Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism, Title page – Errata
A DEFENCE OF Mr. M. H's Brief ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF SCHISM And the Vindication of it.
WITH REFLECTIONS Upon a Pamphlet called The Review, &c.
And a Brief Hiſtorical Account of Nonconformity from the Reformation to this Preſent Time.
LONDON, Printed by T. S. for Tho. Parkhurſt, at the Bible and Three Crowns, at the Lower End of Cheapſide near Mercers Chappel, 1693.
THE PREFACE.
I Expect to hear from all Sides, that ſuch Controverſies as theſe, at this time a day, are very inopportune and Ill adviſed; I confeſs we have as much reaſon to value our preſent Eaſe and Quiet as any People in the World, and to avoid every thing that may diſturb or indanger it: And we have not ſo abandon'd the Principles of Self-preſervation, as willingly to expoſe our ſelves to repeated Severities.
And if I had not ſome Cauſe to believe that our ſilent diſregard of the Abuſes put upon us, will be made (by Innuendo's) a Confeſſion of Guilt, and will harden and encourage our Adverſaries againſt us, I would have took no notice of the Citizen's Reply, but have left him and his Learned Cabal, to the ſweet Delights of a fancied Conqueſt.
I know we may ſafely appeal, from his ſordid Calumnies, to the juſter Sentiments, of the ſobereſt and wiſeſt of the Epiſcopal Perſwaſion, who have been full as ſevere in the Cenſure of his Pamphlets, as is neceſſary for us to be; but I am alſo aſſured, there are too many in this emancipated Age, that are paſſionately fond of any thing that throws dirt upon Diſſenters, and true or falſe, ſence or nonſence, it is all one to them; whoſe inſatiable Luſts have left them neither Time nor Capacity to ſearch into the true ſtate and merits of the Cauſe.
I wonder upon what Inducement, this Gentleman ſhould take upon him to quarrel with Mr. H's Enquiry, unleſs it were that he might make himſelf the Favourite of ſuch a Generation of Men; or that his Ghoſtly Fathers had obliged him to do Pennance in thoſe Sheets; I know not what could have been writ, more fair and inoffenſive, than that Book; Schiſm was the Word, that had animated Men with a ſtrange, Blind Zeal, againſt all thoſe upon whom their Leading Men had fixed the mark; and it was given out with ſo much Induſtry, as if it had been the Shibboleth of the Party, reſerved for ſome ſpecial Service againſt a convenient Seaſon.
Mr. H. kindly endeavoured to undeceive them, and by enquiring into the Quality of thoſe Actions, upon which this Sin is charged in Scripture to diſcover its true formal Nature, that Men might not fight in the dark, and build vaſt and endleſs Controverſies upon a ſingle Word, and that too not rightly underſtood.
He obſerves that the word Schiſm is not uſed in Scripture in any ſence applicable to the preſent Caſe, ſave only three times in St. Paul's firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, thoſe places he has particularly examined. He ſhews that thoſe Schiſmatical Corinthians met in the ſame place ſtill, but contending with one another, about ſome leſſer matters to the breach of Chriſtian Love, and Mutual Alienation of their Affections, fell into the Sin there called Schiſm; Enquiry, p. 9.concluding from hence, that the formal Nature of this Sin conſiſts not in Separation of Communion, but in the Violation of that Love and Charity there ought to be amongst Chriſtians; Acknowledging nevertheleſs, that many Overt Actions may be, and are Schiſmatical, as they proceed from this Uncharitableneſs; and he mentions ſuch as theſe, Judging and Condemning one another about the Circumſtantials of Religion; reproaching and reviling each other; making, approving, and executing Penal Laws, about ſuch things; and Separation from Communion with thoſe we have joyn'd our ſelves to without cauſe; that is, (as he explains it) without regard had to any thing amiſs in the Church we ſeparate from, or any thing better in that we joyn our ſelves to, which he calls Separation for Separation's ſake; This is Schiſm, not barely becauſe Separation, but becauſe animated by that Uncharitableneſs and Diſaffection, which in Scripture is known by the Name of Schiſm.
The Gentleman, could not digeſt a Notion ſo far different from what he had imbib'd; Reply, p. 2.but tells us, Mr. H's Book had not much more of Schiſm than of the Philoſopher's Stone in it: He was loth ſo heavy a Charge ſhould lye againſt Uncharitableneſs, which being a main Ingredient in his own Conſtitution, muſt be more ſoftly and tenderly handled, he thinks it more Prudent to lay the Fault ſo, as he may bear the leaſt ſhare of it himſelf; Arch-Rebel, p. 10.and therefore boldly affirms, that Diverſity of Communion is the Ratio formalis of Schiſm; and more than that, ſays he, has proved it to be ſo.
The Author of the Vindication juſtly blam'd him, for ſo raſh and confident an Aſſertion, as giving the Lye to the Word of God, which Charges the Corinthians with the Guilt of Schiſm, when there was no ſuch diverſity of Communion; and can there be a Schiſm where that is wanting, which he calls the true formal Nature of Schiſm? Can a thing exist without its Eſſential Form? To this, the Gentleman replies, Shall a Cut in the Arm be truly Schiſm, and not the ſeparating the Arm from the Body? If Paul condemned the Corinthians of Schiſm, for preferring one Miniſter before another, Shall that far greater Crime of ſeparating from them, be excluded from Schiſm? This Gentleman is a topping Accuſer.
But we cannot Complement this Gentleman ſo far as to call him a Topping Defendant; For the Queſtion was not, Whether there may not be a Separation that is really Schiſmatical, Mr. H. granted that; But whether Separation be the very Eſſence and formal Nature of Schiſm? If ſo, then there can be no Schiſm without ſuch Separation; which is falſe, as in the Caſe of the Corinthians; nor any Separation without Schiſm, which is equally falſe; for in many caſes we may be obliged in Duty to ſeparate: His Compariſon of Cutting the Arm from the Body is like it ſelf, Lame and Defective; for ſometimes ſuch a Sciſſure may be neceſſary to keep the Body from periſhing: In ſhort, if Separation be needleſs, it is ſinful; if Uncharitable, it is Schiſmatical; if neither needleſs nor Uncharitable, it is a Duty; And let it be obſerved by the way, that in this Reply, the Gentleman acknowledges the Corinthians were guilty of Schiſm, though they did not Separate; when before he told us, he had proved that the Ratio formalis of Schiſm, conſiſts in Separation, let him reconcile theſe things at his leiſure.
He thinks if ſuch Uncharitableneſs be Schiſm, it must follow, à minori ad majus, diverſity of Communion is much more ſo; but the reaſoning is not good, for Uncharitableneſs can in no caſe be lawful, but Separation may: He himſelf acknowledges, that if any of their terms of Communion be ſinful, our Separation is juſtifiable; and yet even in that caſe, Uncharitableneſs would be a Sin.
If this Gentleman muſt needs let the World ſee his Talent in Controverſie, he ſhould have taken up the true Queſtion, as it was laid before him, VVhat is that which the Scripture calls Schiſm? and ſhould have proved in all thoſe Inſtances, where mention is made of it, that there was not only Alienation of Affection, but diverſity of Communion; and when he had done this, it had been time enough to have boaſted, that he had anſwered Mr. H's Enquiry, till then his Labour is impertinent, and his Triumphs ridiculous.
But inſtead of obſerving this Proper and Neceſſary Method, which by all the Laws of Argument he was bound to, he ranges from the Point, and Chimes upon thoſe decantate terms, Church, Unity, Communion, Obedience, Succeſſion, &c. and is wonderfully pleaſed with the melodious Sound of words he does not underſtand; for though he ſhould from theſe Topicks, prove the Practice of Diſſenters to be ſinful, yet he cannot prove it to be that Sin which in Scripture is called Schiſm, unleſs he can diſcover in it, that Uncharitableneſs, and want of Chriſtian Affection, which is the very thing called by that Name in ſacred Writ.
This would be ſufficient for the Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry, without ever entring upon the Lawfulneſs or Fault of Nonconformity; but ſince the Valiant Man has challenged us into that Field of Argument, we have gone along with him into it, and endeavoured to juſtifie our Practice not only from the Crime of Schiſm, but any other of which it has been accuſed, and how far we have ſucceeded in this Affair, is with all poſſible reſpect referred to the Cenſure of the Learned and Moderate of both Perſwaſions.
The grand Impertinencies expoſed in the Gentleman's firſt Paper, he has endeavoured to defend in the latter; but through the Common Misfortune of a Man that meddles with what he does not underſtand, he is more bewildred and confounded than before; and indeed of all things that ever ſet up for a Defence of ſo Learned a Party as the Epiſcopal, I never ſaw any thing comparable to this, for Stile and Argument, unleſs it were the famous Works of Mrs. Eleanor James, to which this Gentleman's Reply bears ſuch a marvellous reſemblance, that a man would almoſt conclude it to be the iſſue of ſome Friendly Conference betwixt our Citizen, and that renowned Heroine.
I wonder why he ſhould be ſo much diſturbed, that the Vindicator has concealed his Name, eſpecially when he did not think fit to diſcover his own; for T. W. Citizen of Cheſter, is a Cypher ſo general, as remits us to conjecture, and common fame, and leaves him room to eſcape, if any ſuch danger ſhould happen, as he portends concerning his adverſary; but what great matter is it, who is meant by T. W. or what that mans name is, that has adventured to encounter him; it is not names, but things, that we have to examine; and yet by his little contemptible menaces, it is very apparent, that he would gladly betake himſelf to their former way of Confuting Diſſenters, as that which was always found to be the moſt eaſie and effectual.
He Triumphs in the Effects of his former Paper, one of which was, few believed but that it was done by ſome Clergy-man, who had prevailed with him to Print it in his Name; That is to ſay, they thought it beyond the longth of T. W. to write ſuch a Book; a ſhrewd ſign, that his Neighbours have no great Opinion of his Abilities, if they thought ſuch ſtuff was above him; but as his Name is capable of giving little Reputation to another mans work, ſo I dare ſay no Clergy man in Cheſter will grudge him the Honour of his own.
He would not be thought, to have acted beneath himſelf in his Reply, and therefore he magnifies the Stature of his Adverſary, and tranſforms the Vindicator into a Ship, and by all means, it muſt be one of the firſt Rate, that was choſen to Attack and Fire all its Guns, at his mighty Self, ſo happy a thing it is to have Gazetts and News Letters always at hand, where a man can never fail of being furniſhed, with Admirable Metaphors, but (if we muſt needs ſpeak in ſuch Bombardick Language) though the Vindicator was ſize enough, for the Service aſſigned him, yet there was no need of chuſing a Man of War of the firſt Rate, to engage a diſabled Frigat, Venus arta Mari.whoſe Maſt and Tackling, had ſuffered miſerably in ſome hot Sea-fights heretofore.
But 'tis no part of my deſign, to vye with him in his Bantering Dialect, I ſhall therefore apply my ſelf in good earneſt, to the matter in Hand, and in the Remainder of this Preface, defend ſome leſſer Paſſages in the Vindication, which this Gentleman either does not underſtand, or will not ſeem to do ſo, and afterwards proceed to the more material parts of the Controverſie.
In his firſt Paper he pretends to tell us, of the Origination and firſt Exiſtence of the Church, which he dates only from the time of Pentecoſt, mentioned Acts 2. The Vindicator thought there was Reaſon to find fault with that Account of the Matter, not only becauſe it excludes the Angels, which but a few Lines before, this Gentleman had told us, were members of the Church, but eſpecially, becauſe it ſhuts out the Jewiſh Church, as it ſtood in Old Teſtament Times; but he has a Salvo ready ſuch as it is, and he that can content himſelf with ſuch a one will never be at want, for … …oes. The Church was never called Catholick before that … …oſt, the Wall of Partition not being broken down; But if I miſtake not, he promiſed to ſhew us, when the Church had its firſt Exiſtence, not when it acquired a new Title; it's an odd way of arguing, The Church was firſt called Catholick at Pentecoſt, therefore it had its firſt Exiſtence then, a miſerable Conſequence, and yet as good as the Antecedent, for it is not true that the Church was called Catholick at that time, nor do we find it once ſo called in all the Scripture that I know of (and the Wall of Partition was broken down at Chriſts Death, when the Vail of the Temple was rent in ſunder) and if in ſpight of all Reaſon the Exiſtence of a Church muſt needs commence with its acqueſt of a new Title, he muſt ſtill fix his Epocha much lower; and yet I know not, why the Name Catholick, may not (if men pleaſe) be attributed to the Jewiſh Church, which was before its Apoſtacy the whole, and the true Viſible Church of God upon Earth.
The Vindicator told him, nothing could be proved from the bare Name of Biſhops in Scripture-times, to favour our Engliſh Prelacy, till the Power of thoſe Biſhops, the Extent of their Dioceſes, the Quality of their Under-Officers, the Modes of their Worſhip, and Terms of Communion, be proved to be the ſame with ours, or liable to the ſame Exceptions; To this the Gentleman replies, I cannot underſtand this laſt Sentence (or liable to the ſame Exceptions,) unleſs he would make the Primitive Church liable to the ſame Exceptions; But I hope we are not to be blamed, for the dullneſs of his underſtanding; The Expreſſion is Plain and Pertinent, He knows very well what Exceptions we make, againſt the Power of our Engliſh Prelates, &c. Now if he can prove that the ſame Objections lye againſt the Primitive Epiſcopacy, he ſhews thereby that they are frivolous and unjuſt, and throws them out of doors, as militating againſt Scripture Biſhops as well as ours; one would have thought the meaneſt Citizen in Cheſter, might have underſtood this, but it will never be better, when men take upon them to be Authors, in ſpight of Nature and Education.
He condemns the Vindicator, as having no regard to Eccleſiaſtical Antiquity, for ſpeaking of Scripture Rules, before they were written, this lets us ſee, What Mercy we may expect from him, when we ſtand in need of it: We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can; and as to this matter, a few Words will evince, that his Reflection is very unjuſt.
In his former Paper, Arch-Rebel, p. 2.ſpeaking of the Progreſs of the Goſpel, and planting the ſeven Aſian Churches, in St. Johns time, he adds, Though there was a Multiplication of Churches, yet no Variation; here the Vindicator enquired; What does he mean in ſaying there was no Variation? Was there no variety at all in any Circumſtance of Worſhop that's gratis dictum? if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules, (though we are afraid that will ſcarce hold yet) we wiſh it had been ſo ſtill. Now it ſeems the Vindicators Errour was, he ſpoke of Scripture Rules in the Apoſtolical Age, and they were not then written; No? That's ſomething ſtrange, were not the Goſpels and Epiſtles writ by Evangeliſts and Apoſtles, during the time of their Lives? No Legend that ever I heard of, tells us of their riſing from the dead, and writing to the Churches; And if they writ their Epiſtles, containing Rules for Divine Worſhip, why may not thoſe be called Scripture Rules: What if they were not Collected as ſoon as they were writ, were they not therefore both Scripture, and Authoritative? And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time, and that this awful Sanction, If any ſhall add to theſe things, God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book, &c. Refers not only to the Apocalypſe, but to the whole Canon, and ſtands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life, and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules, that were not written in the Time of the Apoſtles, I deſpair of ever coming to an agreement with him.
And it is certain, there is a very material difference betwixt us, about the Rule and Standard of Controverſie, which muſt be firſt adjuſted, before we can well proceed any further, for if we take different Meaſures, we ſhall certainly give a very different account.
Mr. H. deſirous to find out the true Notion of Schiſm, takes for his Rule, all thoſe places in the New Teſtament, where that Word is found; This the Gentleman is offended at, and tells him, If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apoſtles Creed, then he had found out the true Standard of this Controverſie; And the Vindicator thought, there was more Reaſon to be offended with him, for declining the ſufficiency of the Scripture, as the ſtandard of Faith and Practice, this he cenſured as an affront to Scripture, and common Senſe too, for when the Authority of that Creed depends ſolely upon its agreement with Scripture, how ſenceleſs a thing is it, to make that a truer Standard than Scripture, whoſe Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it? What defence now will the Citizen make? As good as he can afford no doubt; He charges the Vindicator with ſaying, that an Article of Faith, is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence, which is as falſe as any thing in the World, we appeal to the Readers Eyes, and deſire no other favour, but that he Read true.
To bring himſelf off, he acknowledges, That the Scripture indeed is the trueſt touch-ſtone of Sin and Duty, but he adds, whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture, in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed, muſt needs err; and we are aſſured of the Errour, by that Article it contradicts.
Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity, yet it will not ſerve his turn; for then he ſhould not have accuſed Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard, but have proved, that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Caſe, which are two different things; a man may take a true meaſure, and yet miſtake in meaſuring a thing by it, but to tell him in the former Paper, of not finding out the true ſtandard, and to think to come off in this, by blaming his Expoſition of it, is a very ſorry ſhift, which his Ignorance, or Inadvertency has forced him upon.
And yet we muſt not let him go, without further Examination about this matter, for it is certain he is fallen into a moſt dangerous Errour, making the Compilers of the Apoſtolical and Nicene Creeds, the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture; for ſo he tells us. Reply, p. 11.We come to be infallibly aſſured, that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture againſt the Divinity of Chriſt is Falſe, becauſe it contradicts that Article, I believe in Jeſus the onelyonly begotten Son of God, and that in the Nicene Creed, God of God, very God of very God, being of one Subſtance with the Father.
This is an Opinion, which his own Spiritual Guides, are obliged to chaſtize him for, being ſo contrary to the avowed Principles of all Proteſtant Churches, and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily aſſerted in their late Writings againſt the Papiſts, to which I refer him for his better Information, amongſt others, let him conſult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock, in his Preſervative againſt Popery, where having declared that the Proteſtants abide by that, Part 1ſt. P. 49.which they ſee plainly proved out of Scripture, bids us put this Queſtion, How ſhall we know what is the true ſenſe of Scriptures, and propoſes three ways, either by an Infallible Interpreter, or the unanimous Conſent of the Fathers, or by ſuch humane means as are uſed, to find out the ſenſe of other Books; He rejects the Pretenſions of an Infallible Interpreter, and diſapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Conſent of the Fathers, and concludes there is no way left, but to expound it as we do other Writings, by conſidering the Signification, and Propriety of Words, and Phraſes, the Scope and Context of the Place, the Reaſon of things, the Analogy between the Old and New Teſtament, and the like.
Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter, which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of; He is infallibly aſſured of the Divinity of Chriſt, becauſe the Compilers of the Apoſtolical and Nicene Creeds, have ſo Interpreted Scripture; but what if one ſhould ask him, How he is ſure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expoſitions of Scripture? Either he muſt fall into the Circle, or reſolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church, and Compilers of thoſe Creeds; and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England, and all the Reformed, in one of the Principal and moſt Important Points of Controverſie, the Reſolution of Faith.
I will not ſuppoſe him ſo ignorant, as to think that the Apoſtles were the Authors of that Creed, that goes under their Name; Biſhop Pearſon, and Dr. Towerſon, will tell him the contrary, and by the Confeſſion of all Proteſtants, Theſe Creeds are but ſummary Collections of the moſt principal Doctrines of Faith, put into that form by Fallible Men, and are to be received no further, and on no other account, than as they are Conſonant to the Word of God, and therefore were never intended, as a Standard or Rule of Faith, or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is ſo; I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly aſſured of the Divinity of Chriſt, if he had lived before theſe Symbols were extant, I wonder, how he is infallibly aſſured of the true ſence of theſe Creeds? I doubt, he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another, and ſo ad Infinitum; but if he ſay, the ſence of theſe Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity, ſo is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points, and is ſufficient Aſſurance of the Truth of them, without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches.
Whether theſe odd Opinions, are to be imputed to his inconſiderateneſs, of which every Page affords us inſtances enough, or rather to the Happy Illuminations, of his great Rabbi, Mr. Dodwell, I will not determine; but the latter is not improbable, if we compare it, with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes, Separation of Churches, p. 542.That the Power actually received by Ordained Miniſters muſt not be meaſured by the true Sence of Scriptures, but by that wherein the Ordainers underſtood them, &c. Many other Effata of the like Nature, have proceeded from that great Oracle, which would ſcarcely have been encouraged or ſo much as ſuffered in any Reformed Church beſides our own, but it was ſufficient to make theſe things paſſable, that they were levelled at the Diſſenters, and ſent them all headlong into the Pit.
I think it may not be amiſs to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice, againſt the late Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, which this Gentleman very unfairly ſuggeſts; the Paſſage aimed at, is this, To ſay, that Biſhops, Vindic. p. 18.which are ſtated Paſtors in an Organical Church, are the Apoſtles Succeſſors, in their Apoſtolical Power, is deſtructive to their own Notion of Church Government, and would give the Biſhop of Rome as great Power in England, as the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury (when there is any.) All the Malice lies in this little Parentheſis, when there is any, and here the Citizen clamours upon him, for reviling Gods High Prieſt, Reply, p. 18.and ſpeaking evil of the Ruler of his People; What Apology will the Vindicator now make? Truely, if it was my own Caſe, I would deſire no better, than that of St. Paul under the ſame Accuſation, I wiſt not Brethren, that he was the High Prieſt. The late Arch-Biſhop, had been deprived by Law, above half a Year before that Vindication was writ, and the Metropolitane See was vacant, a conſiderable time after this was Printed, and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People, to ſay there was none, I will not drive this too far, I hope he can give a better Reaſon for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him; If he was the Ruler ſtill, What becomes of the Authority of thoſe that deprived him? It had been more becoming this Gentleman, to have anſwered that Argument, wherein this Parentheſis had its Place, than by falling foul upon ſo Innocent an Expreſſion, to expoſe thoſe thoughts, which Prudence would have concealed.
I know not of any thing elſe in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of, but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatiſe; wherein I have attempted (at leaſt) to prove, that our Congregations, are not Schiſmatical, or Unlawful, though many of our Miniſters, were not Ordained by Dioceſan Biſhops, though the Places we meet in be diſtinct from the Pariſh Churches, and the Mode of our Worſhip in ſome things different from theirs.
And becauſe I find the moſt Learned of our Adverſaries condemn our Preſent Practice,
1. As Inconſiſtent with Catholick Unity and Communion.
2. As Guilty of Diſobedience to Superiours, Civil and Spiritual.
3. And of Scandalous Indecencies, and a Breach of good Rules and Order, I ſhall examine the matter as carefully as I can under all theſe Particulars, heartily Praying that whatever Cenſures, I bring upon my ſelf, the Intereſts of Truth and Peace may be promoted.
ERRATA.
PAge, 6. l. 38. r. retain'd. p. 16. l. 13. r. conſciouſneſs. p. 20. margent, r. Auguſt. p. 33. l. 38. r. Diaboli inſtinctu. p. 37. l. 15. & p. 38. l. 12. for rite, r. right. p. 117. l. 17. for Ananias r. Anianus. Several leſſer faults will occur, which are referr'd to the Reader's Candor and Emendation.