Review of the True Nature of Schism, Treatise · Chapter 4
CHAP. 4.
Of the nature of ſchiſme.
THe ſecond Chapter of my booke, whoſe examination this Author undertakes in the ſecond of his, containing the foundation of many inferences that enſue, and in particular of that deſcription of Schiſme which he intends to oppoſe, it might have been expected, that he ſhould not have culled out paſſages at his pleaſure to deſcant upon, but either have tranſcribed the whole, or at leaſt under one view have laid downe clearly what I propoſed to confirmation, that the ſtate of the controverſie being rightly formed, all might underſtand, what we ſay, and whereof we do affirme: but he thought better of another way of procedure, which I am now bound to allow him in; the reaſon whereof he knowes, and other men may conjecture.
The firſt words he fixes on are the firſt of the Chapter. The thing whereof we treat being a diſorder in the inſtituted worſhip of God; whereunto he replyes, It is an ill ſigne or omen, to ſtumble at the threſhold in going out: theſe words are ambiguous, and may have a double ſence, either that ſchiſme is to be found in matter of inſtituted worſhip onelyonly, or onelyonly in the differences made in the time of celebrating inſtituted worſhip, and neither of theſe is yet true, or yet proved, and ſo a mere begging of the thing in queſtion: for ſaith he, Schiſme may be in, and about other matter beſides inſtituted worſhip.
What meaſure I am to expect for the future from this entrance or beginning, is not hard to conjecture. The truth is, the Reverend Author underſtood me not at all, in what I affirmed: I ſay not, that Schiſme in the Church is either about inſtituted worſhip, or onelyonly in the time of worſhip, but that the thing I treat of, is a diſorder in the inſtituted worſhip of God, and ſo it is, if the being, and conſtitution of any Church be a part of God's worſhip: but when men are given to diſputing, they think it incumbent on them to queſtion every word and expreſſion, that may poſſibly give them an advantage: but we muſt, now we are engaged, take all in good part as it comes. Having nextly granted my requeſt of ſtanding to the ſole determination of Scripture in the controverſie about the nature of ſchiſme: he inſiſts on the Scripture uſe and notion of the word, according to what I had propoſed: only in the metaphoricall ſenſe of the word, as applyed unto civill and politicall bodies, he endeavours to make it appeare, that it doth not only denote the difference and diviſion that falls among them in judgement, but their ſeceſsion alſo into parties; which though he proves not from any of the inſtances produced, yet becauſe he may not trouble himſelfe any further in the like kind of needleſſe labour; I do here informe him that if he ſuppoſe that I deny that to be a Schiſme, where there is a ſeparation, and that becauſe there is a ſeparation, as though ſchiſme were in its whole nature excluſive of all ſeparation, and loſt its being when ſeparation enſued, he hath taken my mind as rightly, as he hath done the whole deſigne of my booke, and my ſenſe in his firſt animadverſions on this Chapter. But yet becauſe this is not proved, I ſhall deſire him not to make uſe of it for the future as though it were ſo. The firſt place urged is that of John 7. 43. There was a ſchiſme among the people: it is not pretended that here was any ſeparation: Acts 14. 4. the multitude of the city was divided, that is, in their judgment about the Apoſtles and their doctrine: but not only ſo, for foreign, is ſpoken of them, which expreſſes their ſeparation into parties: what weight this new criticiſme is like to finde with others, I know not, for my part I know the words inforce not the thing aymed at; and the utmoſt that ſeemes to be intended by that expreſſion, is the ſiding of the multitude, ſome with one, ſome with another, whilſt they were all in a publique commotion, nor doth the context require any more. The ſame is the caſe, Acts 23. 7. where the Sadduces and Phariſees were divided about Paul, whilſt abiding in the place where the Sanedrim ſate, being divided into parties long before: and in the teſtimony cited in my margent for the uſe of the word in other Authors, the Author makes even that foreign, to ſtand in oppoſition, only to foreign: nor was it any more. There was not among the people of Rome, ſuch a ſeparation as to break up the Corporation, or to divide the Government, as is known from the ſtory. The place of his owne producing, Acts 19. 9. proves indeed that then and there, there was a ſeparation, but as the Author confeſſes in the margent, the word there uſed to expreſſe it hath no relation to foreign. Applied to Eccleſiaſticall things, the Reverend Author confeſſes with me, that the word is onelyonly uſed in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 19. ch. 11. 18. and therefore that from thence the proper uſe and importance of it is to be learned. Having laid downe the uſe of the word to denote difference of mind and judgment, with troubles enſuing thereupon, amongſt men met in ſome one aſſembly about the compaſſing of a common end and deſigne. I proceed to the particular accommodation of it, to Church-rents and ſchiſme in that Solitary inſtance given of it in the church of Corinth: What ſaies our Authour hereunto? Sayes he, Pag. 26. this is a fore-ſtalling the readers judgement, by a meer begging of the thing in queſtion: as it hath in part been proved from the Scripture its ſelfe, where it is uſed for ſeparation into parties, in the politicall uſe of the word; why it may not ſo be uſed in the eccleſiaſticall ſenſe, I ſee no reaſon: but if this be the way of begging the Queſtion, I confeſſe I know not what courſe to take to prove what I intend. Such words are uſed ſometimes in warm diſputes cauſeleſſely; it were well they were placed where there is ſome pretence for them; Certainly they will not ſerve every turne. Before I aſſerted the uſe of the word, I inſtanced in all the places where it is uſed, and evinced the ſenſe of it from them? if this be begging, it is not that lazy trade of begging, which ſome uſe; but ſuch as a man had as good profeſſedly worke as follow. How well he hath diſproved this ſenſe of the word from Scripture we have ſeen, I am not concerned in his ſeeing no reaſon why it may not be uſed in the eccleſiaſticall ſenſe, according to his conception, my enquiry was how it was uſed, not how it might be uſed in this Reverend Authors judgment. And this is the ſubſtance of all that is offered to overthrow that principle, which if it abide and ſtand, he muſt needs confeſſe all his following pains to be to no purpoſe. He ſees no reaſon but it may be as he ſaies.
After the declaration of ſome ſuch ſuſpitions of his, as we are now wonted unto, and which we cannot deny him the liberty of expreſſing, though I profeſſe he do it unto my injurie, he ſaies, this is the way on the one hand to free all church-ſeparation from ſchiſme, and on the other to make all particular churches more or leſse inſchiſmaticall: well, the firſt is denyed; what is offer'd for the confirmation of the ſecond? ſaith he, what one congregation almoſt is there in the world, where there are not differences of judgment whence enſue many troubles about the compaſsing of one common end and deſigne; I doubt whether his owne be free therefore. If my teſtimony may remove his ſcruple, I aſſure him through the grace of God, hitherto it hath been ſo, and I hope it is ſo with multitudes of other Churches, thoſe with whome it is otherwiſe, it will appear at laſt to be more or leſſe blameable on the account of Schiſme.
Omitting my farther explication of what I had propoſed, he paſſes unto p. 27. of my book, and thence tranſcribes theſe words: they had differences among themſelves about unneceſſary things, on theſe they engaged into diſputes and ſidings even in the ſolemne aſsemblies, probably much vaine janglings, alienation of affections, exaſperations of ſpirit, with a neglect of due offices of love enſued hereupon, whereunto he ſubjoines, that the Apoſtle charges this upon them is true, but was that all? were there not diviſions into parties as well as in judgments? we ſhall conſider that ere long, But I am ſorry he hath waved this proper place of the conſideration of this important aſſertion; the truth is, hic pes fig…ndus, if he remove not this poſition, he labours, in vain for the future. I deſire alſo to know what he intends by diviſions into parties; if he intend that ſome were of one party, ſome of another, in theſe diviſions and differences, it is granted: there can-be no difference in judgment amongſt men, but they muſt on that account be divided into parties: but if he intend thereby, that they divided into ſeverall churches, aſsemblies, or congregations, any of them ſetting up new churches on a new account, or ſeparating from the publick aſſemblies of the church whereof they were, and that their ſo doing is reproved by the Apoſtle under the name of Schiſme; then I tell him that this is that indeed whoſe proofe is incumbent on him. Faile he herein, the whole foundation of my diſcourſe continues firme and unſhaken; the truth is, I cannot meet with any one attempt to prove this, which alone was to be proved, if he intended that I ſhould be any farther concerned in his diſcourſe, then onelyonly to find my ſelfe revil'd and abuſed.
Paſſing over what I produce to give light and evidence unto my aſſertion, he proceeds to the conſideration of the obſervations and inferences I make upon it. p. 29. and onward.
The firſt he inſiſts upon is, that the thing mentioned is entirely in one Church, amongſt the members of one particular ſociety: no mention is made of one church divided againſt another, or ſeparated from another.
To this he replies 1. that the church of Corinth, was a collective church, made up of many congregations, and that I my ſelfe confeſſe they had ſolemne aſſemhlies, not one aſsembly onelyonly; that I beg the Queſtion by taking it for one ſingle congregation. But I ſuppoſe one particular congregation may have more then one ſolemne aſsembly, even as many, as are the times, wherein they ſolemnly aſsemble.
2. I ſuppoſed, I had proved that it was only one congregation, that uſed to aſſemble in one place, that the Apoſtle charged this crime upon; and that this Reverend Author was pleaſed to overlook what was produced to that purpoſe, I am not to be blamed. 3. Here is another diſcovery, that this Reverend perſon never yet clearly underſtood the deſigne of my treatiſe, nor the principles I proceed upon. Doth he think it is any thing to my preſent buſineſſe, whither the church of Corinth were ſuch a church as Preſbyterians ſuppoſe it to be, or ſuch a one as the Independents affirme it? whilſt all ackowledge it to be one church, be that particular church of what kind it will; if the Schiſme rebuked by the Apoſtle conſiſted in diviſion in it, and not in ſeparation from it as ſuch, I have evinced all that I intended by the Obſervation under conſideration. Yet this he againe perſues, and tells me, that there were more particular churches in and about Corinth, as that at Cenchrea, and that their differences were not confined to the verge of one church (for there were differences abroad out of the Church) and ſaies, that at unawares I confeſs that they diſputed from houſe to houſe, and in the publick aſſemblies: but I will aſſure the Reverend Author I was aware of what I ſaid: Is it poſſible he ſhould ſuppoſe that by the verge of one Church I intended the meeting place, and the aſſembly therein? was it at all incumbent on me, to prove that they did not manage their differences in private, as well as in publick? is it likely any ſuch thing ſhould be? did I deny that they ſided and made parties about their diviſions and differences? is it any thing to me, or to any thing I affirme, how, where, and when, they managed their diſputes, and debated their controverſies? it is true there is mention of a church at Cenchrea, but is there any mention that that church made any ſeparation from the church of Corinth? or that the differences mention'd were between the members of theſe ſeverall churches? is it any thing to my preſent deſigne, though there were 20 particular congregations in Corinth, ſuppoſing that on any conſideration they were one Church? I aſſure you Sr. I am more troubled with your not underſtanding the buſineſs and deſigne I mannage, then I am with all your reviling termes, you have laden me withall.
Once for all; unleſſe you prove that there was a ſeparation frō that Church of Corinth (be it of what conſtitution it may by any be ſuppoſed) as ſuch, into another church, and that this is reproved by the Apoſtle under the name of Schiſme, you ſpeak not one word to invalidate the principle by me laid downe: and for what he addes; that for what I ſay there was no one church divided againſt another, or ſeparated from another, is aſsumed, but not proved unleſse by a negative, which is invallid; he wreſts my words: I ſay not, there was no ſuch thing, but that there was no mention of any ſuch thing: for though it be as cleare as the noone day, that indeed there was no ſuch thing, it ſufficeth my purpoſe that there was no mention of any ſuch thing, and therefore no ſuch thing reproved under the name of Schiſme. With this one obſervation, I might well diſmiſſe the whole enſuing treatiſe, ſeeing of how litle uſe it is like to prove, as to the buſineſſe in hand, when the Author of it indeed apprehends not the principle which he pretends to oppoſe; I ſhall once more tell him, that he abide not in his miſtake, that if he intend to evert the principle here by me inſiſted on, it muſt be by a demonſtration that the Schiſme charged on the Corinthians by Paul conſiſted in the ſeparation from, and relinquiſhment of that church, whereof they were members, and congregating into another not before erected or eſtabliſhed; for this is that which the Reformed Churches are charged to do by the Romaniſts, in reſpect of their Churches, and accuſed of ſchiſme thereupon. But the differences which he thinks good to mannage and maintain, with, and againſt the Independents do ſo poſſeſſe the thoughts of this Reverend Author, that what ever occurres to him, is immediately meaſured by the regard which it ſeems to bear, or may poſſibly bear thereunto, though that conſideration were leaſt of all regarded in its propoſall.
The next obſervation upon the former theſis that he takes into his examination, ſo far as he is pleaſed to tranſcribe it, is this; Here is no mention of any particular man or number of men ſeparating from the aſsembly of the whole church) or ſubducting of themſelves from its power; only they had groundleſſe cauſleſſe differences amongſt themſelves; Hereunto our Author variouſly replyes and ſaies, 1. was this all? were not ſeparations made, if not from that church, yet in that church as well as diviſions? Let the Scripture determine, chap. 1. 11. ch. 5. 3. I am a Diſciple of Paul ſaid one, and I a Diſciple of Apollo ſaid another: in our language; I am a member of ſuch a miniſters congregation, ſaies one, ſuch a man for my money: and ſo a third, and hereupon they moſt probably ſeparated themſelves into ſuch and ſuch congregations; ana is not ſeparation the ordinary iſſue of ſuch envyings?
I doubt not but that our Reverend Author ſuppoſeth that he hath here ſpoken to the purpoſe, and matter in hand; and ſo perhaps may ſome others think alſo. I muſt crave leave to enter my diſſent upon the account of the inſuing reaſons; for, 1. It is not ſeparation in the Church by mens diviſions and differences whilſt they continue members of the ſame Church, that I deny to be here charged under the name of Sciſme, but ſuch a ſeparation from the Church, as was before deſcribed; 2. The diſputes amongſt them about Paul and Apollos, the inſtruments of their converſion cannot poſſibly be ſuppoſed to relate unto Miniſters of diſtinct congregations among them. Paul and Apollos were not ſo, and could not be figures of them that were; ſo that thoſe expreſsions do not at all anſwer thoſe which he is pleaſed to make parallell unto them. 3. Grant all this, yet this proves nothing to the cauſe in hand, men may crye up ſome the Miniſter of one congregation, ſome of another, and yet neither of them ſeparate from the one, or other, or the congregations themſelves fall into any ſeparation, wherefore (4) He ſaies, probably they ſeparated into ſuch and ſuch congregations; But this is moſt improbable; for firſt, there is no mention at all of thoſe many congregations that are ſuppoſed, but rather the contrary, as I have declared, is expreſſly aſſerted: 2. There is no ſuch thing mentioned or intimated, nor, 3. are they in the leaſt rebuked for any ſuch thing, though the forementioned differences which are a leſſe evill are reproved again, and againe, under the name of Schiſme: ſo that this moſt improbable improbability or rather vaine conjecture, is a very mean refuge and retreat from the evidence of expreſſe Scripture, which in this place is alone inquired after-Doth indeed the Reverend Author think, will he pretend ſo to do, that the holy Apoſtle ſhould ſo expreſly, weightily, and earneſtly, reprove their diſſentions in the church, whereof they were members, and yet not ſpeak one word, or give the leaſt intimation of their ſeparation from the church; had there indeed been any ſuch thing? I dare leave this to the conſcience of the moſt partially addicted perſon under heaven, to the Authors cauſe, who hath any conſcience at all; nor dare I dwell longer on the confutation of this fiction, though it be upon the matter the whole of what I am to contend withall. But he farther informes us that▪ there was a ſeparation to parties in the church of Corinth, at leaſt as to one ordinance of the Lords ſupper, as appears c. 11. v. 18, 21, 22, 23. and this was part of their Schiſme. v. 16. And not long after they ſeparated into other Churches, ſleighting and undervaluing the firſt miniſters and churches, as nothing or leſse pure then their owne, which we ſee practiſed ſufficiently at this day. A. Were not this the head & ſeate of the firſt part of the controverſie inſiſted on, I ſhould not be able to prevaile with my ſelfe, to caſt away precious time in the conſideration of ſuch things as theſe, being tendered as ſuitable to the buſineſſe in hand; It is acknowledged that there were differences amongſt them, and diſorders in the adminiſtration of the Lords ſupper, that therein they uſed reſpect of perſons, as the place quoted in the margin by our Author, Jam. 2. 1, 2, 3. manifeſts that they were ready to do in other places; the diſorder the Apoſtle blames in the adminiſtration of the ordinances was, when they came together in the Church, v. 18. when they came together in one place; v. 20. there they tarried not one for another as they ought v. 33. but coming unprepared, ſome having eaten before, ſome being hungry v. 21. all things were mannaged with great confuſion amongſt them v. 22. and if this prove not, that the Schiſme they were charged withall conſiſted in a ſeparation from that church with which they came together in one place, we are hopeleſſe of any farther evidence to be tendred to that purpoſe. That there were diſorders amongſt them in the celebration of the Lords ſupper is certain; that they ſeparated into ſeverall congregations on that account, or one from another, or any from all, is not in the leaſt intimation ſignified; but the plaine contrary ſhines in the whole ſtate of things, as there repreſented: had that been done, and had ſo to do, been ſuch an evill, as is pleaded, (as cauſleſly to do it is no ſmall evill) it had not paſſed unreproved from him, who was reſolved in the things of God, not to ſpare them. 2 That they afterwards fell into the ſeparation aimed at to be aſſerted Our Reverend Author affirmes, that ſo he may make way for a reflection on the things of his preſent diſquietment; but as we are not as yet concerning our ſelves, in what they did afterwards; ſo when we are, we ſhall expect ſomewhat more then bare affirmations for the proofe of it: being more then ordinarily confident, that he is not able from the Scripture, or any other ſtory of credit, to give the leaſt countenance to what he here affirmes. But now as if the matter were well diſcharged, when there hath not one word been ſpoken; that in the leaſt reaches the caſe in hand; he ſaith 3. by way of ſuppoſition that there was but one ſingle congregation at Corinth; yet (ſaid he) the Apoſtle dehorts the brethren from Schiſme, and writes to more then the Church of Corinth, ch. 1. v. 2. A. I have told him before, that though I am full well reſolved that there was but one ſingle congregation at Corinth in thoſe daies, yet I am not at all convinced as to the propoſition under confirmatiō to aſſert any ſuch thing, but will ſuppoſe the church to be of what kind my Author pleaſeth, whilſt he will acknowledge it to be the particular Church of Corinth. I confeſſe the Apoſtle dehorts the brethren from Schiſme, even others as well as thoſe at Corinth, ſo far as the church of God in all places, and ages, are concerned in his inſtructions and dehortations, when they fall under the caſe ſtated, parallel with that which is the ground of his dealing with them at Corinth; but what that Schiſme was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in the inſtance of the Church of Corinth: and thence is the meaſure of it to be taken, in reference to all dehorted from it. Unto the 3d. Obſervation added by me, he makes no returne, but only laies down ſome exceptions to the exemplification given of the whole matter, in another ſchiſme that fell out in that Church about 40 yeares after the compoſure of this, which was the occaſion of that excellent Epiſtle unto them from the Church of Rome, called the Epiſtle of Clement; diſſwading them from Perſiſting in that ſtrife and contention, and preſſing them to unity and agreement among themſelves: ſome things our Reverend Author offers as to this inſtance, but ſo, as that I cannot but ſuppoſe, that he conſulted not the Epiſtle on this particular occaſion; and therefore now I deſire him that he would do ſo, and I am perſwaded he will not a ſecond time give countenance to any ſuch apprehenſion of the then ſtate of the Church, as though there were any ſeparation made from it, by any of the members thereof, doeing or ſuffering the injury there complained of, about which thoſe differences and contentions aroſe. I ſhall not need to go over againe the ſeveralls of that Epiſtle; one word mentioned by my ſelfe, namely foreign he inſiſts on, and informes us, that it implies a ſeparation into other aſſemblies; which he ſaies I waved to underſtand. I confeſſe I did ſo in this place, and ſo would he alſo, if he had once conſulted it. The ſpeech of the Church of Rome is there to the Church of Corinth, in reference to the elders whom they had depoſed. the whole ſentence is; foreign. and the words immediately going before are; foreign: then follows that foreign; our Author I ſuppoſe, underſtands Greek, and ſo I ſhall ſpare my pains of tranſcribing Mr. Youngs latin tranſlation; or adding one in Engliſh of mine own; and if he be pleaſed to read theſe words, I think we ſhall have no more of his foreign.
If a faire opportunity call me forth to the farther mannagement of this controverſy, I ſhall not doubt but from that Epiſtle, and ſome other pieces of undoubted antiquity, as the Epiſtle of the Church of Vienna and Lyons, of Smyrna, with ſome publick records of thoſe daies, as yet preſerved, worthy all of them to be written in letters of Gold, to evince that ſtate of the Churches of Chriſt in thoſe daies, as will give abundant light to the principles I proceed upon in this whole buſineſſe.
And thus have I briefly vindicated what was propoſed as the preciſe Scripture notion of ſchiſme, againſt which indeed not any one objection hath beenraiſed, that ſpeaks directly to the thing in hand. Our Reverend Author being full of warme affections againſt the independents, and exerciſed greatly in diſputing the common principles which either they hold, or are ſuppoſed ſo to do; meaſures every thing that is ſpoken, by his apprehenſion of thoſe differences, wherein as he thinks their concernment doth lie: had it not bin for ſome ſuch prejudice, (for I am unwilling to aſcribe it to more blameable principles) it would have been almoſt impoſſible that he ſhould have once imagined that he had made the leaſt attempt towards the everſion of what I had aſſerted; much leſſe that he had made good the title of his book▪ though he ſcarce forgets it, or any thing concerning it but its proofe, in any one whole leafe of his treatiſe. It remaines then that the nature and notion of Schiſme as revealed and deſcribed in the Scripture, was rightly fixed in = my former diſcourſe; and I muſt aſſure this Reverend Author, that I am not afrighted from the embraceing and maintaining of it, with thoſe ſcare crowes of new light; ſingularity, and the like, which he is pleaſed frequently to ſet up to that purpoſe. The diſcourſe that enſues in our Author concerning a parity of reaſon, to prove that if that be ſchiſme, then much more is ſeparation ſo, ſhall afterwards if need be, be conſidered, when I proceed to ſhew what yet farther may be granted without the leaſt prejudice of truth, though none can neceſsitate me to recede from the preciſe notion of the name and thing delivered in the Scripture. I confeſs I cannot but marvell, that any man undertaking the examination of that Treatiſe, and expreſſing ſo much indignation at the thoughts of my diſcourſe, that lyeth in this buſineſſe, ſhould ſo ſleightly paſſe over that, whereon he knew that I laid the great weight of the whole. Hath he ſo much as indeavourd to prove, that that place to the Corinthians, is not the only place wherein there is in the Scripture any mention of ſchiſme in an eccleſiaſticall ſenſe; or that the Church of Corinth was not a particular church: is any thing of importance offerd to impaire the aſſertion that the evill reproved was within the verge of that church, and without ſeparation from it? and do I need any more to make good to the utmoſt that which I have aſſerted; but of theſe things afterwards.
In all that followes to the end of this chapter, I meet with nothing of importance that deſerves farther notice; that which is ſpoken is for the moſt part built upon miſtakes; as that when I ſpeak of a member or the members of one particular church, I intend onelyonly one ſingle congregation excluſively to any other acceptation of that expreſſion, in reference to the apprehenſion of others: that I denie the reformed Churches to be true churches, becauſe I denie the Church of Rome to be ſo; and denie the inſtitution of a nationall church, which yet our Author pleads not for. He would have it for granted that becauſe Schiſme conſiſts in a difference among church members, therefore he that raiſes ſuch a difference, whither he be a member of that church wherein the difference is raiſed, or of any other or no (ſuppoſe he be a Mahumetan or a Jew) is a Schiſmatick; pleads for the old definition of Schiſme, as ſuitable to the Scripture, after the whole foundation of it is taken away: wreſts many of my expreſſions! as that in particular, in not making the matter of Schiſme to be things relating to the worſhip of God, to needleſſe diſcourſes about Doctrine and Diſcipline, not apprehending what I intended by that expreſſion of the worſhip of God; and I ſuppoſe it not adviſable to follow him in ſuch extravagancies. The uſuall aggravations of Schiſme he thought good to reinforce, whither he hoped that I would diſpute with him about them, I cannot tell. I ſhall now aſſure him that I will not, though if I may have his good leave to ſay ſo, I lay much more weight on thoſe inſiſted on by my ſelfe, wherein I am encouraged, by his approbation of them.