The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 33
But after all our arguings about these matters, §. 33.Mr. A. saith, the Controversie stands still, where it did these hundred years, and more: I utterly deny that, for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years, than they did in a hundred years before; as appears by the foregoing discourse. However, they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters, and so long they cannot joyn with us, and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies; so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation; and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful. This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation, which I shall consider both wayes. (1.) As it respects the Churches censures. (2.) As it respects the judgement of Conscience.
1. As it respects the Churches censures. 1. Answer to Serm. p. 47, 48.This Mr. B. often insists upon. The Canons, saith he, excommucate ipso facto, all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful. Plea for Peace, p. 232, 233.If this be unjust, is it separation to be so excommunicated? And who is the Schismatick here? Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you? And if men be wrongfully excommunicate, are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God? or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion? To this I answer, That the Excommunication denounced, is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed, but against those who obstinately affirm it? The words of the Canon are not, as Mr. B. quotes them, If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy, Ceremonies, &c. to be unlawful are excommunicate, ipso facto;Ca…. 6. but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England, established by Law, to be impious, Anti-Christian, or Superstitious, let him be Excommunicate ipso facto. Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon; for to say, if any man do but affirm, &c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto; but when the Canon saith, if any shall affirm, &c, it implies, these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication, viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately: (Both which the word Affirm will bear.) For, as S. Augustin very well saith,Aug. … R…ig. c. …. every mans errour is born with, until he either finds an accuser, or he obstinately defends his opinion. Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujus…ibet, donec aut accusatorem inveniat, aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat. All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition, according to the Rule, If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen, or a Publican. Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak, do not affect particular persons, until the evidence be notorious, not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it. Besides, such excommunications which are de jure & latae sententiae, are rather to be looked on, as Comminations, than as formal excommunications. …For Gerson putting the question, what the effect of such excommunications is? he answers, that it is no more than this, that there needs no new judicial process, but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence. Which, he saith, he learnt from his Master, who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray. And if it requires a new sentence, …then it doth not actually excommunicate. But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large; to whom I refer the Reader. As to the practice of Canon Law in England, De Constit. c. quia incontinent. ipso facto.Lyndwood saith, that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary, notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto. And it is a Rule in our Church, Can. 65.that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months, that others may have notice of them; and until the sentence be thus declared, I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication, though it be said to be ipso facto. For although the sentence seem peremptory, yet ipso facto, doth suppose a fact, and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church; of which there must be evident proof brought, before the sentence can take hold of the Person. And to make the sentence valid as to the person, there must be due execution of it; and the question in this case then is, whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication, be bound to execute this sentence upon himself? which he must do, if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication. Plea for Pea…e p. 2….And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point; Although, saith he, we are excommunicated ipso facto, yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence; but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact, and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us. And so he hath fully answered his own objection. But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating with a Church, who are first excommunicated by that Church? Yes, in these cases they may (1.) when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence. For, otherwise, no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism; if it declared before hand, that all those who held such Doctrines, or condemned such Practices, should be excommunicated. To make this plain by Instances: Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism; R. Williams and his Company oppose it; they upon this are actually excommunicated; may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not? If they are Schismaticks notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication; then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism. Dis…ipl. de France, Des Minist. art. 5.By the Constitution of the Churches of France, every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick; Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick, because this amounts to an excommunication, ipso facto? So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication; if any had been excommunicated on this account, would this excuse them from the charge of Schism, in the judgement of the Covenanters? By the Constitutions of Geneva, any one that opposes, or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together, is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year; as Calvin himself relates it. Suppose this were meerly excommunication for so long;Calvin. Epist. …. p. 311. would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that? For he fully declares his mind in this case,p. 122. on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell; where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate; if that did not prevail, they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church; which, saith he, is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture; therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it. Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church; and much more certainly, if they publickly affirm them to be Impious, Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth: and no Church in the world, but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds; and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism, they may be guilty of it still, although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts. (2.) If they proceed to form new Churches; as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances; and let him judge, whether all persons so excommunicated, would not have been condemned much more for Schismaticks, if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs.…. c. 6. S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated; and he saith, they are to bear it with patience, for the peace of the Church, and such will still maintain the true faith, sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione, without running into separate Meetings; although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated. Such as these, saith he, the Father which seeth in secret, will reward and crown in secret. This kind seems very rare, but there want not instances, yea, there are more than can be believed.