The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 20
Sect. 20. Others pretend, that the Apostle means no more by these words, but that Christians must live up to their knowledge, and mind that one thing. This is a very new Exposition; and the Author of it intends to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it. It is pitty therefore it should pass, without some consideration.Mischief of Imposit. p. 6, 7. But, I pass by the Childish triflings about foreign, a Canon, viz. that is not taken in a Military notion, because great Guns were not then invented; that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation; which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools; unless, perhaps, they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text; but however, methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate.
I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. foreign he observes from Grotius, is left out in one MS (it may be the Alexandrian) but, What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies? not only the Modern, but those which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact had, who all keep it in. But suppose it be left out, the sence is the very same to my purpose. No, saith he, foreign, To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent foreign. And what then? Then, saith he, the sense is, What we have attained let us walk up to the same; Which comes to no more than this, unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached, let us walk sutably to it.
But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge; but of the union and conjuction of Christians, as appears by the next words foreign, to mind the same thing. No such matter, saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing; or that very thing, viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark. But if he had pleased to have read on, but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found foreign, to signifie Vnanimity. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12▪ 25▪ opposes the foreign to foreign. That there be no Schism in the Body, but that all the Members should take care of foreign, one for another: and therefore the foreign, minding the same things, is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions. I should think St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase, as well as our Author, and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians. Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek, yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place; and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church, De Baptismo, …c, Donat. l. 2. c, 4, 5.in St. Cyprians case. By this tast, let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning, or rather the height of his Confidence, who dares to tell the World, That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current, besides Grotius, who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine, viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies, should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine; he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy, and then cries, In a word, they all conspire against my Interpretation. If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors, he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers. Had it not been fairer dealing, in one word, to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis? For, if he had looked into Zanchy himself, he would have found, how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church. Mr. B. saith,… That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question; and that to all Christians, though of different attainments; and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians, notwithstanding other differences. And if he will but allow, that by vertue of this Rule, Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church, we have no farther difference about this matter: For then, I am sure, it will follow, that if occasional Communion be lawful, constant Communion will be a Duty.
And so much for the first sort of Dissenters, who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful.