I. PART suffer under the burden of them, but they are innocent from the guilt of them. And so "reum facit superiorem iniquitas imperandi, innocentem subditum ordo serviendi"-" a superior may sin in his commands, and yet his subject be innocent in his obedience." These are no just cause of separation to a 1 Pet. iv. 8. private Christian; "Charity covers a multitude of sins." But they are just cause of reformation to a national Church or a Synod. [5. Some errors cesses without guilt.] : 5. Fifthly, there are some errors in disputable points; and merely ex- some abuses are mere excesses without guilt, rather blemishes than sins and for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian society, or abandon a true Church for trivial dissensions. Our duty in such a case is to pray and persuade, without troubling the peace of the Church, and Phil.iii. 15. to leave the rest to God. "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." [6. The Church of Rome enjoins as necessary sinful errors.] 6. Lastly, we affirm, that in the superstructions of Christian religion the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence, and sinful innovations, in point of doctrine, and discipline, and administration of the Sacraments, and Feasts, and Fasts, &c. This we are ready to maintain. Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses, which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation; but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential truths and necessary articles. She enjoins sundry of them as a condition of her communion. She commands all Christians to believe and practise them under pain of damnation; and whosoever refuseth, she casteth them out of her society. Such is their new Creed in point of Faith, directly contrary to the canon of the general Council of Ephesus'. Such is the Pope's supremacy of power in point of discipline, expressly contrary to the determinations of the Councils of Constance and Baslem. Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine, the detention of the Cup from the people, their i [August., Cont. Faust. Manich., 1 [See p. 39, note y.] [Concil. Constant. (A.D. 1415.) Sess. iv. et v, ap. Labb., Concil., tom. xii. pp. 19, 23.-Concil. Basil. (A.D. 1431) Sess. ii. et xxxiii, ibid. pp. 477, 478. 619.] III. unknown language, &c., in the administration of the Sacra- DISCOURSE ments, and in the public service of God. From these sinful duties thus enjoined as necessary, all men ought to separate. Lawful authority of man may oblige one to suffer, but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to do sinful duties. Such a cause justifies a separation, until the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made. And being thus separated from sinful innovations, it may be lawful or convenient to reform lesser errors, which were not of such dangerous consequence, nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves. But here I must advertise the reader of a double manner of expression, used by English Protestants concerning this separation. They agree that the Roman Church retaineth the essentials of a true Church. They agree that she hath introduced errors and abuses into Christian religion. They agree that she obtrudes sinful innovations as necessary conditions of her communion. They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses, and are ready to return to a communion when these errors and abuses are removed. So in effect they say the very same thing, neither more nor less. But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their confessions, liturgy, and forms of administration of holy Sacraments, therefore some say that they are separated from the external communion of the Roman Church: and because 159 these errors and abuses are but adventitious and accidentally inherent, and may be, and ought to be, removed, therefore others say that their separation is not from the communion of the Roman Church, as it was, and may be, and ought to be, but only from the errors and abuses. The one speaks simply and absolutely, from the errors and abuses;' the others speak respectively and secundum quid,—' from the external communion of the Roman Church,' that is, so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses and not further, and so in sense they say the very same thing. " And therefore it is mere sophistry and a groundless cavil to argue from their separation from errors to their separation from truths, and from their separation in abuses to their separation in the Sacraments themselves. Suppose one, who is appointed to minister diet to another, will give him nothing PART but poisonous meats, and he knowing it will not receive it; I. tell me, who is the refuser? he that will not eat poison, or he Not the se paration, but the cause, schism. [Dan. iii. 16-18.] that will not give him healthful food? The Roman Catholics do profess themselves to be as loyal to their sovereign, as any of his best subjects; and that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath. Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed, which they may not, they dare not, take. If any man should accuse them hereupon to have deserted the communion of the English monarchy in point of loyalty, they would be angry; and they had good reason for it. Upon the same equity let them forbear to accuse us of leaving the communion of their Church in Sacraments, when we only left their abuses. Distinguish between old institutions and new errors, and the case is clear. Likewise supposing, but not granting, that we were not chased away by the censures of the Court of Rome, but had makes the out of conscience separated ourselves from their errors in such manner as I have declared, yet the crime or guilt of the schism sticks close to them". A conscientious Christian is as much chased away by imposing upon him the performance of sinful duties, as by the thunderbolt of excommunication. Schism is a voluntary separation; but our separation was no more voluntary on our parts, than the three children were willing to be cast into the fiery furnace; that is, they did choose rather to die innocents than to live nocents, to suffer burning rather than to commit idolatry. To be separated might be our consequent will,—because we could not help it. But it was far enough from our antecedent will, or that we did desire it. If we should see one pushed and thrust out of a house with swords and whips and clubs, would any man in his right wits call this man a fugitive and a runaway, or accuse him to have forsaken the house? Sin is a more dangerous edge-tool than a sword, and the wrath of God heavier than the weight of clubs, and the secret lashes of a guilty conscience sharper than whips. If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinful duties and offending God and wounding our own consciences whilst we stayed among them, then we did not leave them, but they did drive us from Sect. 5. [The first chapter of the it appear to what this reference relates.] Survey contains no sections; nor does them. III. Joseph came into his master's house to do his duty; DISCOURSE his mistress tempts him to sin; Joseph flies away. What? [Gen. from his duty? No; but from the offence of God: and she, xxxix. 11, 12.] that thought to hold him, was the person that did drive him away. sary to sal known He urgeth that nothing "but necessity of salvation can It is necesjustify such a separation" (as he hath fancied to himself) vation to "from the crime of schism." Let it be so. He might forsake have spared his authors in the margin to prove it. His errors. defect lies on the other side. Doth not he think it necessary to salvation for every man so far as he can to eschew deadly sin? Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errors contrary to the dictate of his conscience, without any prejudice to salvation? This was our condition. But yet 'there was salvation to be had in the Church of Rome;' so 'it was not necessary to salvation to make such a separation".' A strange consequence; just like this other, God hath mercy in store for sinners, therefore it is not necessary to salvation to forsake sin. God's extraordinary mercy is one thing, our duty another. Because His compassion is great towards His poor creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance, is it therefore not necessary to salvation for those, who are convinced of their errors, to follow the commandment of God and the light of their own conscience? This is so evident that it admits no doubt. in [We have rated our not sepa selves from all the Churches world.] He adds, that "we separated ourselves not only from the 160 Roman Church, but from all Christian Churches in the world, as if there had been no Christian Church in the world, whose communion we could find salvation, whence it will Christian follow that at that time" in their conceits "there was no true in the Church upon earth." This he inculcates over and over in several places, according to his manner. And in his ninth chapter and fifth section he triumpheth in it, where he endeavours to prove out of Calvin, and Chillingworth, and Doctor Potter, that Protestants separated themselves "from the whole world'." That is, as he expresseth himself in other places, "from all Christian Churches;" and particularly, “from 。 [Surv., c. i. p. 3.] P [See Surv., c. ix. sect. 4. pp. 120, 121.] 4 [Surv., c. i. pp. 3, 4.] r [Ibid.,] c. ix. sect. 5. [pp. 127. &c.] I. PART the Roman, Grecian, Armenian, and Ethiopian Church," and "all other ancient Churches" whatsoever. If it be so, then he may truly call us "penitus toto divisos orbe Britannost" Our Refor mation no Of the Roman Church in particular, and how that possiseparation. bility of salvation in any Church is not in true reason impeditive of its just reformation, we have already spoken sufficiently. It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches. Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separation from them. For they do neither pretend to be the Catholic or universal Church, as the Roman doth; nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannic Churches, as the Court of Rome doth; neither do we deny them the right Gal. ii. 9. of Christian Churches, or "the right hand of fellowship." In co-ordinate Churches, whereof one is not subordinate to another, some Churches reforming themselves, and not censuring or condemning others which are unreformed, whilst they preserve their duty entire to the Ecumenical Church, and its representative, a general Council, do not separate from other Churches but from their own errors. In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters, some weeded, some unweeded; there is indeed a separation of the plants from the weeds in the same quarters, but no separation of one quarter from another. Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours, he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons, whose bodies are unpurged. It is true, that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction between the quarters weeded and the quarters unweeded, and between bodies purged and bodies unpurged. But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging; or it is their own fault, who do not weed or purge when they have occasion. If they will needs misconstrue our lawful reformation to be an unlawful and uncharitable separation, how can we help it? We have separated from no Eastern, Southern, Northern, or Western Church. Our article tells them the same". Either let them produce some act of ours, which makes or implics such a separation, or let them hold their peace for ever. [Ibid., c. i. pp 4, 5.] 1 [Virg., Bucol., i. 67.] u Art. [i. e. Canon] 30. [Canon. 1603.] |