Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 3 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
That our Fathers had juſt, ſufficient and neceſſary Cauſes for their Separation, ſuppoſing that they had right at the bottom, in the controverted Points.
WE ſhould certainly be the moſt ungrateful perſons in the World, if, after the favour that God has ſhewn us, in re-eſtabliſhing the Purity of his Goſpel in the midſt of us, we ſhould not think our ſelves bound to give him everlaſting Thanks. So great and precious an advantage, highly calls for our reſentments, and that in enjoying it with delight, we ſhould pay our Acknowledgements to the Author of it. But what ground ſoever we ſhould have to rejoyce in God, we muſt notwithſtanding avow, that we ſhould be very inſenſible in regard of others, if we could behold without an extream affliction, the miſery of ſo many men who voluntarily deprive themſelves of that good. Thoſe who are at preſent engaged in thoſe Errors and Superſtitions, from which it has pleaſed the Divine Goodneſs to deliver us, are our Brethren, by the External Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Name, and by the Conſecration of one and the ſame Baptiſm; and how can we intirely rejoyce, while we ſee them in a ſtate which we believe to be ſo bad and ſo contrary to our common Calling? I know, that God only, who is the Lord of mens hearts and minds, can diſſipate that gloomy darkneſs which they are involved in, and that it is our Duty, to pour out our ardent and continual Prayers to him for his Grace for them; but we ought not to neglect humane methods, among which, that of juſtifying the Conduct of our Fathers in the ſubject of their Separation, is one of the moſt efficacious: and as it is by that eſpecially that they labour to render us odious; ſo is to that, that I ſhall allow the ſequel of this Work.
The Separation of our Fathers ought to be diſtinguiſh'd into three Degrees: the Firſt conſiſts in that which they have loudly pronounc'd againſt the Doctrines and Cuſtoms of the Church of Rome, which they judg'd to be contrary to Faith and Piety, and which they have formally renounced: the Second conſiſts in this, that they have forſook the External Communion of that Church, and thoſe of its party: and the Third, in that they have made other Aſſemblies than hers, and that they have rank't themſelves under another Form of Miniſtry. We have treated of the Firſt already, where we have ſhewn, the Juſtice and Neceſſity of the Reformation which our Fathers made; the Third ſhall be ſpoken to in the Fourth Part, and this is deſigned to examine the Second. Our Inquiry therefore at preſent, will be to know, whether our Fathers in Reforming themſelves, ought to have ſeparated themſelves from the other Party, who were not for a Reformation; or whether, notwithſtanding the Reformation, they ought yet to have abode with them in one and the ſame Communion, and to have liv'd in that reſpect as they did heretofore. This is that which I pretend to make clear in this Third Part of this Work.
To enter upon this buſineſs, I confeſs, that if we could ſuppoſe it as a certainty, That all Separation in matters of Religion is odious and Criminal, we ought to be the firſt in condemning the Actions of our Fathers, and that whatever averſion we ſhould have for the Errors and Abuſes which we ſee reigning in the Church of Rome, we ought to labour to bear them as patiently as it could be poſſible for us to do, in waiting till it ſhould pleaſe God to correct them, and notwithſtanding to enter into its Communion, and to live under its Miniſtry. But ſo far are we from being able to make a ſuppoſition of this nature, that on the contrary, there is nothing more certain, than this Truth, That as there are Unjuſt, Raſh and Schiſmatical Separations; ſo there may be alſo not only Juſt and Lawful ones, but Neceſſary and Indiſpenſable ones alſo. So the Primitive Chriſtians withdrew themſelves from the Jewiſh Church, after it had obſtinately remained in its unbelief: and afterwards, the Orthodox in the firſt Centuries held no Communion with the Valentinians, nor with the Manichees; nor in general, with thoſe Hereticks who diſturb'd the Purity of the Goſpel with their Errors. Nay, when the Arians had even made themſelves Maſters of the Synods and Churches, there was an actual Separation made of a very great number of perſons, as well of the Body of the Clergy, as that of the People, who would not have any Communion with them, and who endur'd upon that account all ſorts of perſecutions. Therefore alſo it was that S. Hilary Biſhop of Poictiers earneſtly exhorted the Biſhops and the Orthodox people by a publick Letter that he addreſs'd to them. The Name of Peace, ſayes he to them, is indeed very ſpecious, and the meer appearance of Ʋnity has Hilar. adv. Arianos.ſomething ſplendid in it: But who knows not, that the Church and the Goſpel acknowledges no other Peace than that which comes from Jeſus Chriſt, that which he gave to his Apoſtles before the glory of his Paſſion, and that which he left in Truſt with them by his eternal Command when he was about to leave them. It is this peace which we have taken care to ſeek when it has been loſt, and to re-eſtabliſh, when it has been diſturbed; and to preſerve, after we have found it again. But the ſins of our Times, and the Miniſters or Fore-runners of Antichriſt, will not ſuffer us to be the Authors of ſo great a good; nor that we ſhould ſo much as partake of it. They have their Peace which they boaſt of, which is nothing elſe, but an Ʋnity of Impiety, while they carry themſelves not as the Biſhops of Jeſus Chriſt, but as the Prelates of Anti-Chriſt. And about the end of his Letter, I exhort you, ſayes he, that you take heed of Anti-Chriſt. Be not deceived by a fooliſh love of Walls, nor reſpect the Church more on Roofs and in Houſes, nor ſtrive no more, on ſuch frivolous conſiderations for the Name of Peace. As for my ſelf, I find more certainty in the Mountains, in the Foreſts, in the Lakes, in Priſons, in Gulphs; for there it was that the Spirit of God animated the Prophets. Separate therefore your ſelves from Auxentius, who is an Angel of Satan, an Enemy to Chriſt, an open Perſecutor, a Violator of the Faith, who made a deceitful Profeſſion of the Faith before the Emperour, in which he joyn'd Blaſphemy to that Deceit. Let him aſſemble as many Synods as he pleaſes againſt me, let him make me be declared a Heretick, as he has often already done, let him proſcribe me by Publick Authority, let him ſtir up the wrath of the Great Men againſt me as much as he will, he can never be any other to me than a Devil, ſince he is an Arian. I ſhall never have peace, but with thoſe who following the Decree of our Nicene Fathers, would anathematize the Arians, and acknowledge Jeſus Chriſt to be truly God.
S. Epiphanius alſo relates, that before the Synod of Seleucid, Epiph. haereſ 73wherein Arianiſm was eſtabliſh'd, many people who found themſelves to be under the Juriſdiction of Arian Biſhops remained firm in the confeſſion of the True Faith, and ſet up other Biſhops themſelves. And the Hiſtories of Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen may teach us, that while the Arians poſſeſs'd the Temples, and the Sees of the Churches, the Orthodox held their Aſſemblies apart, in the Fields as well as in private Houſes.
With the ſame Judgement S. Ambroſe teaches, That Jeſus Ambroſ. Comm. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9.Chriſt alone is he from whom we ought never to ſeparate our ſelves, and to whom we ought to ſay, Lord, to whom ſhall we go, thou haſt the words of eternal life. That above all things, the Faith of a Church ought to be regarded, that we ought to hold it there if Jeſus Chriſt dwells there; but if a people may be found to be there who are Violaters of the Faith, or that an Heretical Paſtor has polluted that habitation, we ought to ſeparate our ſelves from the Communion of Hereticks, and to avoid all commerce with that Synagogue. That we ought to ſeparate our ſelves from every Church that rejects the true Faith, and does not preſerve the fundamentals of the Apoſtles Preaching, without fear leſt its Communion ſhould brand us with ſome note of Perfidiouſneſs.
There could not therefore be a more unreaſonable thing in the World, than to prepoſſeſs ones ſelf in general againſt all manner of Separation: for it is manifeſt, that the communion of men is no otherwiſe deſirable, than as it can conſiſt with the communion of God; and that when that of men ſhall be found to be directly oppoſite to the true ſervice of God and our own ſalvation, which is the only End of a Religious Society, we ought no longer to heſitate about our Separation.
But to make out this Truth yet a little more clear, we need but to ſet before their eyes what we have already ſaid in the Firſt Part, that the Church may be conſider'd either in reſpect of its Internal State, in as much as it is the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Society of the truly Faithful and the true Elect of God, without any mixture of Hypocrites and the worldly, pure throughout as ſhe is in Gods ſight; or in reſpect of its External State, in as much as it is a Society, which in the profeſſion of one and the ſame Religion, includes a ſufficiently great number of the Hypocrites and worldly, who do not belong to the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, nor are of the Church, but in appearance only. That Diſtinction is evident enough of it ſelf, not to need any proof, and our Adverſaries themſelves will not oppoſe it. But altho' they do not oppoſe that Diſtinction, yet they never fail of confounding both thoſe reſpects. For when they ſpeak of the Promiſes that God has made concerning the perpetual ſubſiſtence of his Church, where it would be juſt to refer them to the Church only, as made up of the Truly Faithful: ſince to ſpeak properly, God looks upon them alone as his true Church, they refer them to the Church, in as much as it is mixt with the worldly and hypocrites. And when the Conteſt is about eſtabliſhing the Duties to which a Religious Society engages us, where it would be juſt to conſider the Church as mingled with the good and the wicked, the faithful and the worldly, ſuch as it appears to us; they conſider it, as it is pure and without any mixture of Hypocrites, ſuch as it is in the eyes of God. We may ſay, that this confuſion is the ſource of all their Errors, and the foundation of all their Fallacies which they make on this matter.
We ought therefore, in order to our judging aright of a Separation, to repreſent this Diſtinction to our ſelves, and to form within our ſelves a juſt Idea of it. For in the firſt place, it is without all doubt, that we never ought to ſeparate our ſelves from the Communion of the truly Faithful, who alone are the Spouſe of Jeſus Chriſt, and his Myſtical Body. If ſuch a Separation ſhould go ſo far as to break the Internal Bond of that Communion, which conſiſts in having the ſame Faith and Chriſtian Holineſs, we could not make it without ſeparating our ſelves at the ſame time from Jeſus Chriſt himſelf; and by conſequence depriving our ſelves of all hopes of ſalvation, ſince there is no Name under Heaven given by which men may be ſaved, but only that of Jeſus Chriſt. If it ſhould not go ſo far as to break the bond of Internal Communion, but only of the External, that is to ſay, no longer to acknowledge others for our Brethren and Members of the ſame Body, nor to frequent the ſame Aſſemblies with them, this is a True Schiſm, which offends againſt the Laws of Charity, and which the Authors ſhall eſpecially anſwer for before the Judgement-ſeat of God. And ſuch were the Schiſms of the Novatians, the Donatiſts, the Luciferians and many others, which were founded meerly upon perſonal intereſts, or at leaſt upon light and frivolous pretences.
It is further beyond doubt, that we ought not to break that External Communion which it has with the worldly and profane that are mixt in a Religious Society, while they make a profeſſion of the true Faith, practiſing a ſincere Worſhip, and ſubmitting themſelves to that Rule of Manners which the Goſpel layes down to us, although otherwiſe their Lives and Actions ſhould very ill anſwer their Profeſſion. I confeſs, that every Church well ordered, ought to have its Laws for the repreſſing of the Vicious, and leading them back to repentance; and that when it cannot come to that end by the way of Exhortation and Cenſure, it has a right abſolutely to cut them off from the body of that Society. But beſides that thoſe kinds of Excommunications ought never to fall upon a whole people, or upon a whole multitude, for fear of involving the innocent with the guilty; they never ought to be uſed, but in reſpect of impenitent ſinners only, obſtinate in their crimes, and publickly maintaining them. For the reſt we ought to agree, that an exact diſcerning of the good and the wicked, will not be made till the laſt day; and that till then, God would have us ſuffer that mixture, without partaking with the ſins of the wicked, and without approving them; but yet without breaking under that pretence the bond of External Communion. The Reaſon of this conduct is, that it would not be poſſible for one to deprive ones ſelf of the communion of the wicked, without depriving ones ſelf at the ſame Time of that of many righteous, as St. Auguſtine has very well demonſtrated againſt the Donatiſts. So that it would not be a ſufficient reaſon for forſaking the communion of a Church, only to alledge a general depravation of manners, even when it ſhould be true, that it did reign therein.
But it is no leſs certain, that when it falls out, that one party of the Church conſidered in the ſecond reſpect, that is to ſay, in as much as it is a mingled Body of good and bad, ſhould confirm it ſelf in Errors, and in practices contrary to the ſervice of God and the ſalvation of men; and that not only it rejects the inſtructions given it upon that occaſion, but would even force all others to have the ſame ſentiments, and to practiſe the ſame Worſhip, the Separation of the other Party is juſt, neceſſary and indiſpenſable. It is juſt; for every where, where there can be nothing elſe but an unjuſt Communion, there is Juſtice in a Separation from it. But there can be nothing elſe but an unjuſt Communion with a Party, which eſſentially deſtroyes the True Worſhip of God, which ſhuts up it ſelf in Errors directly contrary to mens ſalvation, and which through an intolerable Tyranny would conſtrain all thoſe who live in it, to make a Profeſſion of the ſame Errors. It is then juſt for a man to ſeparate himſelf from it.
But I ſay further, that that Separation is neceſſary and indiſpenſable for divers Reaſons.
The Firſt of all is, becauſe of the viſible danger whereby a man would inſenſibly expoſe himſelf to let his Faith be corrupted, and his Worſhip be violated by the commerce which that ſame Communion would force him to. In effect, when a man is in thoſe Aſſemblies, and ſees himſelf under one and the ſame Miniſtry with perſons infected with Errors, and engaged in a falſe Worſhip, and who would force all others to be there too, what caution ſoever he ſhould uſe, it is impoſſible that he ſhould preſerve himſelf in Purity, or at leaſt, that he ſhould not be in continual danger of corrupting himſelf, or falling into hypocriſie in making a profeſſion to believe that which he does not. He ought therefore to ſeparate himſelf.
Secondly, He ought to do ſo, by reaſon of the inevitable danger to which he would expoſe his children. For if it ſhould be true, that Adult perſons might live in communion with ſuch a Party as I have ſuppos'd, without being infected with its poyſon, or without being hypocrites, which it is no wayes poſſible for them to do, it would not be conceivable, that their children could be exempted from that danger by ordinary wayes, whatſoever care they ſhould elſewhere take of their education. It would be therefore to proſtitute and deſtroy them, and by conſequence for a man to deſtroy himſelf; for every one ought to anſwer before God for the ſalvation of his children as his own.
But beſides theſe two intereſts, which impoſe an indiſpenſable neceſſity on him, it is (3.) further certain, that a man could not without a crime, nor even without a manifeſt contradiction, own thoſe for his brethren, whom he believes God does not own for his children, and who are not in a condition to become ſuch. A Religious Society is a Myſtical Family, into which, to judge of it according to its natural appointment, one ought to admit thoſe only, who may be charitably and rationally judg'd to be in a ſtate of Adoption towards God, and at the fartheſt, ſuch as are apparently in a ſtate of Converſion, or of Repentance: and in regard even of theſe latter, there ought to be ſome Time ſuſpended, before the giving them external pledges of that Communion, till their Converſion, or their Repentance appear more fully. They ſuffer the wicked to be there, when their birth or their hypocriſie have externally introduc'd them, only by accident, to avoid troubles and ſcandals. And therefore it was that the Ancient Church acknowledg'd but three ſorts of perſons only to be in its Communion, the Faithful, the Catechumeni, and the Penitents; but as for thoſe who taught falſe Doctrine, or practis'd a falſe Worſhip, it never had any Union with them. Not only the Ancients had no Communion with them; but to ſhew how neceſſary and indiſpenſable they judg'd a ſeparation from them to be, they went ſo far as to refuſe their Communion with the Orthodox themſelves, when either by ſurpriſe or weakneſs, or ſome other intereſt, they had receiv'd Hereticks into their Communion, altho' as to themſelves they had kept their Faith in its Purity. We find in the Life of Gregory Nazianzen, that his Father, who was alſo called Gregory, and who was Biſhop of Nazianzen before him, having been deceiv'd by a fallacious Writing, and having given his Communion to the Arians, all the Monks of his Dioceſs, with the greateſt part of his Church ſeparated themſelves from him, altho' they well knew, that he had not changed his mind, nor embraced Hereſie. And even the Orthodox of the Church of Rome refuſed to hold Communion with Pope Felix, as Theodoret tells us, altho' he intirely held the Creed of the Council of Nice, becauſe he held Communion with the Arians. This I mention not abſolutely to approve of that carriage, but only to ſhew, how far their averſion went heretofore, which they had for holding Communion with Hereticks.
Thoſe who are prepoſſeſs'd againſt all ſorts of Separation in the Matters of Religion, ought to remember, that the obligation that lyes upon them to hold Communion with thoſe with whom they are externally joyn'd, is not without its bounds and meaſures. We are joyn'd together under certain conditions, which are principally the profeſſion of a pure faith, or at leaſt ſuch as is free from all damnable Errors, a Worſhip freed from all that which is oppoſite to the eſſence of Piety; in a word, a Publick Miniſtry, under which we may work out our own ſalvation. While theſe conditions remain, they make the Communion ſubſiſt; but when they fail, the Communion fails alſo, and there is a juſt ground for a Separation, provided we obſerve theſe neceſſary Cautions.
They cannot ſay, in this caſe, that we ſeparate our ſelves from the Church, nor that we forſake her Communion, or that we break her Unity. For the forſaken party being truly ſuch as we ſuppoſe it, ought not to be any more looked on as the Church of Jeſus Chriſt, but only as a party of the worldly who were before mingled with the Truly Faithful, and who through their obſtinacy in their Errors and falſe Worſhip had diſcover'd themſelves, and had themſelves torn off the vail which as yet confounded them after a manner, with the others. The Orthodox in the firſt Ages did not in the leaſt break the Unity of the Church, when they would not hold Communion with the Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Montaniſts, the Manichees, and the other Heterodox of thoſe times, as I have noted already, no more than thoſe, who with ſo much conſtancy and reſolution refuſed to hold Communion with the Arrians.
We ought not therefore preſently to condemn all kind of Separation; and ſince there are ſuch kinds of it as are neceſſary, juſt and lawful, as there are ſuch as are unjuſt and raſh, it would be the extremity of folly to judge of all after the ſame manner without any difference or diſtinction. The Roman Church her ſelf, which has ſometimes cut off whole Nations, as France and Germany from her Communion, which may have been ſeen to have been ſo often divided into divers parties, whereof one has excommunicated the other, would not it may be freely ſuffer, that we ſhould treat of matters with this confuſion. So that diſputing at preſent about our Separation with her, we ſhall demand no unjuſt or unreaſonable thing, when we tell them that we ought to examine of what nature that Separation is, to conſider the reaſons, and wiſely to weigh the circumſtances; for if our Fathers ſeparated themſelves upon light grounds, and without having any ſufficient cauſe, if they were even under circumſtances which ought to have bound them to have remained united with the other Party, which was not for a Reformation, we ſhall agree with all our hearts to condemn them: but if, on the contrary, the reaſons which they had were juſt, ſufficient and neceſſary, if there was nothing in the circumſtances of times, places, perſons that could hinder them from doing that which they did, it is certain, that inſtead of condemning them, we ſhould bleſs them, we ſhould think our ſelves happy in following their footſteps; and as for the reproaches and venomous accuſations of the Author of the Prejudices and ſuch like, we ſhould bear them with patience, looking on them as the effect of a blind paſſion.
Let us therefore begin to make that Examination, by the Cauſes of our Separation. Every one knows what the matters that divide us are; that they are not either Points of meer Diſcipline, ſuch as that for which Victor Biſhop of Rome ſeparated his Church from thoſe of Aſia, who ſhould keep the Feaſt of Eaſter on the fourteenth day of the Moon, nor meerly Queſtions of the School, which conſiſt in nothing but terms remote from the knowledge of the Vulgar, as that which they call trium Capitulorum, which raiſed ſo many troubles in the Times of the Emperour Juſtinian and Pope Vigilius; nor in meer perſonal intereſts, ſuch as we may ſee in the Schiſms of Anti-Popes; nor purely in perſonal Crimes or Accuſations, as in the Schiſm of the Donatiſts; nor even in a general corruption of Manners, altho' that was extreamly great in the time of our Fathers. The Articles that ſeparate us, are points that according to us, eſſentially diſturb the Faith by which we are united to Jeſus Chriſt, points which eſſentially alter the Worſhip that we owe to God, which eſſentially deprave the ſources of our Juſtification, and which corrupt both the external and internal means of our obtaining Grace and Glory. In a word, they are ſuch Points as we believe to be wholly incompatible with ſalvation, and which by conſequence hinder us from being able to give it the Title or the Quality of a true Church of Jeſus Chriſt to a Party which is obſtinate in the profeſſion and practice of them, and which would force us to be ſo too. I confeſs, that we cannot ſay, that our Controverſies are all of that importance; there are ſome undoubtedly, which are of leſſer weight and force, which it was fitting for them to reform themſelves in, but which notwithſtanding would not have given alone a juſt cauſe of Separation. In this rank I place the Queſtion of the Limbus of the Antient Fathers, that of the Local Deſcent of Jeſus Chriſt into Hell, that of the diſtinction of Prieſts and Biſhops to be of Divine Right, that of the keeping of Lent, and ſome others of that nature, where there might have been ſeen Error and Superſtition enough to be corrected; but which would not have gone ſo far, as to have cauſed a rupture of Communion. So that, it is not for theſe kinds of things, that our Fathers left the Church of Rome; they had more ſufficient, more urgent and indiſpenſable reaſons in the other controverſies, among which, that of Juſtification by Meritorious Works, and by Indulgences, Tranſubſtantiation, the Adoration of the Euchariſt, the Sacrifice of the Maſs, Invocation of Saints and Angels, religious worſhipping of Images, Humane Satisfactions, the Lordſhip of the Pope and his Clergy over mens Conſciences, held the chiefeſt place. Theſe are the true Points which cauſed a Separation; and if the others contributed any thing to it, it was only by the connexion which they had with theſe here; or becauſe they noted a general Spirit of Superſtition contrary to true Piety; or in fine, by reaſon of their number: for ſometimes divers both leſs dangerous each to a part, all together make a mortal and incurable diſeaſe. However it be, it appears that our Fathers had beſides but too juſt and neceſſary reaſons of their Separation.
But to come to ſet out this matter in its full evidence, it will be requiſite to ſee what they can ſay in oppoſition to what I have ſaid. It ſeems to me, that they can take but one of theſe Three ſides. 1. Either to deny, that the Tranſubſtantiation, Adoration of the Euchariſt, the Sacrifice of the Maſs, &c. which we call Errors, are ſo in effect: Or, 2. To ſay, That even when they ſhould ſuppoſe that they were Errors, they would not nevertheleſs take away from the Church of Rome the quality of a true Church. Neither would they be incompatible with ſalvation, and by conſequence they could not be a ſufficient cauſe of Separation. 3. Or in fine, to maintain, that even when theſe Points ſhould be a ſufficient cauſe of Separation, they could not be ſo, at leaſt in regard of our Fathers, becauſe our Fathers were by right ſubject to their ordinary Paſtors, dependent upon their Hierarchical Government, and chiefly upon that of the Church of Rome, which they pretend, is the Mother and Miſtreſs of all others, and the Center of Chriſtian Unity; from whence it follows, that they could never ſeparate themſelves, but that on the contrary they were bound to receive all the conditions it required to be in its Communion. Theſe are the only Three things in my judgement, which they can propoſe with any colour. I will examine the laſt in the following Chapter; let us here conſider theſe two others.
The Firſt neceſſarily engages the man who will make uſe of it, to enter into an Examination of the foundation of thoſe matters, or which comes to the ſame things, ſolidly to eſtabliſh the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, and of that Party that adheres to it; which is a general Controverſie, that includes all the others, as I have ſhewn in the Firſt Part of this Work: And by conſequence, he muſt renounce all that wrangling diſpute which goes only upon prejudices. The juſtice or injuſtice of our Separation will depend on the Foundation. For how can they aſſure themſelves, that thoſe things which we call Errors and a falſe Worſhip are on the contrary, Evangelical Truths, and a right and lawful Worſhip, without going on to that Examination: which ſhews, as I have already frequently obſerved, that all thoſe indirect attacks which they aſſault us with, are nothing elſe but vain amuſings, and beatings of the Air, which ſerve only to make a noiſe.
The ſecond thing will not leſs engage them in the Examination of the foundation of thoſe matters, than the Firſt. For in ſuppoſing that thoſe things which we call Errors, are ſuch in effect, they muſt neceſſarily ſee, of what nature they are, and what oppoſition they have to true Piety, to judge aright, whether they are ſufficient cauſes for a Separation, and whether our conſcience cannot accommodate it ſelf to them. I confeſs, that this is no very hard matter to be known; for how ſmall a knowledge ſoever they may have of Religion and the Worſhip of God, they may very eaſily perceive, that if Tranſubſtantiation for example, is an Error, they cannot but adore the ſubſtance of Bread in the room of Jeſus Chriſt; they may eaſily perceive, that if the worſhipping of Images is forbidden by the ſecond Commandment of the Law, they draw upon themſelves the jealouſie of God, as he himſelf declares there; they may eaſily perceive, that if the Sacrifice of the Maſs is not in effect a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which they may apply to themſelves the vertue of that on the Croſs, they do an injury to the only Sacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt, and that they vainly ſeek the vertue of it in an Act, where it is not applyed: They may eaſily perceive, that if the Lordſhip that the Church of Rome or its Councils, uſurp over mens Conſciences, is ill-grounded; that they render unto men a kind of adoration which is only due to God alone, which cannot but be an unpardonable crime in regard of him who has ſaid, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods before me. But whether it would be an eaſie or a difficult matter to be known, that is not the buſineſs about which we diſpute at preſent. It is ſufficient to ſhew, that the Separation of our Fathers had juſt; ſufficient, neceſſary and indiſputable cauſes; ſuppoſing that what they ſaid of the Errors of the Church of Rome were true, and that they could not be accuſed either of raſhneſs or of Schiſm, without conteſting their ſuppoſition; nor that they could conteſt their ſuppoſition, without coming to an inſpection into the very things themſelves. Whence it follows, that all that diſpute which they raiſe againſt us about Forms, is but a meer vain wrangling, unworthy of any ſound perſons. If that which our Fathers have laid down concerning the Errors which the Church of Rome forces men to believe to be of her Communion, be not true, we do not any further pretend to defend their Separation; but if it be true, God and men will bear them witneſs, that it was juſtly done, and according to the dictates of an upright conſcience.
They will ſay it may be, That we ought not upon ſuch light grounds to ſuppoſe, that that which our Fathers ſaid concerning the Errors of the Church of Rome, is true: ſince they are the Points in diſpute, wherein the Church of Rome pretends that we are in an Error, as we pretend that ſhe is. But there cannot be any thing ſaid more frivolous; for the ſuppoſition that we make, is in words of good ſenſe and right reaſon, becauſe we make it to force our adverſaries to come to a diſcuſſion of the things themſelves, upon which the judgement that ought to be made of our Separation depends, and to make them acknowledge, that all thoſe Accuſations which they form againſt our Fathers, that they have broken the Chriſtian Unity, that they have forſook the Church, that they have made a criminal Schiſm, are raſh accuſations, unjuſt and precipitate, ſince they cannot rightly judge of their Action, either to condemn or abſolve it, until firſt of all they have examined the Cauſes of their Separation, and the Reaſons which they have alledged, which can never be done, but by a diſcuſſion of the Foundation. In effect, Every Accuſation, which has no certain Foundation, and which one muſt be compell'd to retract, is precipitate and raſh. But that which they form againſt our Fathers, before their having examined the foundation, is of that nature. It has no certain foundation; for they cannot know, whether their action be juſt or unjuſt; and they may be forced to retract it, when they ſhall have examined their reaſons. It is therefore a condemnable raſhneſs in them who have a right to repell, till they have made that examination; and it is to oblige them to do it, that we ſuppoſe, that our Fathers had right at the Foundation.