches with which Christ holds communion. May we not therefore most justly charge you as guilty in making a schism in the Body of Christ?
We are far from thinking, that every difference in judgment, or every separation from a Church, maketh a schism; for it is not the separation, but the cause, that makes the schismatic. The Godly-learned say, ‘That every unjust, and rash separation from a true Church’ (that is, when there is no just cause, or at least no sufficient cause of the separation) is a schism. [citing in the margin Augustine, Ames and Cameron]”
.
“Though we dare not make separation from a true Church, by departing from it, as you do; yet we do make separation in a true Church, by purging and reforming it, which you do not do.”
.
John Reading
A Guide to the Holy City, or, Directions & Helps to an Holy Life containing Rules of Religious Advice… (Oxford: Robinson, 1651), ch. 7, p. 53
“7. A particular Church of any one denomination may fail in some points of doctrine and manners and yet continue a living member of the true Church, if it fail not in fundamentals, and things simply necessary to salvation…
…a Church is not presently to be forsaken by particular members thereof for some foul blemishes, nor many wicked men therein…”
.
Giles Firmin
p. 2
“A Church is any company of saints in body, to set up what ordinances of God they know; This is a true Church and here God dwells, says Mr. [Jeremiah] Burroughs (on Hos. 8:1).”
.
p. 39
“I pray hear some of their words, the London [presbyterian] ministers (Vindication, p. 115), ‘Though we dare not make separation from a true Church… yet we do make separation in a true Church [by purging and reforming it…]’ Read over the whole answer and you may perceive their minds (p. 76)…”
.
James Fergusson
A Brief Refutation of the Errors: Toleration, Erastianism, Independency & Separation… (d. 1667; Edinburgh: 1692), ‘Sermon preached before the synod at Glasgow, 1653’, pp. 246-47
“That principle, whereby they maintain the lawfulness of gathering churches out of Churches, acknowledged by themselves to be true Churches. A most dividing principle, insofar as it gives way for every man to separate from his own, and to join himself with another church supposed purer, with contempt of the former congregation.
To gather churches out of Churches, is the way to destroy, but not to heal diseased Churches; It is to destroy many churches for making up of one, as if one going about the cure of a natural body should cut off and take out all the sound members and leave the rotten and diseased members either to cure one another or to perish. A strange and desperate way of cure.”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London: A.M., 1654), bk. 6
ch. 1, p. 453
“He is well no schismatic, though [he be] in [a] schism, that is willing to join in communion with the true Church, when it appears to be so to him, as he is no heretic, though he holds heretical opinions, who holds them not obstinately, that is (I suppose) with desire to be informed if he be in the wrong. My Lord Falkland’s Discourse of Infallibility.”
.
ch. 2, p. 456
“[Robert] Browne, the Father of the Brownists, was the first of note that did separate himself from the Church of England and said that we had not a Church; he meant a true Church. But after he went into France, and being at Geneva, he saw the Sabbath much prophaned, and the wafer-cake given in the sacrament instead of bread, whereupon he began to think better of the Church of England…
The Church of Rome was a true Church, the Reformed Churches separated from it becoming a false Church.”
.
William Jenkyn
An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude (London: Maxey, 1654), on vv. 17-19, pp. 589-90
“The voluntary and unnecessary dividing and separation from a true Church is schismatical. When we put bounds and partitions between it and ourselves, we sin (say some) as did these seducers here taxed by Jude. If the Church be not heretical or idolatrous, or do not by excommunication, persecution, etc. thrust us out of its communion; if it be such an one as Christ the head has communion with, we the members ought not by separation to rend and divide the body.
To separate from congregations where the word of truth and Gospel of salvation are held forth in an ordinary way (1 Tim. 3:15), as the proclamations of princes are held forth upon pillars to which they are affixed; where the light of the truth is set up as upon a candlestick to guide passengers to heaven. (Rev. 1:13) To separate from them to whom belong the covenants, and where the sacraments, the seals of the Covenant, and for substance rightly dispensed, where Christ walks in the midst of his golden candlesticks, and discovers his presence in his ordinances, whereby they are made effectual to the conversion and edification of souls, in an ordinary way; where the members are saints by a professed subjection to Christ and his Gospel, and haply have promised this explicitly and openly; where there are sundry who in the judgment of charity may be conceived to have the work of grace really wrought in their hearts by walking in some measure answerable to their profession: I say to separate from these, as those with whom Church communion is not to be held and maintaind, is unwarrantable and schismatical.”
.
John Cotton
A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Observations, Reasons, and uses upon the First Epistle General of John (London: Parkhurst, 1658), on 1 Jn. 2:19, pp. 155-56
“We must therefore know, it is not every seperation from that which is called a Church that is a note of an Antichristian spirit, but it must be known whether that were the true Church; now this Church St. John speaks of was the true Church, for it was from such whose sins were forgiven; now if it be not a true Church that they break from, it is no sign of Antichrist: 2 Chron. 11:16, such as set their hearts to seek the Lord, separated themselves from those that followed Jeroboam, and came to Jerusalem; so the apostles were fain to seperate from the Church of the Jews which persecuted Christ, and them, and so constituted a Church by themselves, a Christian Church; so then it is not a seperation from a false Church, but a true, that is a sign of an Antichristian spirit.
…
Use 2. It may teach us what to judge of the Separatists, or Brownists, are they of Antichrist? Surely their practise is blame-worthy:
1. Because they seperate, where Christ keeps fellowship, Rev. 1:18; and that He walks with us, we argue, because He is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life, and edifies many souls thereby, and therefore surely Christ has fellowship, and shall man be more pure than his Maker? where Christ vouchsafes fellowship, shall man renounce it? If they be converted, where had they their conversion?
2. Have not many of God’s servants heretofore kept company with Churches as corrupt as ours are? Did not Peter and John keep company with them and shall they be more pure and curious?
3. Christ commands:
‘If thy brother offends admonish him; if he hear thee not, take two or three more; if he hear not them, then tell it to the Church, and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen, or publican;’ (Mt. 18:17)
but if the church hear not thy complaint, He does not say let the church be as an heathen, or publican;”
.
Thomas Hall
A Practical & Polemical Commentary, or, Exposition upon the Third & Fourth Chapters of the Latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy… (London, 1658), on 2 Tim. 3:8, ‘Calvin against the Libertines’, section 18, pp. 166-67
“18. They separate themselves from the true Churches of Christ. The Pharises were rigid separatists and quarrelled with Christ because He would not separate, but was a friend to publicans and sinners, Lk. 15:27-28. They pretend they abhor a mixed company, and yet they revile and fly from real saints. They are all for gathering churches out of churches, which is the very way to destroy churches. How do we destroy houses but by pulling one stone and one piece from another?
This schism grows into a heresy, as a serpent grows to be a dragon. This tolerated, will ruin families, tearing them all to pieces, while the husband goes to one Church, the wife to another, the son to a third, the daughter to a fourth, and the servant to an ale-house instead of a Church. This opens a gap to abundance of profaneness, when there shall be no cohabitation, but the Church members shall be scattered up and down, some twenty, some thirty, some sixty, some one hundred miles off; who shall have the inspection, teaching and guidance of these?
Master [Jeremiah] Burroughs’s argument (Irenicum, ch. 23) for gathering of churches (in my judgment) is very dilute and weak; ’tis this: Because our divines hold it lawful to gather churches out of the Church of Rome: therefore ’tis lawful to gather churches out of the Church of England, q.d. because ’tis lawful to separate from a whore, therefore, we ought to separate from an honest woman also. What more ungodly sacrilege, or manstealing can there be, than to purloin from godly ministers the firstborn of their fervent prayers, and faithful preaching, the leaven of their flocks, the encouragement of their souls, the crown of their labors, and their epistle to Heaven? If men will needs gather churches out of the world (as they phrase it) let them first plow the world, and sow it, and reap it with their own hands, and then the Lord give them a liberal harvest. He is a very hard man that will reap where he has not sown, and gather where he has not strewed, Mt. 24:25. We have no precedent in the whole Book of God to gather up one church out of the cream and quintessence of many churches, as a reverend divine of ours has well observed. (Mr. [Thomas] Blake, On the Covenant, ch. 42 [p. 288]. in ••ne. V. The [Westminster] Assembly’s Answer to the Dissenting Brethren, p. 61 at the end [p. 22 in the link])”
.
David Dickson
An Exposition of all St. Paul’s Epistles... (London: R.I., 1659)
“Comprehended in the salutation or apostolic benediction: Because Paul, the author of this epistle, would not that the dignity of the Church of Corinth should in any ways be eclipsed (although he knew there were most corrupt persons among them, not only which lay hid, but openly showed themselves enemies to the apostle), but constantly accounted the Church at Corinth a true Church, to which, by his authority, he applied the benediction of the Gospel, and doubted not to wish them all good things.”
.
on Heb. 10:25
“1. Separation from the true Church, and Christian society of the faithful, is a remarkable evil.
2. The schism or apostasy of others should not weaken us in following any good mean of edification, but rather stir us up unto more diligence, lest by negligence we fall piece and piece back after their example.”
.
on 1 Jn. 2:19
“‘For if they had been of us’… they that are of the number of those that are truly faithful and elect, continue in the society of the true Church, and in the communion of the apostolical doctrine: And so they declare themselves to be true believers: but those that fall away, they (so far as we look upon the counsel of God) depart from the doctrine of the apostles…”
.
on Jude 19
“…they with whom they had to do were impostors… The first mark: that they separated themselves from the true Church of Christ, and from the sound doctrine of the apostles, not out of any necessity, nor from any divine warrant, but only upon their own pleasure, that they might not abide under the Lord’s yoke or his discipline.”
.
Truth’s Victory over Error... (d. 1663; Edinburgh: Reid, 1684), ch. 26, ‘Communion of the Saints’, question 1, pp. 258-59
“(2) Because the apostle is so far from commanding separation from the Church of Corinth that he praises their meetings, 1 Cor. 5:4, 1 Cor. 11:20; 14:23. This notwithstanding the many gross scandals which were among them, 1 Cor. 1:11-13; 1 Cor. 5:1-2; 15:12-13.
(3) Because the apostle calls the Galatians “the Church of Christ,” “brethren,” and “the children of God,” who were yet in some measure removed from God to another Gospel. Nay, says Paul, “O foolish,” (or senseless) “Galatians, who has bewitched you,” (that is, so blinded the eyes of your understanding, that you cannot see the right truth, as the jugglers bewitch the outward eyes, that men think they see that which they see not) “that you should not obey the truth;” Gal. 3:1. And yet since it was a constituted true Church, it was his judgment there should be no separation from it, notwithstanding all the foresaid faults.
(4) Because the Church of Ephesus was a true Church, though they made defection from their first love. So was the Church of Pergamus, though there were in it who held the doctrine of Balaam. So was the Church of Thyatira, notwithstanding that they suffered Jezebel, who called herself a prophetess, and taught the servants of Christ to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Reasons of the Christian Religion, the First Part... (London: White, 1667), pt. 2, ch. 13, pp. 465-66
Ҥ7. Differing opinions or practices about things indifferent, no nor about the mere integrals of religion [those things which complete religion and make it whole], which are not essentials, do not make men of different religions or Churches (universally considered). (Rom. 14 & 15; Gal. 2:13-15; Phil. 3:16-17)
§8. Nothing will warrant us to separate from a church as no church, but the want [lack] of something essential to a church.
§9. The essential or constitutive parts of the Church-catholic (or universal) are Christ the Head and all Christians as the members. (Eph. 1:22 & 4:15; Col. 1:18 & 2:19; 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12 & 5:23; Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 5)
…
§13. He that does not nullify or unchurch a church, may lawfully remove from one church to another, and make choice of the best and purest, or that which is most suited to his own edification, if he be a free-man.
§14. But in case of such choice or personal removal, the interest of the whole Church, or of religion in common, must be first taken into consideration by him that would rightly judge of the lawfulness of the fact. (Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 12:25-26)
§15. If a Church which in all other respects is purest and best, will impose any sin upon all that will have local communion with it, though we must not separate from that Church as no Church, yet must we not commit that sin, but patiently suffer them to exclude us from their communion. (Rom. 3:8)
§16. True heresy (that is, an error contradictory to an essential article of the Christian Faith) if it be seriously and really held, so that the contrary truth is not held seriously and really, does nullify the Christianity of him that holds it, and the Church-state of that congregation which so professes it. But so does not that fundamental error which is held but in words through ignorance, thinking it may consist with the contrary truth, while that truth is not denied, but held majore fide [with greater faith]; so that we have reason to believe that if they did discern the contradiction, they would rather forsake the error than the truth.
(Tit. 3:10; 2 Jn. 10; Heb. 5:11-12; 1 Cor. 15:1-2, etc. Lk. 18:34; Jn. 12:16; Gal. 5:2 & 1:7-9 & 3:1-2; In isto factiosissimo soeculo, vix quisquam eximie doctus haereseos suspicione carebat. [In that most partisan age, scarcely anyone who was exceptionally learned was free from suspicion of heresy.] Erasmus in The Life of Jerome.
Et profecto ita est, ut id habendum sit antiquissimum et Deo proximum, quod sit optimum. [And indeed it is so: that which is best must be regarded as both the most ancient and the closest to God.] Cicero, Of Laws, bk. 2, p. 244)”
.
John Corbet
An Account given of the Principles & Practices of Several Nonconformists… (London: Parkhurst, 1682), p. 8
“Moreover we hold not ourselves obliged to forsake a true Church as no Church for the corruptions and disorders found therein, or to separate from its worship for the tolerable faults thereof, while our personal profession of some error, or practice of some evil is not required as the terms of our communion.
.
1700’s
John Currie
An Essay on Separation: or a Vindication of the Church of Scotland, in which the Chief Things in the Testimonies of these Reverend Brethren who lately made a Secession from her are considered & shown to be no Ground of Separation or Secession (1738), ch. 3, Where some things are instanced, which, though just ground for fasting, mourning and lamentation, yet are not sufficient causes of separation from a Church of Christ
“And 1st, albeit there be errors, and errors of a heinous nature among some in a Church, this is not sufficient ground of separation from that Church, nay, not though these errors should remain uncensured.
For, as was noticed above, there were some in the Church of Corinth who had drunk in this gross error, “That there is no resurrection of the body;” hence the apostle asks, “How say some among you, there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12) The interrogation plainly intimates there were some among them who denied that great and fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion; and yet this Church of Corinth was a true Church of Christ, from which it was not lawful to separate.
So, in the Church of Pergamos, there were some uncensured who held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and yet she was a true Church of Christ, right and approven in the main.”
.
.
Consensus Confessions & Documents by the Reformed
Under Construction
.
1500’s
Agreement of Regensberg 1541
Latin Book
Bucer, Martin – The Disputing of Regensburg, in another Colloquium, 1546, and a responding of the collocutors of the Augsburg Confession, wherein they take up and complete on Justification and all places of evangelical doctrine… (1548) 692 pp. no ToC Indices: Subject, Indices Errata
Sandomierz
Bremen Consensus
.
1600’s
Colloquy of Thorn
Colloquium of Kassel 1661
.
.
Steps & Plans for Union
Order of
Du Moulin
Dury
Baxter
Horneck
.
1600’s
Pierre du Moulin 1615
Intro
Jaques Courvoisier, ‘Pierre Du Moulin’ in ‘Forerunners of the World Council’ in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn, 1948), pp. 77-82
“Pierre du Moulin was born in 1568. During his long life he became one of the most influential leaders not only of the French Reformed Church but in the whole of Protestantism. He was a brilliant theologian and a strict Calvinist. Since the French King did not allow any French theologians to attend the Synod at Dordrecht, he could not take part in that synod but he presented to that synod a memorandum in which he took a strong position against Arminius.
In 1615 du Moulin was invited by King James I to spend a period in England… the King was considering plans for reunion of the non-Roman Churches and it was surely after consultation with the King that du Moulin drafted his ‘Overture to work for the union of the Christian Churches which have thrown off the yoke of the Papacy and to appease the differences which have appeared or which may appear in the future’.
The Overture was sent to the Churches of France and Holland. It does not seem to have met with enthusiastic response. [David] Blondel simply notes that the Provincial Synod of the Isle de France thanked du Moulin for his communication.
…
The first eleven paragraphs deal with the reunion of the Reformed Churches (including the Church of England) among themselves. The remaining paragraphs deal with the reunion of the Reformed Churches with the Lutheran Churches, for du Moulin’s plan wants to proceed by stages. And only when the Reformed have come together can negotiations be taken up with Lutherans.
One of the most striking characteristics of Du Moulin’s project is that it counts so strongly on the support of the Kings and Princes… it should be remembered that in the 17th century the prince is considered a member of the Church and according to the formula of Zwingli ‘praecipuum membrum ecclesiae’ [the preeminent member of the Church]… the representation which Du Moulin proposes is on a geographical basis. This is of course, a reflection of the [compromise settlement] principle “cujus regio ejus religio’’ [whose realm, his religion].
Du Moulin proceeds on the basis of the formula “in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas’’ [in necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty]. Without giving up their particular traditions the Churches should submit their confessions and seek to elaborate a common text without mentioning secondary points on which disagreement is permissible. It must be declared clearly that differences in matters of ceremonies and church order do not constitute a reason to condemn each other. Once the agreement has been reached on the main points, the participating Churches should feel themselves bound, and have no longer the right to modify or add to the confession without having sought the agreement of the other Churches.
Du Moulin recognises that the most difficult problem will be that of union with the Lutheran Churches. The crucial problem is that of the communion [Lord’s supper]. Du Moulin believes, however, that there is sufficient common ground so that it will be possible to conclude: ‘if anyone is strongly convinced of his opinion, let him nevertheless support his brothers and not condemn them in a violent manner, but let us go forward together in those matters on which we are agreed’.
Finally when this second stage has been reached, the question will arise of the unity of Christendom as a whole. Then comes the time to approach the Roman Catholic Church. Du Moulin is, however, not very hopeful about the possibility of reaching agreement with the Pope.”
.
The text below is from David Blondel, Authentic Accounts of the Reformed Churches of France, Germany & Great Britain, concerning the Peace & Brotherly Charity which all the Servants of God should Maintain among Protestants (Amsterdam: Blaeu, 1655), pp. 72-76 and was translated by ChatGPT-5.
.
Overture for Working toward the Union of the Christian Churches which have Shaken off the Yoke of the Papacy, and for Appeasing the Differences that have Already Arisen, or may Arise Hereafter
1. It must be laid as a foundation that to labor for the union and concord of the Churches is a work useful, holy and necessary; and, as to the possibility of effecting it, that no agreement can be made without the aid, assistance and direction of the sovereign princes whose countries have withdrawn from the subjection of the Pope—among whom the King of Great Britain, being the greatest and most powerful, and besides that, the most clear-sighted and the most well-disposed, is he who can most effectively contribute to it.
2. This being established, I think it would be necessary to choose a place safe and convenient of access, where there might be found two theologians sent by his Majesty; two by the Churches of France; two by those of the Netherlands; two from the Swiss Cantons; one or two from each prince of Germany of our [Reformed] confession.
3. The place which I think would be most convenient is Zeeland [near the Netherlands], which lies, as it were, at the very doors of England, and is of easy approach from every side.
4. There, I would not wish that men should dispute about religion; for since minds are heated, they never yield, and each one goes away saying that he has gained the victory. Rather, I would have placed upon the table the confessions of the Churches of France, of England, of Scotland, of the Netherlands, of the Palatinate, of Switzerland, etc.; and from these confessions an attempt should be made to frame a common one, in which many things might be passed over in silence—the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation—such as the question of [Johannes] Piscator touching justification, and several subtle opinions proposed by [James] Arminius concerning free will, predestination and the perseverance of the saints. For it is certain that all errors in religion have come either from wishing to know too much, or to possess too much—that is to say, from curiosity, avarice or ambition. The last evil has corrupted the Roman Church; but Satan seeks to corrupt ours by the first. If we can command ourselves to be ignorant of many things, and content ourselves with those necessary to salvation, and, in matters not necessary, bear with those who hold another opinion, we shall, by that very agreement, have made a great part of the journey.
5. After this confession is drawn up, it would be necessary that not only the deputies should sign it, but also the princes and our [French Reformed] national synod; and that it should be established by regulation that henceforth, if in England, or in France, or in Germany, or in the Netherlands, or in Switzerland, any controversy should arise, nothing could be concluded or decided, much less innovated, without the consent of the provinces entering into this agreement.
6. I think that up to this point there will be little difficulty, this treaty being made among Reformed Churches already agreed in the faith, differing only in certain ceremonies and forms of ecclesiastical polity; or if, upon points of faith, some have particular opinions, these have not yet passed into law or public regulation.
7. Concerning these ceremonies and ecclesiastical polity, there should be made a mutual declaration, added to the said confession, by which the said deputies, in the name of those who have sent them, shall declare that the Churches do not condemn one another on account of this difference—which in no way hinders us from agreeing in the same faith and true doctrine, and from embracing one another as true believers and members of one and the same body.
8. It would be good that, as a pledge of concord, after this conference, the Holy Supper should be celebrated, in which the pastors of England, France, etc., should communicate together; and that the action should be preceded by a fast—not only of the deputies, but also of the Church in which the assembly shall be convened—in order to implore the assistance of God upon so great and so important a design.
9. That the deputies be chosen of a temper suited to the work, that is to say, peaceable, grave and God-fearing, prudent and not contentious; that they come furnished with powers and letters fully authorizing them; and that by these same letters, those who send them promise to receive with respect whatever shall be concluded in the assembly, and by all honest and just means to endeavor to see it observed. And that, during the time this action shall last, there be proclaimed throughout all the provinces entering into this agreement a general fast to draw down the blessing of God, and at the same time to touch the hearts of the people with reverence and respect.
10. I would also wish that, during the holding of the said assembly, there should be persons going and coming to the King of Great Britain, so that nothing might be done without his counsel and authority; and that, the conference being finished, the whole body of the assembly should pass over into England to pay their respects to his Majesty, to thank him and to receive his wise counsel concerning the means of execution.
11. It will be necessary that the company, before separating, appoint a day to reassemble in the same place within a year, to report what may not have been able to be executed in their provinces, and what hindrances have been encountered there; for I hold it impossible to provide for everything in one assembly, and there may be some provinces which will disapprove of something agreed upon, or which will furnish a better expedient.
12. The time which will pass between these two assemblies or synods will be employed by his Majesty of England and by the princes of our confession in arranging that, in the second assembly, there be found pastors and doctors of the Lutheran Churches sent by the princes of those Churches, to labor for agreement between them and us. If that can be obtained, the means of concord may be such as the following.
13. The points upon which the Lutheran Churches disagree with us are of two kinds. There are some upon which it is easier to reach agreement: such are the ceremonies of the Lutheran Churches, which may be excused and tolerated, because they concern decorum rather than necessity. Of the same sort also are certain opinions respecting the point of Predestination, upon which, I judge, one might easily draw up an article of the common confession that all would approve without difficulty, provided that curiosity be avoided—which, I believe, has already been done by the Confession of Augsburg [1530], which speaks of it soberly and expressly declines that question. There is also some difference concerning the necessity of Baptism, which may rightly and reasonably be affirmed to be necessary to salvation — that is to say, that it is necessary for each person not to despise it — without pressing the question of necessity any further.
14. In the second place there is the point of the Lord’s Supper, in which there will be greater difficulty. The difficulty is twofold, for it consists partly in the ubiquity [everywhere-ness] of the body of Jesus Christ, and partly in the communion or reception of the body of Christ in the sacrament.
15. On the first point one might agree upon the following articles:
1. That Jesus Christ took in the womb of the Virgin a true human body, like unto ours in all things except sin.
2. That his body is true flesh, and that it has its quantity and dimensions.
3. That his body, being in the womb of the Virgin, on the cross, or in the sepulchre, was not elsewhere.
4. That the eternal Son of God is present everywhere.
5. That his body has ascended into heaven.
6. That He is seated at the right hand of God.
7. That the Father has given Him all power in heaven and on earth.
8. That glorification has removed from Him infirmity, but has not abolished His human nature.
9. That He shall come on the last day in the same flesh which He took of the Virgin, to judge the living and the dead.
If, beyond this, there remain certain differing opinions about which agreement cannot yet be reached, it must be obtained of both parties that they shall not condemn one another on this account, nor write any more books upon the subject, and that they shall refrain in their preaching from invectives, until God shall give greater light to those who err.
16. As for the sacrament and the participation of the body of Jesus Christ, I judge that one may agree upon these points:
1. That the signs or symbols are not bare signs and simple figures destitute of reality.
2. That in the Holy Supper we truly partake of the body of Jesus Christ.
3. That the bread is not transubstantiated, and does not cease to be bread after consecration.
4. Whence it follows that the sacrament ought not to be adored, and that we must lift up our hearts on high.
5. And as for the manner of partaking of the body of Jesus Christ in the Supper, we must not inquire into it scrupulously; only hold, with the apostle, saint Paul (Eph. 3), that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith [v. 17]; whence it follows that He does not dwell in those who have no faith. And if anyone remains firm in his own opinion, yet let him bear with his brethren and not condemn them violently; only, in that wherein we are agreed, let us walk together with one accord. [Phil. 3:15-16]
17. For there are two kinds of errors: some which consist only in belief, others which, besides belief, add some outward action. Of the first kind are the errors concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, concerning Predestination and concerning Free Will. Of the second are: Communion under one kind, adoration of the Host, and prayer in a tongue not understood by him that prays. The errors of this latter kind, although very often less grave than the former, yet divide minds far more sharply, and often cause schism. For if I communicate in the sacrament with one who errs concerning predestination or the nature of Jesus Christ, or who believes that the body of the Lord is everywhere—though the error be great—nevertheless it does not disturb him who communicates with him. But if I should come to communicate with one who adores the bread, or pretends to sacrifice Jesus Christ, such an action would scandalize me and drive me away for fear of participating in idolatry or in a false sacrifice. Now we have this advantage: that with the Lutheran Churches all our differences are of the first kind; and that, as to the external matters which they practice in the Church, we have no disagreement which is not easy to compose.
18. It would be well to have upon the table the Concord of the Churches of Poland, made at Sandomir in the year 1570, and since renewed at the Synod of Wladislaw in the year 1583, in order to draw from their example all that may serve and be imitated; and perhaps there will be found many Lutheran Churches that will not wish to insist upon the doctrine of ubiquity.
19. I would wish that in this second assembly the same order be observed as in the first, and the same respect toward his Majesty of England; and that it begin with a fast and end with the celebration of the Holy Supper, in which the Lutheran pastors and ours should communicate together.
20. To proceed to execution, that the peoples and Churches may conform themselves to what shall have been agreed upon, it is altogether necessary that the princes promise to employ their authority to the end that these names of Lutherans, Calvinists and Sacramentarians [the Reformed] be abolished, and that our Churches be called Reformed Christian Churches; that, under heavy penalties, it be forbidden to use invective preaching against brethren, or to write any books one against another; and that the catalogue of the Frankfurt [Germany] fair be no longer burdened with injurious titles, as has been customary. That the German princes, on certain agreed days, should send of their ministers to the chief churches of neighboring [Reformed] princes [in Germany], and receive theirs in turn, and communicate together in the Holy Supper on a solemn day.
21. If it should please God to bless so holy and so laudable a work, which would crown forever the King of Great Britain and the princes assisting him, then would it be time to solicit an agreement with the Roman Church. If such an accord were possible—which I greatly doubt, because the Pope admits of no council or conference unless he presides—we should be more considerable and speak with greater authority when we ourselves are at one.”
.
John Dury
Quote on Dury
Samuel Hartlib, A Brief Relation of that which has been Lately attempted to Procure Ecclesiastical Peace amongst Protestants (London: I.R., 1641), pp. 16-17
“For the work of peace, at the persuasion of some friends, he took a journey thitherward [to Lutheran Sweden], where he arrived in June, anno 1636… a resolution was taken to permit Master Dury to treat with the divines of that kingdom… to which he might address himself particularly, and lay open his intention… There he had conference both collegially and severally with the professors of divinity, who gave full assent unto his desires, and set down these conditions, upon which they were ready to agree, and join with the reformed side:
1. That a full agreement should be made in all the fundamental articles of Faith.
2. That all errors overthrowing the foundation, or tending to overthrow the same, should be condemned.
3. That in matters ceremonial and of indifferency, there should be a mutual toleration.
4. That betwixt the parties, united sincerity and uprightness should be maintained, lest ancient errors might be upheld under doubtful speeches.
5. That when peace is made, none should be suffered to maintain, excuse or spread any more the errors once condemned.
6. That ambitious and needless disputes and brabblings should be inhibited on all sides.
7. That former reproaches and injuries should be put to oblivion.
8. That the Church government should be settled according to apostolical rules.
These demands the rest agreed unto, neither was any thing of moment added thereunto by any.”
.
Articles of
A Brief Relation of that which has been Lately Attempted to Procure Ecclesiastical Peace Amongst Protestants, Published by Samuel Hartlib (London, 1641) 51 pp. This is about Dury’s labors.
John Dury, his Petition to the Honourable House of Commons in England, now Assembled in Parliament (London, 1641) 2 pp.
“First, that the blessed and long sought for union of Protestant Churches may be recommended unto the public prayers of the Church.
And secondly, that either an Evangelical correspondency for mutual edification, for healing of breaches, for taking away of scandals and for the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ amongst Protestants should henceforth be entertained with foreign Churches, by those to whom the care of so blessed a work may be with authority referred:
Or that his Majesty, with your Honours’ advice and grave counsel, might be moved to call together a general synod of Protestants in due time, for the better setling of weighty matters in the Church, which now trouble not only the consciences of most men, but disturb the tranquility of publick states and divide the Churches one from another to the great hinderance of Christianity, and the dishonour of religion. All which evils by this means may be taken out of the way, and from hence a great blessing of God, and much honour amongst men will redound to this Church and nation…”
.
“Seeing the motion of furthering ecclesiastical reconcilement amongst Protestants has been hitherto very favourably entertained by foreign States and Churches… that there is a most laudable purpose intended, and a good inclination expressed towards the furthering of the good of all Protestants, for the preservation of true religion and the union of their Churches with ours in the same cause, against the common enemies, which by our divisions are encouraged to intend, and enabled to work out our destruction; which they will certainly bring to pass if the Fatherly providence of our good God, whose counsels are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out, does not prevent their malice, by our loving concurrence in the ways of brotherly union, for the maintaining of his glorious Gospel…
Therefore your petitioner does humbly request, that in the order, which hopefully will be made for the observation of that day of fasting and praying, this purpose of ecclesiastical reconcilement of Protestants by the union of their spirits in the truth of God, and against the adversaries of Christ’s Gospel, may be expressly mentioned to be recommended unto God by the prayers of that public meeting.
And also, that some divines may be thought upon and nominated unto your petitioner, to whom he should make his address to begin a spiritual correspondence, which in this purpose is necessary, for the preparing and ripening of such proposals, as by the grace of God will be able to bring the wished for union of Protestants in due time to some perfection.”
.
Gospel-Communion in the Way of Godliness Sued for by the Protestant Churches in Germany unto the Churches of Great Britain & Ireland, in a Letter Written and Sent hither to that Effect (London, 1654) 5 pp.
Dury and other Church leaders here ask officials in Britain to have some of their best practical theology writings translated into the languages of near countries so as to promote friendly relations amongst diverse Churches through communion in godliness to the subduing of strife.
.
A Summary Platform of the Heads of a Body of Practical Divinity 1654, 12 pages, with a letter from Archbishop James Ussher recommending that such a body of practical divinity be written
John Dury (1596-1680) grew up with connections to the heads of state, and was advised by an eminent chaplain that to reconcile the divisions of the protestant churches would be the greatest work of peacemaking (Matt 5:9) that one could do. Dury subsequently devoted his entire adult life’s work to this end, with indefatigable journeys, letter writing and conferencing among the leading church figures of the day.
This particular work is the first part of a brief summary outline of practical scriptural living and ethics, intended as an ecumenical effort to unite churches abroad. Previous to this work, a letter was written by William Gouge, Obadiah Sedgwick and others to James Ussher asking him to lead a joint project to write such a body of divinity. Ussher was favorable to the project but it was interrupted by the English Civil War. Other signers to this effort included: John Downame, George Walker, Adoniram Byfield, Sidrach Simpson, Richard Culverwell, George Hughes and Joseph Symonds. Dury ended up writing the desired outline of practical divinity. HT: Andrew Myers.
.
A Summary Account of Mr. John Dury’s Former & Latter Negotiation for the Procuring of the True Gospel Peace with Christian Moderation & Charitable Unity Amongst the Protestant Churches & Academy (London, 1657) 46 pp.
The Effect of Master Dury’s Negotiation for the Uniting of Protestants in a Gospel Interest in Brief is This (London, 1657) 7 pp.
A Seasonable Discourse written… upon the Earnest Requests of Many, Briefly Showing these Particulars: 1. What the Grounds & Method of our Reformation Ought to be in Religion & Learning. 2. How even in these Times of Distraction, the Work may be Advanced. By the knowledge of Oriental Tongues & Jewish Mysteries (1649) 26 pp.
.
Book
.
Baxter, Richard
Intro
For background to Baxter’s paradigmatic and influential association of moderates of the differing parties for the sake of the Gospel and pastoral work (during a political and ecclesiastical vacuum), and the other similar associations which were modeled after it, see Tim Cooper, When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter (Crossway, 2024), pp. 23, 91-92, 104. Cooper:
“England had a divided church. Even among puritans, fault lines had visibly widened under the pressure of the civil war and its aftermath. After his own traumatic experience of the war, Baxter longed for order and peace, and he developed a lifelong yearning to bring Christians together in unity.
He identified four main parties within the English church (Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Erastians, and Presbyterians), but he felt that the moderates within each party held similar views and, more importantly, could work together in practice even if their principles varied. He believed that if England’s ministers simply got on with the work of ministry, they would be too busy to notice how their differing doctrines of church government might otherwise keep them apart.
So he formed the Worcestershire Association, a network open to local parish ministers of all stripes who met monthly for the purpose of mutual edification and encouragement. In 1653 they published their agreement to work together, and similar ministerial associations sprang up in other counties.” – p. 23
‘A Brief Explication of Some Passages in the Profession’ says, amongst other things (p. 21):
“We thought it meet to subjoin the full proof of every word from the Scripture, that it might be past controversy with all believers… I think scarce two syllables can be found that are not expressly in the words of Scripture, which contain any matter that is liable to controversy.”
‘An Explication of some Passages in the Propositions’ in part says:
“1. We never intended these Propositions for the taking any sober man (of any of the parties whose union we endeavor) from his former principles; nor for the laying down of any middle way, in which the differing parties may accommodate, by any abatement on each or any side, of their former opinions…
We do therefore suppose in these Propositions that those whom we unite with, do still retain their differing judgements; And our business is but this: To improve those points wherein we are all agreed, for unanimous practice. Till we have opportunity to seek after an accomodation of opinions, or a conviction of each other, we resolve, by Gods help, to close in an amicable practice of so much as we do consent in.
It is utterly unbeseeming any member of Christ to make more divisions wilfully because we are necessitated to some differences through our weakness: and to unite and associate in nothing, because we cannot do it in all things: and to fly from each others society, as enemies or aliens, because we hold some different opinions: as if we were not the sons of one God, the members of one Christ, nor might live in the same family or join in the same Churches or worship, because we are not of the same intellectual complexion in every point, nor all men’s knowledge of the same stature…
2. You must understand, that we have no intent by this our agreement to forestall any further means or attempts for accomodation, or nearer unity: but contrarily to prepare for it; being confident that no way is so likely to accomplish it as a concordant practice of what we are agreed in, and the constant amicable association and familiarity of the dissenters…
3. Much less do we take up with what we are now agreed on as a perfect or fully-sufficient way; as if the points which are laid by, and wherein the several parties differ, did contain in them nothing of any moment… Nor do we intend to tie ourselves to take up with these, and never to go further… So I verily think that conscionable, friendly practicing of so much of Christ’s discipline as we generally know would have helped us to know the rest sooner then our perverse contendings have done…
4. I must therefore especially intreat you to observe that whereas several things are left undetermined in these Propositions…
6. Understand that though in many things we have tied up ourselves by these Propositions from acting in a way of singularity, yet in many points we have left each party and person to the liberty of their judgement: so that they may go above this our agreement, so be it, in so doing they go not against it.
More particularly:
1. Whereas in the first general Proposition we profess ‘not to addict ourselves to parties, but to practice unanimously those known truths that the sober and godly of each party are agreed in,’ we mean only those parties who acknowledge a discipline, and are so ‘sober’ as to disclaim those principles which are utterly inconsistent with the healing of our breaches and the peace and union of the Churches. Particularly we mean the presbyterians, Independants and episcopal who are moderate and judicious. We mean not any Seekers that disclaim [Church] discipline; nor Papists; nor Popish episcopal divines, who will have all the world come to the Romish polity or else they must have no peace. But it is only the Protestant episcopal divines whose principles I take to be consistent with our Propositions: And if there be any other party so sober as to depart no further from the ways of peace, it is such that we mean. But if it had been our intent to have laid by all that any party will controvert, we should have agreed on nothing.” – pp. 1-3
.
The Christian Religion expressed: I. briefly in the Ancient Creeds, the Ten Commandments & the Lord’s Prayer, and, II. more largely in a Profession taken out of the Holy Scriptures, containing 1. the articles of the Christian Belief, 2. our consent to the Gospel Covenant, 3. the Sum of Christian Duty according to the primitive simplicity, purity, and practice, fitted to the right instruction of the ignorant, the promoting of holiness, and the charitable concord of all true believers… (London: 1660)
The Profession of the Christian Religion. See the original for the Scripture proofs.
“I. The Articles of the Christian Belief
It is a catechism if you prefix to every article the question, ‘What do you believe?’
There is one only God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: who is infinite in being, power, wisdom and goodness: the Creator of all things, our most absolute Lord, most righteous Governor and most gracious Father.
God made man for Himself in his own image, with reason and freewill: endued with wisdom and holiness; and put under him the inferior creatures, for his use: and bound him by the Law of Nature to adhere to God his Maker; to believe Him, fear Him, love Him, honor Him and obey Him with all his powers: moreover forbidding Him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge upon pain of death.
Man being tempted by Satan, did willfully sin, and so fell from God and happiness, under the wrath of God, the curse of his Law and the power of the Devil: and hence we are all conceived in sin, and prone to evil, and condemnation is passed upon all; and no mere creature is able to deliver us.
God so loved the world that He gave his only Son to be their Redeemer; who being God, and one with the Father did take our nature, and become man; being conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary, and born of her, and called Jesus Christ; and being free from sin, He conquered the tempter, fulfilled all righteousness, revealed the Gospel, and confirmed it by miracles; and gave Himself a sacrifice for our sins, and a ransom for us, in suffering death on the cross, to reconcile us unto God; and was buried, and went among the dead) and rose again the third day, having conquered death; and afterward ascended into heaven where he remains God and Man, in one Person, and is Lord of all, in glory with the Father; the chief Priest, and Prophet, and King of his Church; interceding for us; and teaching and ruling us, by his Spirit, ministers, and Word.
The Lord Jesus Christ has ordained in his Testament that all they that receive Him by a true effectual faith, and by true repentance do turn from the flesh, the world, and the Devil unto God, shall freely receive the pardon of their sins, and shall become the sons of God, and heirs of everlasting life, and the Spirit of Christ shall dwell within them: and all that overcome and persevere to the death, shall live with Christ in endless glory: But the unbelievers, impenitent and unholy shall be condemned to everlasting fire. And this He has commanded his ministers to preach to all the world: And has told us that, All that are given Him of the Father, shall come to Him, and that he will in no wise cast them out, nor shall any pluck them out of his hands.
The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, did inspire and guide the prophets, apostles, and evangelists, that they might truly and fully reveal the doctrine of Christ, and deliver it in Scripture to the Church as the rule of our faith and life: and by abundance of evident uncontrolled miracles, and wonderful gifts, to be the great witness of Christ, and of the truth of his holy Word.
Where the Gospel is made known, the Holy Ghost by it does enlighten the minds of all that shall be saved, and opening and softening their hearts, does draw them to believe in Christ and turns them from the power of Satan unto God: Whereupon they are joined to Christ the Head, and into one holy catholic Church which is his Body, consisting of all true believers: and are freely justified, and made the sons of God; and a sanctified peculiar people unto Him, and do love Him above all, and serve Him sincerely in holiness and righteousness, loving and desiring the communion of the saints; overcoming the flesh, the world and the Devil, and hoping for Christ’s second coming, and for everlasting life.
At death the souls of the justified go to happiness with Christ, and the souls of the wicked to misery: And at the end of this world the Lord Jesus Christ will come again, and will raise the bodies of all men from the dead; and will judge all according to their works; And the righteous shall go into everlasting life, and the rest into everlasting punishment: All this I do unfeignedly believe.
II. Our Consent to the Gospel Covenant, with God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by which we are Christians and members of the catholic Church
Question: Are you willing and resolved to give up yourself to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, according to the Gospel doctrine which your profess?
Repenting of my sins and renouncing the flesh, the world and the devil, I do take this one God to be my only God, and do heartily give up myself unto Him; even to the Father, as my Creator and reconciled Father in Christ: And to his Son Jesus Christ, as my Lord, and only Savior, to reconcile and bring me unto God: And to the Holy Ghost as my Sanctifier; that He may further illuminate, sanctify and confirm me, and I may hold fast and obey the doctrine of Christ, which was revealed by his inspiration, and witnessed by his gifts and miracles, and is now contained in the Holy Scriptures; and that he may be in me the earnest of my everlasting happiness with God.
III. The Sum of Christian Duty
Question: What are [???…]
Christ has appointed that fit men shall be ordained his ministers, to preach the Gospel to the nations of the world, and make them his disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: and to congregate his disciples, and to oversee and guide the several congregations, and each member thereof: particularly, to teach them the Word of God; to pray and praise God with them and for them to administer the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him; especially on the Lord’s Day, which He has appointed for holy communion in such works: Also to rebuke with authority the scandalous and unruly; and to bind and reject those that are obstinately impenitent, and unreformed; and to absolve and restore the penitent, and confirm the weak.
It is therefore the people’s duty to join with such churches, for the aforesaid worship of God; and to know, hear, submit to, and obey these their guides that are over them in the Lord; and to avoid division and discord, and to live in unity, love and peace.
The secret duties of holiness are these: The exercise of faith, repentance, love, hope, delight in God, and all other graces; The mortifying of our sins; especially atheism, unbelief, and unholiness; hardness of heart, disobedience and unthankfulness, flesh-pleasing, covetousness, and pride; The diligent examining of our own hearts, about our estates, our duties, and our sins: meditating upon God, and his Word and works; especially of our redemption by Jesus Christ; and of death, Judgment, heaven, and Hell; watching diligently over our thoughts, affections, words and actions: resisting temptations: And frequent and fervent prayer to God, in the name of Christ, with confession, thanksgiving, and cheerful praises;
Parents and masters must diligently teach their children and servants the Word and fear of God, and pray with them and for them, and hinder them from sin, and use all their power that they and their households may serve the Lord: children and servants must willingly learn and obey: We must seek instruction in the matters of our salvation, especially of our teachers: we must take heed of the company of tempting and ungodly persons, and delight in the company and help of the godly: We must lovingly and faithfully give, and thankfully receive admonitions and exhortations: confessing our faults one to another: and by prayer, psalms, and edifying conference, and a holy conversation, provoking one another to love, and to good works.
Superiors must rule for God and the common good, with justice and mercy: Inferiors must honor and obey them in the Lord: We must not injure, but preserve the life, chastity, estate, name, and rights of our neighbor: Not seeking our own against his welfare, but doing as we would be done by; forbearing and forgiving; and loving our neighbor as ourselves: Yea loving our enemies; and doing good to all according to our power.”
.
The Agreement of the Associated Pastors
“I. We do each one for himself, profess our resolution, in the strength of Christ, to be faithful and diligent in the works of our ministry; and to live an holy and exemplary life, in piety, justice and charity, according to the measure of our abilities: Especially watching against those sins that tend to the corrupting or dividing of the Church, and to the hindering of our ministry; and to the dishonor of the Gospel, and of our holy profession.
II. We do profess our agreement and resolution in the strength of Christ, to be faithful and diligent in public preaching the Gospel: And in the personal instructing of all in our parishes, or undertaken limits, that will submit thereto; teaching the ignorant the principles of religion; endeavoring in love, compassion and meekness, and yet with seriousness and zeal, to convince the erroneous and opposers, to awaken the presumptuous and secure, and help them to try the state of their souls, and to see and feel their sin and misery, and return to God by Christ that they may live: to strengthen the weak; to raise the fallen; to edify and confirm the strong; and to comfort such as need consolation; and to help them all to prepare for death and judgment, and for everlasting life: And all this, as frequently, constantly and orderly, as our strength, and time, and greater duties will permit.
III. That the churches may be capable of the discipline of Christ, and constituted and ruled according to the Word of God, and the ends of our office and labors may be attained, we are agreed and resolved to take none for adult members of the churches committed to our special charge, nor admit them, as such, to church-communion and privileges, but those that have first made some personal credible profession of true Christianity, that is, of faith and obedience, and as members of those churches, submit to our pastoral oversight according to the Word of God. But all that make this profession of Christianity and consent to live in communion with the church, and under the ministry and discipline of Christ, we shall receive, though they be weak in knowledge, and utterance, and duties; and shall faithfully employ our ministerial abilities and care for their edification and salvation.
IV. We are agreed and resolved in the strength of Christ, while we have ability and opportunity, to congregate the people and hold constant assemblies, especially on the Lord’s Days; and therein faithfully to perform the works of our office, in reading the holy Scripture, preaching, praying, baptizing, praising God, celebrating the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and guiding the people in the whole public worship of God: And to manage our work with as much prudence, and reverence, and love, and compassion to the people’s souls, and with as much plainness and convincing evidence, authority, seriousness, and zealous importunity as we can: Avoiding as far as we are able, such things as corrupt and dishonor God’s ordinances, and tend to corrupt the people’s minds with error, presumption, deadness, negligence, or other distempers, displeasing to the Lord.
V. For the ends of our office, in obedience to the Lord, we agree and resolve in the strength of Christ, to exercise so much of church government and discipline, in the churches committed to our charge, as we discern to be our certain duty; that is, to keep order and decency in the holy assemblies, and see that all be done to edification: convicting seducers, and stopping the mouths of perverse gainsayers; overseeing the several members of our charge; and requiring them to walk obediently to Christ, and do their duties towards each other: to reprove the gross and scandalous offenders: and if they continue impenitent or unreformed, to tell the Church, or rebuke them before all; (and publicly pray for their recovery):
And if they hear not the Church, but remain impenitent and unreformed, after sufficient reproof and patience, to put away such persons from among us, declaring against them the threatenings of the Lord, and requiring them to forbear communion with the Church, and requiring the church to avoid them, and have no familiarity or communion with them, as persons unmeet for the communion of saints.
And those that credibly profess repentance, we are to absolve ministerially in the name of Christ, and comfort with the promises of grace; receiving them, and requiring the people to receive them, as brethren, into their communion: but warning them to watch and sin so no more, lest worse befall them. This holy discipline, by the help of God, we shall exercise faithfully and impartially, but yet with caution and moderation; neglecting no necessary consultations with other pastors, or concurrence of the Church: and consenting to be responsible for mal-administrations.
VI. For the communion of churches, and the strengthening ourselves for the work of God, and helping one another therein, and maintaining unity, love and concord, we do consent to hold a brotherly communion and correspondency: And to that end, when necessity or greater duty hinders us not, we shall meet at such convenient times and places, as shall be appointed or agreed on from time to time; and shall labor to improve these meetings to our mutual edification, in such consultations, conferences or other holy exercises, as our present case shall most require.
And we consent to deal faithfully in advising and admonishing one another; and for the satisfaction of the brethren (to the forementioned ends) to be responsible, if any shall charge us with heresy, scandal, schism, or mal-administration: And forbearing matters without our line, to study and endeavor the promoting of truth, and holiness, and unity among ourselves, and with other churches, as we have a call.
And also we agree by communicatory letters upon all needful occasions, to certify our brethren and other churches of the state of our affairs, and of particular members, that those that justly have communion in one church, or are excluded, may have communion with other churches, or be refused by them accordingly, when there is just occasion.
And if any brethren or Churches be prevailed over so far by temptation, as unjustly to deny us their communion, in this way of Association, assemblies, or correspondency, we shall not therefore deny them to be our brethren, or churches of Christ, but shall love and own them, and have so much communion with them as their distance shall leave them capable of, if they join with us in the profession and practice of true Christianity, and of the points that are necessary to church-constitution and communion, and are not proved guilty of heresy, ungodliness, or such kind of schism or scandalous sins for which the Scripture commands us to reject men and avoid them. But such as are thus guilty (though they offer themselves to associate with us) we shall refuse to hold communion with, till they credibly profess repentance, and manifest a reformation.
VII. Because it is a matter of great concernment to the honor of Christ, the propagation of the Gospel, and the increase and welfare of the Church, that there be a provision of able, faithful ministers, and that unworthy persons be kept out; and because deceivers and unworthy men are forward to intrude, and the people ordinarily are insufficient of themselves to make such trial of men’s ability and soundness as is requisite to the safety of the Church; and the Church in all ages has received ministers by the ordination of other ministers of Christ: We do therefore agree to be careful and faithful in the discharge of our duties hereabout, so far as we can discern them, resolving that if any vacant church desire us to recommend a fit person to be their pastor, or to judge of any recommended to them, we will not recommend or approve of any, but such as we judge most agreeable to the will of Christ; nor will we prefer less fit and worthy men, for friendship or any carnal interest or respect.
And if any intollerably unworthy person be about to intrude, or have intruded, or any neighbor church be about to choose, or have chosen such, if we have opportunity, we shall faithfully acquaint them with their sin and danger, and persuade them to a better course. And if we shall be called to invest any by solemn ordination in the sacred office of the ministry, we shall perform it, as near as we are able, according to the directions of the Word of God; admitting none that Christ excludes: And if it may be, we shall do it in that congregation which the person is to oversee, that so we may the better discern their mutual consent, inculcate their duties and engage them to a faithful performance thereof.
And whereas it is much controverted of late whether the power of Ordination be given to the people or the pastors of a particular church, or the Associated neighbor pastors, and whether a stated president among these should not have a negative voice herein, we are agreed that leaving the people their due liberty of consent in the reception of their proper pastors, we will none of us singly ordain, without the assistance of other pastors: Nor will we join with any heretics or others, in unjust and impious ordinations that tend to the corrupting or dividing of the churches.
And to avoid division upon a tolerable difference of opinions, where we may agree in practice, we consent that the Associations that have no stated presidents, or that give not to such a negative voice, shall receive into their communion those that are of the contrary opinion; giving them leave, if they desire it, to profess or record their opinion in that particular, so they will afterward walk among them in love and peace. And that the Associations that choose a stated president, and give him a negative voice in ordination, shall in like manner, and on like terms, receive into their communion, such as dissent in that particular, and having professed or recorded their dissent, will walk submissively in love and peace. Which liberty also of professing and recording their different principles, we desire may be allowed them, that join in synods, as being only for communion of churches, and them that join in them, as having a direct superior governing power over the particular pastors of the churches.
VIII. Though it be the surest way to peace and concord to take up with these necessary things, and we cannot approve of the narrow dividing principles of those men that will impose things unnecessary, to the excluding of the necessary, yet if our lawful rulers shall command it, or the peace of the Church through the distempers of the brethren shall require it, we shall obey, and consent in things that God has not forbidden; and if we suffer for well-doing, and for obeying God rather than men, we shall endeavor to imitate our Lord, who being reviled, reviled not again, and when he suffered, threatened not; but committed all to Him that judges righteously, 1 Pet. 2:23.”
.
The Order & Discipline of this Church, agreeable to the Word of God
“The author [Baxter] thought it not unfit here to annex the description of that order and discipline which is exercised by him, with his assistant fellow-pastors, in the parish-church of Kidderminster, in Association with many pastors of those parts who have agreed to exercise so much of the ministerial office as by the consent of the episcopal, presbyterian and congregational [parties] belongs to them. Which, being published:
1. May prevent men’s injurious misreports of our associations and discipline, which they may be drawn to by fallacious fame.
2. And may be an example for those churches that by the magistrates are left at liberty to worship God in that communion and order which they judge most agreeable to the Word of God and the universal consent and practice of the primitive Church.
.
I. We are willing to teach all in our parish, the doctrine of life, that are willing to learn: and desire them all to hear the Word publicly preached and to come to us to be catechized or instructed.
II. We own all those as visible Christians and members of the universal Church that make a credible profession of Christianity and destroy it not by heresy or ungodly lives.
III. So many of these as also consent to hold communion with this church as members of it, submitting to the ministers and discipline of Christ, we shall esteem our flock and special charge, and faithfully perform the duties of our office for their good, as we are able.
IV. We desire that all the youth of the parish will learn the principles of the Christian religion: and as soon as they understand it, and are heartily resolved to give up themselves to God in Christ through the Spirit, and to lead a holy life, that they will come and acquaint us with their faith and resolution; and before the Church will make a solemn profession thereof, and give up themselves to God in the personal owning their baptismal Covenant; either reciting the foregoing creed or Profession, or, if they are unfit for public speaking, by consenting when we propound it to them, or by any other fit expressions. That so we may publicly pray for their confirmation; and if they consent also to hold communion with this church, we may know them as our charge and register their names.
V. Those parishioners that desire us to baptize their children, or to be themselves admitted to the Lord’s Supper, and are not members of this church (because they will not), we desire to come to us, some days before that so we may be satisfied of their faith and life: And if they seem true Christians, and either bring a certificate that they are members of any other church, with (which we are to hold Communion, or show that it is not from ungodliness that they refuse to live under order and discipline, we shall baptize their children, and occasionally admit them to our communion. But if they are scandalous, we shall require them first to profess their serious repentance: And if they return to scandal, we shall after stay till we see their reformation (or of one of the parents in case of baptism).
VI. If any member of this Church do differ from us about the gesture in the Lord’s Supper (or any such circumstance) we desire them first to come to us and hear our reasons: and if we cannot satisfy them, we will not hinder them from receiving it in any decent gesture they desire.
VII. All members of the church must ordinarily hold communion with it in the Lord’s Supper and all ordinances: and if a brother grossly offend, they must orderly and prudently admonish him; and if he hear them not, tell the church [Mt. 18].
VIII. Once a month we have a meeting of the magistrates, ministers, deacons and above twenty persons chosen annually by the church, as their trustees or deputies: Here the offenders must be accused, and heard, and dealt with before the case be opened in the church. And any that are justly offended with any member, may have church-justice: the magistrates’ presence being only ad melius esse [to the better well-being] and the chosen trustees or deputies being no ecclesiastical officers, nor pretending to divine institution as such: but only the fittest of the people chosen to do those things which belong to the people (who cannot all so frequently meet) and having no authoritative ruling votes.
IX. Those that repent not upon public admonition must be cast out of our communion and avoided as heathens: But those that are penitent, must be absolved, and lovingly received.
X. If any of our people be offended at anything in our doctrine or life, we desire them before they vent their offense behind our backs, to come and lovingly tell it us, and hear us speak. And if we do not satisfy them, we desire them to open the matter before the ministers of this Association, who are here assembled every month. And we shall before them be responsible for our doctrine, our administrations and our lives. (As we are also willing to be to the magistrate, who only has the power of the sword, even over the pastors of the church, and whom in all things lawful we must obey, and not resist.)”
.
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653)
“The Propositions agreed on by the Associated Ministers of the County of Worcester and some Adjacent Parts
.
We ministers of the Gospel whose names are underwritten, after our seeking of God’s direction, and our most serious consultations about the discharge of our duty, for the reforming and right guiding of the congregations committed to our charge, and for the right managing of God’s worship therein, do agree and resolve as follows:
1. In general, we do agree and resolve, not to addict or engage ourselves to any party, nor to set up the dictates of any as such, but at present only to practice unanimously those known truths which the sober and godly of each party are agreed in, as near as possibly we can, that so we may neither give occasion to any such sober and godly persons to divide from us; nor yet proceed ungroundedly, doubtingly, and uncomfortably in our work, nor attempt anything but what we know to be of God, and may cheerfully bear all labor, and sufferings that we may meet with in carrying it on.
2. We agree and resolve by God’s help, that so far as God does make known our duty to us, we will faithfully endeavor to discharge it, and will not desist through any fears of losses in our estates, or the frowns and displeasure of men, or any the like carnal inducements whatsoever.
3. Particularly, we are all convinced that it is the duty of each minister to endeavor to know (if possible) each person of his charge, that so he may know where his special duty lies and how to perform it.
4. We are also convinced that it is the duty of ministers and people, according to their several opportunities, to admonish and reprove those that live in the any known sin, through wilfullness or negligence (laying aside the ordinary infirmities that the most godly are subject to) and this must be with tender love, and yet with great seriousness, and with discretion; and not with malice, bitterness, or disdain, yet variously according to the quality of the person and offence. And if the offender hear not, that is, obey not the admonition, by repenting and reforming, he must be admonished before witness; This therefore we resolve by God’s assistance faithfully to practice according to our opportunity, and to acquaint our people with their duty herein, especially in great congregations, where through the greatness and multitude of other works, less of this can be expected from ministers.
5. If any after this admonition shall yet refuse to repent and reform, those that can prove it, must tell the Church officers, who must hear the case, and admonish them with authority. The like must be done by those that have been oft admonished by others formerly, and not repented and reformed; and those whose sin is notorious, and heinously scandalous. But for private persons to accuse others inthe public conrgegation before the officers have heard the case, may breed dangerous slanders and quarrels. We resolve therefore to appoint some certain times for the hearing of such cases.
6. In corporations or other places that have magistrates, we judge it convenient if we can so far prevail with them, that they would grant us their presence at these meetings, both to be witnesses of our right proceedings, and to countenance them so far as by law they may; and especially because it is necessary that they have the full cognisance of our proceedings, before we can expect they should assist us against any that will violently intrude into our communion or disturb us: and also that they may at the same time first censure offenders according to law, and so we may know their proof of the fact; yet do we judge their presence a matter rather of conveniency than of necessity.
7. If any after this refuse to repent and reform, or if any have sinned heinously with public scandal of the church, it is the duty of ministers to rebuke such before all the church, and to call them publicly to repentance: This therefore we are resolved in both these cases to practice.
8. Yet where any man’s sin is such as to expose him by the law of the land to death, or imprisonment, or great mulcts [fines] or other penalties; We resolve not to anticipate public justice, nor to call out such to accuse themselves by their Church confessions, but shall wait to see what justice will do with them: but after mulcts and corporal penalties imposed by justice upon proof of guilt, we may and must require open repentance, if the person do survive.
9. We resolve (that we wrong not others or ourselves) not to mention any man’s sin publicly (by this personal application) before we have full proof beyond all exception, both of the factsand the faultiness, and not to traduce men in doubtful or controverted cases; and most commonly we must have the parties’ own confession of the matter of fact.
10. If after this public admonition the sinner shall obstinately refuse to manifest repentance, or to reform; it is the duty of the ministers to make a personal application to him of those threatenings which Christ has denounced in Scripture against such as he is; and especially to declare in the name of Christ, that he is one whose communion the church is bound to avoid; and to require him to forbear usurping that communion, and to charge the chuch in Christ’s name to avoid all familiarity with him, not only in God’s worship, but in common conversation, further than natural and civil relations bind us.
11. When the church or officers are orderly acquainted that any man is obstinate in sin, after private and less public admonition, or that his sin is notorious, and of public scandal, it is unmeet to admit him to public communion at the Lord’s Supper while he is under just trial; for while the church is necessarily in doubt whether he be such a scandalous or obstinate sinner or not, and so whether they may lawfully communicate with him or not (being forbidden communion with such) they must needs forbear his communion for that time (till his clearing or repentance resolve their doubt) or else they must act doubtingly and not in faith: Yet this is only a suspension of actual communion at present (no duty being a duty at all times to be performed) and not a proper denial of his right till he be cast out. The trial of his justly questioned right, will not fitly consist with his actual, full and present exerciseand use of such privileges.
12. We are all agreed likewise that were men are thus notoriously scandalous or obstinate in known sin, we may not content ourselves with a mere debarring such from the Lord’s Supper (which multitudes do willingly forbear of themselves, who yet are taken for as good Christians as others, and not avoided in regard of any other communion) but we must proceed to the forementioned public reproof and casting them out of our communion, else the remaining members of our church will harden themselves, offend the godly, occasion the weak to separate, and will be a scandal to our profession, and an offence of God: We resolve therefore to discharge the foresaid duties in faithfulness, as God shall enable us.
13. It must not be a slight, unwilling, mere verbal repentance that must satisfy the church, either for preventing or taking off a censure or casting out, but only such as seems free and serious, answerable in some measure to the quality of the fault. Such therefore we resolve to require and expect that we delude not men’s souls, and provoke not God by making a formality or jest of his ordinances.
14. If after once or twice scandalous or obstinate sinning, a man do once and again profess a serious repentance, we shall admit him to communion: But if after oft professing of repentance he return again to wilfull or scandalous sinning, we shall delay his re-admission till his actual reformation do manifest the truth of his repentance, else God’s ordinances will be frustrated by illusion: Yet cannot we punctually resolve just how oft such men’s professions alone may be taken as satisfactory, nor just how long we must delay his re-admission, if he forbear sinning, seeing these are to be varied accoding to the quality of the sin, and the seeming seriousness of repentance, and therefore must be prudentially determined, when the individual case with its circumstances is considered.
15. Though the people have not miniterial or governing power, yet they are to have a judgment of discretion, and thereby to try and discern, whether they that do cast out, or absolve by ministerial authoritative declaration, do proceed according to God’s Word or not, and are not to obey any sentence or injunction that is contrary to that Word; yet must they not on that pretence disobey or refuse to execute such injunctions and censures without manifesting their proofs of its error.
16. If people will not avoid communion and familiarity with such as are publicly cast out, they are to be dealt with by admonition, as in case of other sins. But if it should be a greater part of the Church that shall obstinately after admonition own and maintain a notorious scandalous sinner in his sin; or so far profess communion with him, that they make his sin their own, and continue obstinate therein, the rest of the church are not only bound nevertheless to shun communion with the offender, but with them that so adhere to him, provided that it be not about lesser sins, or in a disputable, doubtful case, wherein they want full evidence against the offender: Yet do we agree for the avoiding of several dangerous consequents, before we attempt this work, to acquaint our brethren of that association, and hear their judgments.
17. It having been the custom of the Church in the apostles’ days, to have orindarily many officers in a Church, and the private part of the ministerial duty being so exceeding great, and of indispensible necessity where it can be performed, and also because it is less satisfactory and convenient for one minister alone to try cases, where more may be had; We therefore judge it needful to use all lawful means to procure more ministers or elders than one in each church, even proportionable to the number of souls, and greatness of the word; and if for want of men or maintenance, there cannot learned men be obtained, we judge it fit to take the assistance of sober orthodox judicious persons of competent ability for private instruction and oversight, and ordained to this work, though defective in learning, and less able to publicly teach, and who may leave public speaking to him that is more able, and do the more of the less public work, and that such if other maintenance be wanting, may lawfully and fitly labor with their hands: And as long as we agree that these elders are ordained church officers, and what shall be their work, there needs to be no breach among us, though we determined not of their power in sacraments, and whether their office be the same with the teaching elders: Whilst we agree in practice, we may leave men’s several principles in such a difficult controverted point to their own judgments: also we conceive it meet that where there are fit men, some be ordained to the office of deacons.
18. Because all this forementioned discipline cannot be exercised without the people’s consent (the ministerial power being not compulsive, as by violence, but nunciative, suasory and directive) and we have at present no full discovery of their consent: And because ministers should have a particular knowledge of their charge, which now is uncertain, and for diverse other reasons propounded and debated among us, we judge it very fit, if not of necessity, to desire a more express signification of our people’s consent to our ministry, and ministerial actions; and in particular to submit to this discipline, as the members of that particular church: And because we have reason to suspect that many among us understand not, or believe not the very fundamentals essential to the Christian Faith; We judge it fit withall to require an understanding profession of assent and consent to such fundamentals, except any of us should judge that we can better exercise the forementioned discipline without calling their people to such a profession of consent, in which case we will declare our reasons to our brethren of the ministry in our meetings, and hear their advice when the case is opened.
19. In requiring this express consent, we agree to proceed according to the following rules:
Rule 1. We will first instruct our people in diverse sermons about the nature of a church, its constitution and government, the duty and authority of pastors, and the duties of people to God, their ministers, and to each other as members of such a church, and the meaning of each branch of that profession which we call them to, that so they may not do it rashly, ignorantly or formally.
R. 2. We shall as exactly as God shall enable us, draw up and agree upon a form of words containing the said profession, witha brief preface concerning the reasons, nature and ends of it; and we will all use the same form of words to a word, except any brother shall think himself bound to differ in any smaller point, where a difference is tolerable; in which case we will give in our reasons at the meeting of our brethren of the ministry, and hear their advice.
R. 3. We shall take these professions only in public, and not secretly.
R. 4. We shall deliver to our people a copy of this form of profession that they may consider of it before they are called to it.
R. 5. We shall first receive the profession of all them that are satisfied and most willing, and wait till the rest are satisfied and will freely consent, and not spur them on to do it ignorantly, rashly or unwillingly.
R. 6. If any deny or delay to express their consent, we shall endeavor carefully to discern on what grounds he does it, and whether it be a flat denial of the matter, or only some scruple at the manner at the manner, and accordingly shall distinguish between:
1. Professors of consent, as being members certain.
2. Or deniers of consent as to the matter, as bein no membes of that church;
3. And delayers or deniers to consent to the manner, as being uncetain, or less certain, whether they are members or no, till they further discover it.
R. 7. We shall distinguish between infant members, and adult; and for the former we shall take their parents’ profession, and for the latter we shall expect their own: and though it cannot be determined just to a day or year when any is past his infant-church-estate, yet none must be enrolled or accounted among adult and perfect members till they personally and publicly shall make their profession; whether it be only of their faith and obedience to Christ, that they may be esteemed adult members of the universal Church, or also their consent to be members of a particular Church.
R. 8. If any at full age do offer their consent to be members of a particular church, and expect to enjoy its privileges, who yet understand not, or believe not the fundamental essential points of the Christian religion, if they be willing to learn, we shall presently instruct them as catecumeni, and admit them when they are fit: But if they refuse to learn, we must take them for such as refuse to be Christians; and therefore where we have just reason to suspect the ignorance or unbelief of any that offer their profession of the form of words, we judge it our duty more particularly to examine them, yet resolve that we will not refuse any for want of fit expressions, who any way discover that they understand the matter.
R. 9. Though we shall receive professions only in public for satisfaction of the Church, and other reasons, yet those whose knowledge only is suspected, we may examine in private, because some of understanding are not able in public to express their minds: and afterwards in public we shall receive their profession if they are found fit.
R. 10. If any shall publicly offer his profession of consent, who is a confessed or a convicted scandalous or obstinate sinner; we shall immediately require him to profess openly his repentance, for his former scandalous sins before we receive his profession of duty for the future, seeing in order that must go first; and if he refuse, he must suspend our numbering him with the sounder members, and proceed to public admonition and censure if he persevere impenitent.
R. 11. If there be not enough in one parish that will consent (after our sufficient waiting) we shall join them to the next parish by consent; yet continuing still our meetings for preaching to the rest that consent not, and not meddling with alterations of the minister’s maintenance; yet in this weighty case, we desire advice may be had from the ministers of that association.
20. Because all churches are parts of the Church-universal, and all true Christians are members of that body, and of Christ, and have one Head, Lord, Faith, baptism, one rule of Faith and life, one Spirit, and one bond, and common cognisance of entire love to Christ, and one another; and have one hope, one end, and must be one in blessed union and communion with Christ everlastingly, we judge it therefore of great and indispensable necessity that we use all good means for the maintaining of this union and communion; and to do as much of our work as we can in concord with one another, and as little as may be dividedly, and by ourselves: And therefore we resolve according to our duty to keep constant communion and correspondence; and to that end to hold certain meetings of the ministry in association, and that according to these following rules:
Rule 1. We judge it convenient to meet in five several associations at five several places in this county, viz. at Worcester, Evesham, Upton, Kidderminister, and Bromsgrove, and this once a month on a day to be agreed on (or oftener if need require).
R. 2. We shall not by dividing the county presume to limit others to any one of these associations, but let every minister according to his own conveniency choose to which of these associations he will join himself, and accordingly subscribe to a copy of these articles, which shall be kept at the place of meeting for that association; and so may any minister that shall hereafter join with us, who at the present does not.
R. 3. We shall give notice to all ministers of piety, and competent ability, who now are not among us, and desire them to join with us, and offer them a free debate of anything which they may scruple, and desire them to adjoin themselves to which association they judge most convenient.
R. 4. We shall at these monthly meetings keep up a public lecture for the common benefit.
R. 5. At these meetings we shall maintain some disputations or other exercise, which shall be found most useful to our own edification, especially for the younger sort of ministers, or else meet on purpose for this another day.
R. 6. We shall here endeavor on consultation to resolve all particular doubts that arise about discipline, or worship, or doctrine, which (for the avoiding of all occasions of division) we have not thought fit to make the matter of this agreement, or which these general rulse suffice not to determine.
R. 7. We shall here also produce and propound to consideration any new point of doctrine wherein we differ from the most of the Reformed Churches, before we adventure to teach it our hearers.
R. 8. we shall here debate all differences in judgment (fit for debate) that may happen among ourselves or any of our people.
R. 9. We shall here receive any complaint that any people have against any member of our association, for scandal, false doctrine, or mal-administration; and we all resolve to give an account of our doctrine and actions, when any offended brother shall so accuse us, both for the satisfaction of the Church and him.
R. 10. We shall here make known the names of all those whom we have put out of our communion; and we resolve all of us to refuse communion with such, and not to receive them into one church who are cast out of another, except they have given satisfaction, or we first here prove them unjustly cast out.
R. 11. We shall here make it known if any member of another parish shall offer to adjoin themselves to any of our congregations, as members thereof, and we resolve not to receive any such, except we give here sufficient reasons for it; as if they be necessitated through the sin of the minister, or parish where they live, to do it, or the like.
R. 12. We shall here make it known if there be any members of another parish (adjoined to no church) who desire either sacrament from us, that we may know from the minister of that place whether they are fit to be admitted or not.
R. 13. Those who being sole ministers of particular churches, do doubt whether they alone may judge any man to be unfit for church communion, and so declare him; or may publicly by name rebuke him, they may do well here to take the advice of the association for their proceedings.
R. 14. We desire that all young ministers, or any that are not well furnished with discretion and ability to manage those public reproofs and censures, would do nothing in it without first consulting these assemblies, yea in so weighty a case as is excluding from Church communion, we judge it convenient that all ministers advise with their brethren of that association for their safer proceeding.
R. 15. We shall here consult about the good of neighbor churches, for helping them where they want teaching, for advising them against errors, seducers, or scandals, and furthering to our power the propagation of the Gospel.
R. 16. We do resolve to frequent these meetings as constantly as we can, and not neglect them and frustrate their ends.
R. 17. we shall once a quarter (and oftener if emergent occasion require it) send delegates from all these associations to Worcester (not forbidding any other to be there) where we shall hold a more general meeting for the resolving of greatest difficulties, and the more unanimous carrying on the work of the Gospel.
R. 18. We shall admit into these our associations the neighbor ministers also of other counties, where no such associations are, or are so remote that they cannot well join in them.
R. 19. Before any of us shall forsake this agreement and these resolutions, we shall give our reasons to the association, and hear what they can say against it; and not do it without sufficient cause.
R. 20. We resolve in none of our meetings to go beyond the bounds of our calling, in meddling with secular or state affairs, nor do anything injurious to the commonwealth; but maintain all just obedience to authority; and shall direct all our consultations to the good of souls, the propagation of the Gospel, the unity, peace and reformation of the Church, and the glory and pleasing of God in all.
Consentimus nos infra scripti.”
.
Anthony Horneck
The Blessed Advantages of Peace & Peacemakers In a Sermon preached at the Savoy in London upon the Fifth of St. Matthew, verse 9, ‘Blessed are the Peace-makers…’ (London: Aylmer, 1697), pp. 34-37
“But as this peace among Protestant Churches is very much to be wished and prayed for, so I despair to see so glorious a work take effect, except the differing parties would resolve to stand to the rules following:
1. That the respective parties which agree in the chief points of religion do not make any of those points they differ in, fundamental, as if the fortune of religion depended upon it, or as if those different points were so many different religions.
2. That the differing parties do not damn one another for those differences, there being nothing that has done religion more hurt than men’s damning one another for things which Christ and his apostles have affixed no damnation to.
3. That notwithstanding the little differences that are among them, they make one Church and endeavour after the welfare and prosperity of it, and join together in public prayer and in the sacrament of the eucharist, which is the badge and symbol of fraternity and amity.
4. That one party be not presently jealous and suspicious of the other, as if the opinion which one party espouses were embraced or maintained in a humor or for worldly ends, but that they charitably believe it’s conscience that puts them upon it, at least till either the party espousing that opinion confesses that conscience is not at the bottom of it or that it appear by undeniable evidences that a worldly or sinister design is the foundation of it.
5. That the differing parties do not multiply the controversies which are amongst them, make them neither more numerous nor greater than really they are, and that they do not interpret an accidental unwary expression that may drop from the pen or mouth of one party as a new controversy.
6. That one party do not charge the other with consequences which they do not own, nor with doctrines and positions which they detest from their hearts.
7. That each party defending or proving their opinion do it with great modesty, without provoking or exasperating or approbrious language and revilings or bitter reflections on the other.
8. That of these differing parties none do vie with the other except it be in living up to the precepts of the Gospel, particularly those of patience, long-suffering and charity.
These rules I apprehend to be the foundation of peace and concord of Protestant Churches that differ in points of no great concernment; and were these maxims once put in practice, the particular controversies might soon be compromised.
To this purpose is that saying of the apostle: ‘Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let’s walk by the same rule, let’s mind the same things; and if any be otherwise minded, God will even reveal that unto you,’ Phil. 3:15-16.”
.
.
On Attaining an International Church
Order of
Calvin
German Reformed
Mornay
Cranmer, Du Moulin, Dury
King James I & French Reformed
Baxter
Gauden
.
On John Calvin
Article
McNeill, John T. – ‘Calvin’s Efforts Toward the Consolidation of Protestantism’ in The Journal of Religion,vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1928), pp. 411-33
.
On the German Reformed
Quote
Charles Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus & the Palatinate: a Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Brill, 2010), p. 148
“To gain recognition of the catholicity and orthodoxy of the Reformed position, [Elector] Frederick’s advisors [in the Palatine, Germany] launched a plan to solicit confessions from Reformed churches from around Europe [just before the Diet of Augburg in 1566]. This was part of the larger Palatine desire to have Protestantism defined on an international, as opposed to an imperial, level. The long-term goal of this policy was to hold an international evangelical council that would have accented the strength of the Reformed throughout western and central Europe, unlike their isolated position in the Holy Roman Empire.
A preliminary step in this direction was the request for confessions from the principal Reformed churches. The personal confession that Bullinger modified to satisfy the Palatine request took on a much more important life of its own, as it was recognized by the majority of the Protestant Swiss cantons and became known as the Second Helvetic Confession. Although Frederick’s request had spurred this Zurichled effort to promote confessional accord, the Second Helvetic Confession was not officially endorsed by the Palatinate, though the elector expressed warm personal gratitude to Bullinger for his efforts.”
.
Philip Mornay
Quote
A Notable Treatise of the Church in which are handled all the Principal Questions that have been moved in our Time concerning that matter [in controversy with Romanism] (London: Barker, 1579), ch. 10, n.p.
“Concerning the communion of charity or love, which consists in suffering and bearing the evils one of another, and in not lightly condemning one another: we hold all them for the true members of Christ which worship one God in spirit and in truth, and hope for their salvation in one Jesus Christ alone, the Son of God come in the flesh, and crucified for the sins of the world, which is the foundation of salvation to all men.
We desire all union and agreement with them, in whatsoever countries and regions they are, and whatsoever corruptions may be yet remaining amongst them, not only in manner, but also in certain points of doctrine, bewailing the bodily servitude which they endure, and praying the Father of Light, that it will please Him to enlighten them more and more by his Holy Spirit.”
.
On Thomas Cranmer, Pierre Du Moulin & John Dury
Articles
McNeill, John T. – ‘Cranmer’s Project for a Reformed Consensus’ in The Journal of Religion, vol. 8, no. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 539-65
Rupp, Gordon, Jaques Courvoisier & J. Minton Battien – ‘Forerunners of the World Council’ in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn, 1948), pp. 74-84
.
On King James I & the French Reformed Churches
Articles
McNeill, John T. – pp. 65-66 in ch. 1. “The Ecumenical Idea & Efforts to Realize it, 1517-1618” in eds. Ruth Rouse & Stephen C. Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517-1948 (Philadelphia, 1967)
Patterson, W. Brown – “James I & the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins of 1614” in Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972), pp. 253-54
Armstrong, Brian – “Pierre du Moulin and James I: the Anglo-French Programme” in De l’Humanisme aux Lumieres, Bayle et le Protestantisme: Melanges en l’Honneur d’Elisabeth Labrousse, eds. Magdelaine, Pitassi, Whelan, McKenna (Paris: Universitas, 1996)
van Raalte, Theodore G. – “Relations to Foreign Churches” in “The French Reformed Synods of the Seventeenth Century” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches... (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), pp. 93-97
Sinnema, Donald – “Du Moulin’s Plan for Protestant Unity” & “Du Moulin’s Call for a General Confession” in “The French Reformed Churches, Arminianism, and the Synod of Dort” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches... (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), pp. 100-102 & 109-113
.
Richard Baxter
Quote
Three Treatises tending to Awaken Secure Sinners… (London: Rothwell, 1656), ‘To the Right, Honorable Serjeant Glyn’, n.p.
“That right means be used with speed and diligence for the healing of our divisions and the uniting of all the true Churches of Christ (at least in these nations; and O that your endeavors might be extended much further) to which end I shall mention but these two means of most evident necessity:
1. That there be one Scripture-creed, or confession of Faith, agreed on by a general assembly of able ministers duly and freely chosen hereunto, which shall contain nothing but matter of evident necessity and verity. This will serve:
1. For a test to the Churches, to discern the sound professors from the unsound (as to their doctrine) and to know them with whom they may close as brethren, and whom they must reject.
2. For a test to the magistrate, of the orthodox to be encouraged, and of the intollerably heterodox, which it seems is intended in the 37th Article [of the 39 Articles] of the late formed government, where all that will have liberty must profess (faith in God by Jesus Christ), which in a Chri∣stian sense must comprehend every true fundamental or article of our Faith: And, no doubt, it is not the bare speaking of those words in an unchristian sense that is intended (As if a Ranter should say that himself is God, and his mate is Jesus Christ).
2. That there be a public establishment of the necessary liberty of the Churches to meet by their officers and delegates on all just occasions, in assemblies smaller or greater (even national when it is necessary), seeing without such associations and communion in assemblies, the unity and concord of the Churches is not like to be maintained. I exclude not the magistrate’s interest or oversight, to see that they do not transgress their bounds.
As you love Christ and his Church and Gospel, and men’s souls, neglect not these unquestionable points of his interest, and make them your first and chiefest business, and let none be preferred before Him till you know them to be of more authority over you and better friends to you than Christ is…”
.
John Gauden
Quote
Hiera dakrya, Ecclesiae anglicanae suspiria, The Tears, Sighs, Complaints & Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her Present Condition (London: J.G., 1659), bk. 3, ch. 17, pp. 315-16 Gauden (1605-1662) was an Anglican bishop and royalist.
“Although I shall by Gods gracious assistance keep that station and distance from Popish errors where my judgement and conscience, guided by God’s Word, has set me, yet to leave the Romanists without excuse, as much as in me lies, I do most earnestly desire, and should most industriously promote, such a Christian and catholic accord as were most for the honor of Christ and the peace of Christendom.
I know the youthful fervors of some are jealous of all such motions, and for fear of seeming lukewarm they resolve to boil over all bounds till they quench both truth and charity among Christians and make way for atheism, Turkism, confusion and barbarity. These hotter heads possibly dread what I calmly desire, that such a grand catholic convention of able ecclesiastics in these Western Churches might, by the consent of princes and chief magistrates, be so orderly convened with freedom, impartiality and due authority, as might enable them to consent in one canon or rule of Faith and good manners, that the clear and concurrent sense of Scriptures might be owned by all, in which all things necessary are contained either literally, or by just deductions; that what is dark or dubious should be left indifferently to Christians use and judgements; that all would agree in the same ancient fundamental articles of Faith, contained in primitive creeds, also in the same sacraments or holy mysteries, to be devoutly celebrated, so in the same way of good works to be practiced, that we might all have the same catechism, the same public liturgies, so composed that all Christians might with faith and charity say Amen to them and in their several languages understand them; that a commentary on Scriptures, and sermons containing all Christian necessary doctrine might be agreed upon, that neither curiosities nor controversies should be couched in public prayers or preachings, that all might enjoy the same catholic source and course of ecclesiastic ordination, ministry and authority, so tempering government and discipline in the Church, that none should justly think others too much exalted, nor themselves too much depressed, that catholic customs, ancient ceremonies and traditions, truly such, being consonant to God’s Word, and practically interpreting the meaning of it, might be observed by all, leaving yet such freedom in other things to particular Churches as might be most convenient, yet still subordinate to and to be regulated by the judgment of such a general council, contrary to which none should affect extravagant liberty to the ruin of Christian charity.
Blessed Lord! What good Christian could be injured by such a Christian accord in the main concernments of religion, which cannot be impossible in the nature of the thing, because it was of old enjoyed, and many hundreds of years generally preserved among all Christians and Churches of any name and repute in all the world? Nor did either the heat of persecution or prosperity (as warm and soultry weather) dispirit this charity of Christians, who might still be as capable subjects of so great a blessing from God on earth, if passion, prejudice, partiality and private interests on all hands were laid aside, without parting with any true and real interest that concerns a wise or good man, either in conscience or honor, in civil or religious regards.”
.
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Rupp, Gordon, Jaques Courvoisier & J. Minton Battien – ‘Forerunners of the World Council’ in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn, 1948), pp. 74-84
The authors discuss Thomas Cranmer, Pierre du Moulin & John Dury.
McNeill, John T. – pp. 65-66 in ch. 1. “The Ecumenical Idea & Efforts to Realize it, 1517-1618” in eds. Ruth Rouse & Stephen C. Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517-1948 (Philadelphia, 1967)
This is on King James I and the French Reformed in 1614 making attempts for union with the Lutherans, in leaving out controverted non-fundamental articles, to result in “the Christian Reformed Church”.
Dingel, Irene – ch. 19, ‘Christian Ecumenical Efforts’ in eds. Appold & Minnich, The Cambridge History of Reformation Era Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2023), pp. 372-84
“In this context researchers differentiate the colloquies on inaugurating reform in the early years of the Reformation (which were to prepare for the secular government’s decision
to introduce new teaching and ecclesiastical practice or to legitimize such a decision) from the later religious dialogues that ideally aimed at a convergence of two religious parties. Contemporaries hardly noticed this difference…
Despite all the parallels with the medieval process of disputation, sixteenth-century religious colloquies differed from the academic model at essential points… The representatives of the Reformation decisively rejected the syllogism of Scholasticism as a relevant structure for argumentation for determining theological truth and untruth. A hermeneutic based upon and drawn from Holy Scripture was to govern the establishing of the truth, not arguments based on major and minor premises.” – p. 373
“The most significant attempts to overcome religious division between the old church and those desiring reformation were those colloquies that the emperor called at the level of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. They took place in a twenty-year period beginning in 1540. Thereafter this type of imperial colloquy faded because the Religious Peace
of Augsburg (1555) guaranteed adherents of the Augsburg Confession legal protection within the boundaries of their own territories. This essentially rendered further Catholic-Evangelical colloquies superfluous.” – p. 375
“Important religious colloquies were also held beyond the borders of the Holy Roman Empire, extending beyond regional dialogues. The Colloquy of Poissy in France and the “Colloquium Charitativum” of Thorn in Poland are among the most well known, but there were more.” – p. 379
.
Books
1800’s
Heppe, Heinrich – The Reformers of England & Germany in the Sixteenth Century: their Intercourse & Correspondence (London: Hatchard, 1859) 215 pp. ToC
See especially ch. 4, ‘The Union of Protestant Christians of all Countries about the middle of the Sixteenth Century: its destruction, caused by the “Ubiquitarian” Lutheranism of the so-called Formula Concordiae of 1577′, pp. 78-86 and the following two chapters.
.
1900’s
McNeill, John T. – Unitive Protestantism: a Study in our Religious Resources (Abingdon: 1930) 345 pp. ToC
Nugent, Donald – Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy (Cambridge, 1974) 270 pp. ToC
The Colloquy of Poissy (1561) in France sought the reconcilement of the French Huguenots and Romanists, or a “tolerable liberty” for the former. The reformed were represented by Beza, Vermigli, Gallars, Marlorat and Delespine. The Colloquy was unsuccessful.
.
Quote
John T. McNeill, ch. 1. “The Ecumenical Idea & Efforts to Realize it, 1517-1618” in eds. Ruth Rouse & Stephen C. Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517-1948 (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 67-68
“During the hundred years from Luther’s Theses to the opening of the Thirty Years War, the desire for Christian reconciliation and unity found utterance in many voices and within all sections of the disrupted Church. Nor were the advocates of reunion entirely disappointed.
The Wittenberg Concord, the Zurish Consensus, the Bohemian Confession, and the Consensus of Sendomir mark notable achievements. These agreements, national in scope, were all the work of theologians who were also Church leaders, and were not the result of political initiatives.
…
The devisers of plans of unification, such men as Erasmus, Cassander, Bucer, Cranmer, Calvin, a Lasco, Mornay, Pareus, are not to be thought of as starry-eyed utopian idealists. In other phases of their work they all showed capacity for practical achievement. Yet on the whole they were defeated in their aims of reunion. The disruptive forces were too strong for them.
…
In the French Reformed Church alone was the union project an enduring phase of church policy…
King Francis I’s [of France, 1515 to 1547] invitation to Melanchthon, Charles V’s [Holy Roman Emperor] promotion of the Colloquy of Ratisbon [in Bavaria, 1541], Queen Elizabeth’s embassy to Rudolf II [Holy Roman Emperor] and to the Palatinate [Germany], and the advice of King James [I] to the [French] Huguenots, are instances in which eminent rulers took initiative in efforts towards pacification or union…
Nor should we minimize the loyalties and antagonisms that hindered and still hinder reunion. Each communion cherishes its own esprit de corps and instinctively shrinks from any surrender of its uniqueness. Herein, says Andre Paul, is ‘the great obstacle’… To a great degree this situation had been reached by 1618. Each of the confessions had been fortified by scholastic defences, and each of them had been sanctified by the blood of martyrs. The feeling of solidarity within the group commanded the activity of most Christians and tended to obscure the vital loyalty to the Church that is One, Holy, and Catholic. The majority preferred a comfortable confessional immobility to the pains of ecclesiastical reconstruction, while many of the theologians felt an obligation to assail vehemently those who ventured to suggest irenical restatements of doctrine. Ecumenical projects perished in the prevailing atmosphere of scholastic polemics, inertia, and bigotry…
The European scene was shifting omniously. A long and devastating war [the 30 Years War] was in prospect. The drift towards religious disintegration was too strong to be reversed. The ecumenical spirit never altogether failed. But the opportunities which had been lost or rejected in the first century of the Reformation could never be recovered, and it was long before the climate again became so favorable to ecumenical enterprise and achievement.”
.
On Martin Bucer
Quote
John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism: a Study in our Religious Resources (Abingdon: 1930), pp. 146-47
“Bucer’s mind was more liberal than that of Luther. He was concerned for theology as something purely subordinate to communion; his fundamental interest was in the security, unity and expansion of the true Church, ‘Regnum Christi.’ [the Church of Christ]
He was, indeed, more concilatory even than Zwingli. Anrich states this fact strongly when he says, ‘Zwingli, accustomed to mastery and victory, desired primarily the triumph of his own views; the Strassburgers primarily the peace of the Church.’ Zwingly, too, gave evidence of a desire for the peace of the Church, but he could not make such concessions to the [German] Saxons as Bucer unhesitatingly made.
Bucer was the very incarnation of the irenical spirit. For the sake of union he was indifferent to phraseology, and by his frequent invention of new formulae constantly exposed himself to the charge of timeserving. A century later John Dury defended himself from the epithet ‘ambidextrous divine’ by the boast that he was a ‘single-hearted peacemaker.’ Both men were free from self-seeking; they need not be thought unprincipled because they put the principle of charity before that of theological rectitude.”
.
Book
Lugioyo, Brian – Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology & Early Modern Irenicism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010) 260 pp. ToC
Se especially ch. 2, ‘Bucer’s Irenic Approach to Reform’, p. 15 ff. For a summary of Bucer’s view of Justification, see pp. 100-102.
“Bucer’s thought categorized Christian theological truths (of the disputed doctrines of the day) into a hierarchy, the doctrine of justification being of high importance for the Church. As such, difficulties over other doctrines like the Lord’s Supper could be pragmatically defined and resolved so as to preserve the unity that was held in the truth of justification.” – p. 4
“For Bucer reform could not be achieved at the expense of the truth of justification as he understood it.” – p. 12
“Bucer believed that in a face-to-face dialogue it would be easierto persuade one’s opponents of the truth… Bucer knew well that written documents were subjected to differing interpretations.
His preference for public dialogue also influenced many of his written works, which adopted the literary genre of a fictional dialogue. In these works, he would exemplify how men of differing opinions could peaceably and gradually arrive at agreement on the truth. This gradual approach was illustrative of his pedagogy for persuading and teaching others the truth of God’s word…
As Stupperich has asserted, for Bucer unity would result not from compromise but from the clarification of misunderstandings that enable a unity in the truth.” – p. 23
“In this work [his Commentary on Romans] Bucer was convinced that a clear exposition of the scriptures, as well as the chuch fathers and even some scholastic theologians, would lead the old church to the evangelical truth of the fundamentals of the Christian faith.” – p. 30
“He did not desire to nourish fights of one faction againt another; he knew that the truth is difficult to come by through polemics; and it was in the truth that he wanted consensus. If the fundamentals of the Christian faith could be agreed upon, then the controversies that were plaguing the Church could be accommodated ‘without ill will [Greek] [fairly, reasonably, equitably] and for the general restoration in every way of concord in the Church.” – p. 34
.
On Calvin
Article
McNeill, John T. – ‘Calvin’s Efforts Toward the Consolidation of Protestantism’ in The Journal of Religion,vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1928), pp. 411-33
.
On Thomas Cranmer
Articles
McNeill, John T. – ‘Cranmer’s Project for a Reformed Consensus’ in The Journal of Religion, vol. 8, no. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 539-65
Rupp, Gordon – ‘Thomas Cranmer’ in ‘Forerunners of the World Council’ in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn, 1948), pp. 74-76
.
On the German Reformed
On the 1560’s & 1570’s
Quotes
Charles Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus & the Palatinate: a Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Brill, 2010), p. 148
“To gain recognition of the catholicity and orthodoxy of the Reformed position, [Elector] Frederick’s advisors [in the Palatine, Germany] launched a plan to solicit confessions from Reformed churches from around Europe [just before the Diet of Augburg in 1566]. This was part of the larger Palatine desire to have Protestantism defined on an international, as opposed to an imperial, level. The long-term goal of this policy was to hold an international evangelical council that would have accented the strength of the Reformed throughout western and central Europe, unlike their isolated position in the Holy Roman Empire.
A preliminary step in this direction was the request for confessions from the principal Reformed churches. The personal confession that Bullinger modified to satisfy the Palatine request took on a much more important life of its own, as it was recognized by the majority of the Protestant Swiss cantons and became known as the Second Helvetic Confession. Although Frederick’s request had spurred this Zurichled effort to promote confessional accord, the Second Helvetic Confession was not officially endorsed by the Palatinate, though the elector expressed warm personal gratitude to Bullinger for his efforts.”
.
Edouard Bohl, “Separation of the Lutheran Church from the Reformed in the Sixteenth Century” in Presbyterian & Reformed Review, vol. 5, no. 19 (July, 1894), p. 430
“At the attempt to effect concord in Regensburg in 1541 the Strassburgers, among them Bucer and Calvin, had taken part along with the Wittenbergers. In the Augsburg Peace concerning Religion of 1555, the imperial States that inclined to the Swiss were not excluded.
In 1557 the German princes, quite after the mind of the theologians present, especially Melanchthon, interceded for their French [reformed] brethren in the faith. To procure this intercession of the German princes Frederick [a reformed German Elector] repeatedly exerted himself to the utmost. And Christopher Wurtemberg would willingly have gone into it, if the foreigners would only have assented to the Augsburg Confession.
In spite, however, of all urging to subscribe this Confession, the French churches who at that time were in France itself still numbered with the Lutherans, adopted a confession of their own, the Gallicana (1559), after a draught furnished by Calvin. Hence-forward at the religious conferences there was put into the hand of their Roman Catholic opponents a weapon, by which they could point to the fact that the Huguenots did not agree with those who followed the Confession recognized in the German Empire. This circumstance was prejudicial to the consolidation of the Huguenots…”
.
Articles
Nischan, Bodo
“Reformed Irenicism & the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631” in Central European History, 9 (1996), pp. 3-26
“John Bergius [d. 1658]: Irenicism and the Beginning of Official Religious Toleration in Brandenburg-Prussia” in Church History, vol. 51, no. 4 (Dec. 1982), pp. 389-404
.
On the French Reformed Churches & the British King James I
Articles
Patterson, W. Brown – “James I & the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins of 1614” in Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972), pp. 253-54
Armstrong, Brian – “Pierre du Moulin and James I: the Anglo-French Programme” in De l’Humanisme aux Lumieres, Bayle et le Protestantisme: Melanges en l’Honneur d’Elisabeth Labrousse, eds. Magdelaine, Pitassi, Whelan, McKenna (Paris: Universitas, 1996)
van Raalte, Theodore G. – “Relations to Foreign Churches” in “The French Reformed Synods of the Seventeenth Century” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches... (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), pp. 93-97
Sinnema, Donald – “Du Moulin’s Plan for Protestant Unity” & “Du Moulin’s Call for a General Confession” in “The French Reformed Churches, Arminianism, and the Synod of Dort” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches... (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), pp. 100-102 & 109-113
.
On the Netherlands & Belgium
On the 1550’s & 1560’s
Quote
Edouard Bohl, “Separation of the Lutheran Church from the Reformed in the Sixteenth Century” in Presbyterian & Reformed Review, vol. 5, no. 19 (July, 1894), pp. 430-31
“In vain did William of Orange, on his entry into Antwerp and afterwards, attempt to gather the parties around the banner of the Augsburg Confession, and thereby secure for all the evangelicals the benefit of the compact entitled the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). The ministers sent by the Huguenots from France to the Netherlands thwarted the plans of William of Orange, and stimulated the people to arbitrary proceedings, which were in conflict with the laws of the country.
There were, alas, soon three parties on the soil of the Netherlands that so greatly needed unity. In Flanders and on the French borders the Reformed (Calvinists) preponderated; on the German borders the Lutherans (Martinists); lastly the Anabaptists in Holland and Zeeland.ª From such division into three parties advantage was drawn only by the enemies of the Gospel who soon were allowed to enjoy a triumph, in that, at the united Synod of Lutherans and Reformed at Antwerp in 1566, the members of Synod fell out concerning the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession [on the Supper], whose acceptance William of Orange had recommended. We hear of enmity just before the time when the temples [church buildings] were closed and the Prince of Orange left the country.
ª …Lutherans and Reformed, owing to the pressure of circumstances, did, indeed, unite to form a Synod in Antwerp, presided over by Peter Dathen, in 1566.”
.
.
Latin
Order of
Collection of Quotes
Articles
Books 6
.
Collection of Quotes
1600’s
Turretin, Jean-Alphonse – ‘Testimonies from Church History’ in A Cloud of Witnesses for a Moderate & Pacifying Judgment on Theological Things & for the Instituting of Concord between Protestants, a Brief & Pacifying Disquisition on Fundamental Articles being premissed first… & Testimonies Collected (Geneva: 1719)
[Early & Medieval Church]
Polycarp & Anicetus 9
Irenaeus & Polycrates 9
Tertullian 12
Cyprian 13
Firmilianus 14
Constantine 15
Eusebius 16
Athanasius 16
Nazianzen 17
Hilary 21
Augustine 22
Leo III 24
Leiden Church 24
[Post-Reformation]
Erasmus 25
Luther 28
Melanchthon 29
Oecolampadius 30
Calvin 31
Bucer 31
Vermigli 34
King James I 35
Junius 35
Pareus 37
Calixtus 38
Matthew 39
Du Moulin 39
Mestrezat 40
Claude 41
Heidegger 42
Spanheim 43
Witsius 43
LaPlacet 45
Pufendorf 45
Strimesius 47
Werenfelsius 48
Cyprianus 49
Buddeus 50
Pfaffius 51
[Lutherans for Concord with the Reformed]
Luther 54
Melanchthon 61
Suevs 65
Brentius 66
German Princes 68
Calixtus 68
Matthew 72
Pufendorf 75
Seckendorf 78
Pfaffius 80
[Reformed for Concord with the Lutherans]
Zwingli 87
Oecolampadius 88
Bucer 90
Calvin 93
Confession of the 4 Cities 95
Helvetic Confession 96
French Confession 96
Anglican Church 97
Orthodox Consensus (Zwingli & Calvin) 98
Pastors & Professors of Zurich 102
Pastors of Bern to Geneva 103
Pastors & Professors of Basil to Geneva 106
Bullinger 108
Beza, Farel, French & Swiss Churches 113
King A. Borbonius of Navarre 114
King Henry IV of France 114
Du Moulin 116
Davenant 117
Joseph Hall 121
Swiss Magistrate & Dury 123
Swiss Churches & Academy 125
Church & Academy of Geneva 127
Stuckius 130
Wirtzius 133
Hottingerus 134
Heidegger 135
F. Turretin 140
Pictet 144
Pastors & Professors of Geneva 147
King Frederick I of Prussia 150
Burnet 151
Jablonski 154
Wake 155
Pastors & Professors of Geneva 158
[Authentic Acts of Synods, Colloquies & Councils advancing Concord between the Lutherans & Reformed]
Colloquium of Marburg 161
Concord of Wittenburg 162
Consensus of Sandomirez 162
Colloquium of Leipzig 165
Synod of Charenton 175
Decree of the Evangelicals of Frankfurt 176
Colloquium of Cassell 178
Concord of Regiomontana 181-82
.
Articles
1500’s
Calvin, John – A Pacific Letter of Calvin to Luther, Written in the Time of the Reformation, 1545, which was interrrupted by the death of Luther [in 1546], Philip Melanchthon sent forth again with an intact seal… (d. 1564; 1722) 3 pp.
Tossanus, Daniel – Theological Theses on these Three Questions Now so Agitated: 1. How ought the True Christian Religion to be Defined & Known? 2. Whether the Work by these Appellations, ‘Lutherans’ & ‘Calvinists’, may be Distinguished into True & False Religion? 3. What then may be the Cause of Animosity & so much Exasperation of Some Against Them who are Called Calvinists, & Whether they are Worthy of such Animosity? Proposed to be Disputed in the Renowned Academy of Heidelberg (Heidelberg: Abraham Smesmann, 1593) 29 pp.
Tossanus (1541-1602) was a French Reformed theologian.
.
1600’s
Dury, John – An Irenicum Sent Forth on Ecclesiastical Concord between Ecclesiastical Protestants (vulgarly called the Reformed and Lutherans, containing brief information on the true scope and irenic means, together with a necessary indication of the fundamentals of Christianity and that which is not such, soliciting and promoving a Synergism… to all Protestants, but especially directly to Lutherans… (Frankfurt: Christopher Le Blon, 1662) 8 pp.
Voet, Gisbert – pp. 537-38, quetions 1-3 & 6 in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: 1655), vol. 2
In question 6 Voet says that which is necessary for ecclesiastical union and communion is in questions 1-3.
Turretin, Francis – Works, vol. 4, Disputations, Necessity of our Secession from the Church of Rome
1. The State of the Question is Propounded: the Roman Church is Argued to be Heretics, sect. 40, pp. 21-22
8. Objections are Solved, sect. 32, p. 199
Meier, Gerhard – The Mild Judgments of the Papists & Reformers on Luther the Divine (d. 1695; Bremae, [n.d.]) 12 pp.
Meier (1616-1695) was a reformed professor of theology at Bremen, Germany. This is a collection of positive quotes about Luther from many various theologians.
.
Books
1500’s
Junius, Francis – Advice on Promoting Peace & Concord (Bremen, 1615)
.
1600’s
Pareus, David
Irenicum, or on a Reconciling Union & Synod of Evangelicals (Heidelberg: Jona Rosa, 1614) 344 pp. ToC
“In this period David Pareus (1548-1622) of Heidelberg, pupil of Ursinus and teacher of John Amos Comenius, earlier an opponent of the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity, wrote a weighty treatise on the union of Protestants. With much learning, Pareus presents his own version of the familiar proposal for a synod of all Evangelical Churches, which he essays to prove both necessary and possible. Like Arminius, he wants a synod of “lovers of truth and peace”, “not proud, contentious men… who seek victory rather than truth and peace, and glory rather than peace” (iii).
He thinks a free city of the Empire should be the place of meeting. He contrasts a rightly formed, free Protestant council with the Council of Trent. “The best and weightiest men would be chosen from every province and nation of the Christian world”, and “the council would be ecumenical and universal”. The assembly will have the task of determining what articles are fundamental; the test of faith will be the Word of God (iv, x).
Pareus explains and intereprets the principal ealier Protestant agreements, such as the Marburg Articles, the Wittenberg Concord, and the Consensus Sendomir. The points of difference and of harmony of Reformed with Lutherans and of Roman Catholics with both are examined in detail.
On the whole, this book is the most valuable item in the literature of the period for its revelation of the nature of the problem of disunity and the aspiration towards unity. It is significant that in his Preface to the Reader Pareus refers to the need of ‘a syncretism or amicable agreement against the papacy’.” Martin Schmidt in A History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, p. 67
A Christian Admonition about Peaceableness, or a Book by a Vow… on the Union, Synod & Syncretism between Evangelicals, that is Lutherans & Calvinists, Established in 1614, Divulged, Adorned by Johann Georgius Sigwartus (Tubingen: Johann Cellius, 1616) 744 pp. ToC
Pareus was against the accommodated union of the Reformed and Lutherans in 1614 in Germany. Book 1, ‘On the Means’, pp. 1-88, surveys the history of relations since the Reformation between the reformed and the Lutherans that lead up to the union.
Book 2, ‘On Syncretism’, pp. 88-283, first asks whether such a “pious syncretism in coming together, mutually tolerated,” is possible and ought to be. Then Pareus examines 8 “pretenses” for such a union. The last chapter argues that if those pretenses held, then the Calvinists ought to form such a union with the Papists.
Book 3 is ‘On the Removal of the Impediments’, pp. 283-744. Here is the outline:
ch. 1, ‘On the Disagreements of the Lutherans & Calvinists, whether they are Many & Irreconciliable?’ 283
ch. 2, ‘On the Articles [of Difference] Between the Lutherans & Calvinists in general’ 301
ch. 3, ‘On the Articles in Specific’ 303
1. Of the Merit of Christ 303
2. Of the Fall of Adam 323
3. Of the Cause of Sin 338
4. Of the Omnipotence of God 376
5. Of the Immensity of God 389
6. On the End of the Creation of All Men 400
7. On the Will of God to Save Men 427
8. On the Loss of Grace & Faith 465
9. On the Children of Christians 491
10. On the Evangelical Promises 506
11. On the Communication of the Natures with respect to the Person of Christ 541
12. On the Communication of Properties with respect to the Person of Christ 558
13. On the Omnipresence of Christ the Man 570
14. On the Power of Christ the Man by which He did Miracles 597
15. On the Adoration of Christ, God & Man 622
16. Of the Presence of the Body & Blood of Christ in the Supper 651
17. On Private Absolution 674
18. On the Augsburg Confession 689
Ch. 4, ‘Of the Paradoxes & Pretexts which the Lutherans Hold’ 718-44
Dury, John
Of Procuring Peace between Evangelicals, Four Judgments… (London, 1638) 233 pp.
Irenicorum tractatuum Prodromus… (Amsterdam: Boom, 1662) 555 pp.
Informatio de iis, quae in Studio Ecclesiasticae Concordiae, inter Evangelicos… (Bremen, n.d.) 189 pp.
Matthias, Bishop of Strängnäs in Sweden – Northern Olive Branch
Blondel, David – Authentic Accounts of the Reformed Churches of France, Germany & Great Britain, concerning the Peace & Brotherly Charity which all the Servants of God should Maintain among Protestants (Amsterdam: Jean Blaeu, 1655) 88 pp. no ToC
“…David Blondel (1590-1655), the historian of dogma and author of polemical works against the papal primacy. In recognition of his important literary achievements he had been chosen as a professor at Saumur, but was not set free by his church of Roucy. In his book… he gives evidence of ecumenical sense directed to immediately practical aims. He was deeply concerned for the unity of all the Churches which had issued from the Reformation, and watched with the closest sympathy the historical vicissitudes through which they passed.” – Martin Schmidt in A History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, p. 88
ToC
Dedicatory Epistle
To the Reader
Intro 1
French Reformed National Synod at St. Foy, 1578, [ch. 6] Article 31 in Relation to Frankfurt 5
French Reformed National Synod at Figeac, 1579, Article 37 6
French Reformed National Synod at Vitre, 1583, Articles 27-28 7
Pieces confirming the Preceding Discourse
Extract from The Body & System of the Confessions of Faith, Geneva, 1612 55
Assembly at Posen [Poland] 1570 56
Assembly at Cracow [Poland] 1573 57
Assembly at Piotrków [Poland] 1578 57
Assembly at Włocławek [Poland] 1583 57
Assembly at Thorn [Poland] 1595 58
Assembly at Frankfurt [Germany], where was present delegates of England, Churches of France, Poland, Hungary, the Low Countries, others and of Lord John Casimir, Count in the Palatine [Germany] 59
2. Of an edition of a common confession 62
3. To whom the drafting or composition of this confession might most appropriately be entrusted 63
An example of a humble admonition [or petition] addressed to princes 65
An example of credentialed letters addressed to princes 67
Examples of letters addressed to the Princes of the Landgraviate and of Anhalt 68
Extract from the letters written by the pastors of the Netherlands, 1579, to the authors of the [Lutheran] book called [The Formula] Of Concord [1580] 69
Instruction given by the King of Navarre to Jacques de Ségur, Seigneur de Pardaillan, his envoy to the Protestant princes, 1583, from Monsieur de Thou’s History, book 79 71
Extract from Rudolf Hospinian, History of the Sacraments (Zurich, 1586), vol. 2 71
Sent from Pierre du Moulin in London to the provincial synod of the Isle of France, which thanked him in return by letters written from Ay in Champagne in 1615 72
Overtures for working toward the union of the Christian Churches that have shaken off the yoke of the Papacy, and for appeasing the disputes that have already arisen or that may arise in the future 72
Pierre Du Moulin, Anatomy of Arminianism (1619), ch. 3 76
Extract from the Council of Dort, on the praises of the English, Bremen, etc., theologians
From the letter of the General Estates to the kings, princes, etc. 77
The Preface appended to the Acts 78
From the oration by Martin Gregorius, delegate of the Estates, in his and his colleagues’ name, 1619, to the English, Bremen [German] and other foreign theologians 78
From the oration by Johannes Bogermann, president of the synod, in the name of the whole assembly, to the English, Bremen and other foregin theologians 79
Excerpt of the judgments of the doctors of Leyden, Franeker and Groningen, who all, except for two, had attended the Synod of Dord, and had consented to the praises of the English and Bremen theologians, against the [opponents’] books containing the doctrine of the said theologians, and printed in France with approval, according to the Discipline [of the French Reformed Churches] 80
Out of the epistle of Henry Alting, theological professor in Groningen, 1636, to Andrew Rivet 80
Out of the formula of approbation 81
Out of an epistle of Johannes Bogermann to the theologians of the English and Bremen, at the Council of Dort 17 years previous, given to Andrew Rivet [about the French Church and Amyraut] 81
From the approbation 81
From the approbation of Leiden [about the French Reformed] 1637 82
Declaration of the [French Reformed] national synod assembled at Alençon, diametrically opposed to the previous judgments which had been communicated to it by Rivet
Version of the letter of the said synod to Rivet, prepared by him personally and printed under his care in 1649 82
Letter from the same synod to Master le Faucheur, one of the pastors of the Church of Paris 83
Extract from the letter of Master de L’Angle, pastor in the Church of Rouen, and delegate to the said synod from the province of Normandy, written on July 5 to Rivet, who had entrusted him with the care of his letters and of his synopsis, as he himself had it printed in 1649 84
Act passed at Thouars about Messieurs de Champvernou, Vincent, and Amiraut 84
Excerpt from the letter of Rivet to the Prince of Taranto, written from Breda, 1650 86
Excerpt from the acts of the synod of the provinces of Anjou, Touraine, Maine, Vendômois, the Grand Perche, and Loudunois, held at Saumur, 1646 87
The letters of the other professors are in the hands of Madame de la Trimouille, who would have provided them to the author of this treatise if his illness and death had not prevented him from requesting them, together with the acts of the provincial synods of Anjou, Normandy, and Brittany, by which the deputies of the said provinces were charged to petition the next national synod for the revocation of the decree that had been issued against Sieur [Joshua] de la Place concerning the imputation of Adam’s sin 88
.
Hoornbeek, Johannes – A Dissertation on the Evangelical Union of the Reformed & the Augsburg Confession, or of the Cassellano Coloquium… (Amsterdam, 1663) 50 pp.
Dedication
Part 1 3
Part 2, Theological 10
Part 3, Political 25-50
Comenius, John Amos – The One Thing Necessary… (1668; Amsterdam, 1682) 79 pp. ToC
“The last of Comenius’ exhortations towards unity was penned by him when he was seventy-five years old. In his Unum Necessarium he reviewed and elaborated the principal labors of his long and sad life.” – Martin Schmidt in A History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, p. 91
Jurieu, Pierre – A Consultation on Establishing Peace among Protestants, or a Discussion concerning the Questions of Grace which Delay the Union of Protestants of both the Augsburg & the Reformed Confessions, & concerning the Manner in which these & other Disputes may be Composed (Utrecht: Halma, 1688) 287 pp. ToC
On Jurieu’s works, see Martin Schmidt, History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, pp. 92-93.
.
1700’s
Strimesius, Samuel – A Candid Examination into the Controversies of Evangelicals, that is, of the Lutherans & the Reformed, Between Themselves: Public Lectures & Disputations in a Series Set up by B. Spanheim, & Divided into Two Parts, of which is Expunded in the First, the Less-Fundamental Disagreement of the Lutherans & the Reformed; in the Latter the Fundamental Consensus of Them is Set Forth & Vindicated, with a Pacific-Apologetic Preface [at the beginning of the volume] (Frankfurt: Schrey, 1708) 1,049 pp. Detailed ToC
Strimesius (1648-1730) was a reformed professor of philosophy, physics and theology at Frankfurt, Germany.
.
Table of Contents
Dedicatory Epistle
Preface to the Reader
Pt. 1, Of the Dissent of Evangelicals Beyond the Fundamentals: 4 Hexads of Annotations
1. Of the Augsburg Confession & its theologians & associates 5
2. Of the fundamental consensus of the associates of the Augsburg Confession and of the dissent beyond that which is fundamental: its rise, progress and departure 56
3. Of the Exerters [Moliminibus] endeavoring for a consociation 66
4. Of the blockades to an ecclesiastical consociation 97
5. Of the limits of an ecclesiastical association 102
6. On the classes of controversies which are between evangelicals 106
7. Of the sense of the words of the Institution of the sacred Supper, whether proper or figurative 117
8. Of consubstantiation 142
9. On transubstantiation 166
10. On the true judgment about the holy eucharist, having been taught through all the ages of the Christian era even unto this day 193
11. Of the oral eating of the body of Christ 279
12. Of the eating of the body of Christ by the unworthy 321
13. On the doctrine of the reformed as far as the providence of God: Whether it makes God the Author of Sin? 346
14. On the universal will of God to save men 374
15. On the decree of election following foreknowledge 391
16. On the decree of reprobation, opposite to a bare foreknowledge 452
17. On the operation of converting grace 464
18. On perseverance, or of a true defection of the faithful 478
19. On the communication of properties 488
20. On the ubiquity of the flesh of Christ 493
21. On baptism 502
22. On rites not wholly adiaphora 519
23. On the baptismal exorcism of infants 535
24. On the breaking of bread in the Supper 548
.
.
French
Article
1600’s
Mestrezat, Treatise on the Church, bk 2, ch. 4
.
Book
1600’s
Jurieu, Pierre – Treatise on the Unity of the Church & that From Fundamental Points (Rotterdam, 1668) ToC 667 pp.
On Jurieu’s works, see Martin Schmidt, History of the Ecumnical Movement, vol. 1, pp. 92-93.
.
.
German Book
1600’s
Stein, Paul – Evangelischer Kirchen Briiderschaft [Evangelical Church Unity], das ist: Ausfuhrlicher sonnenklarer Beweis, das beiderseits Evangelische im Grund der Seligkeit einig und ungeachtet deren zwischen ihnen noch schwebenden Streitigkeiten und Irrungen einander gar wohl mit gutem Gewissenfur Briider in Christo erkennen konnen, auch billig dafiir erkennen und halten sollen, vol. 1, 2, 3 (1622/1623)
“Paul Stein, one of Landgrave Maurice’s chaplains at Kassel, made his debut as an irenicist when he published a sermon on Lutheran-Reformed unity which he had earlier delivered before the landgrave and Duke Frederick-Ulrich of Brunswick-Luneburg. He also authored a three-volume treatise entitled Evangelical Church Unity, printed in 1622/23.”
.
.
Objections Answered
Coming Soon
.
“This would be a bare institutional unity.”
.
Objections answered in Fentiman’s Book
.
“It’s not practical.”
.
Gillespie’s objection from Reforming page, Caution
.
.
.
“But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”… those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary… on these we bestow greater honor… that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.”
1 Cor. 12:20-25
“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that… there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment… there are contentions among you… each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?”
1 Cor. 1:10-11
“And behold, a man of God went from Judah to Bethel by the word of the Lord… Then he cried out against the altar by the word of the Lord… it was commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall not eat bread, nor drink water, nor return by the same way you came.’”
1 Kings 13:1-2, 9
.
.
.
Related Pages
On Occasional & Principled Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism