Review of the True Nature of Schism, Treatise · Chapter 5
CHAP. 5.
THe third Chapter of my Treatiſe conſiſting in the preventing and removing ſuch objections as the precedent diſcourſe might ſeem lyable and obnoxious unto, is propoſed to examination, by our Reverend Author, in the third Chap. of his Booke: and the objections mentioned undertaken to be managed by him, with what ſucceſſe, ſome few conſiderations will evince.
The firſt Objection by me propoſed was taken from the Common Apprehenſion of the nature of Schiſme, and the iſſue of ſtateing it as by me layd down; namely hence it would follow that the ſeparation of any man or men from a true Church, or of one Church from others is not Schiſme. But now waving for the preſent the more large conſideration of the name & thing, which yet in the proceſſe of my diſcourſe I do condeſcend upon, according to the principle layd down; I ſay that in the preciſe ſignification of the word, and deſcription of the thing as given by the holy Ghoſt this is true; no ſuch ſeparation is in the ſcripture ſo called, or ſo accounted, whither it may not in a large ſence be eſteemed as ſuch, I do not diſpute, yea I afterwards grant it ſo farre, as to make that conceſſion the bottome and foundation of my whole plea, for the vindication of the reformed churches from that crime. Our Reverend Author reinforces the objection by ſundry inſtances; As, 1. that he hath diſproved that ſence or preciſe ſigniſication of the word in Scripture, how well let the Reader judge. 2. That ſuppoſing that to be the onelyonly ſence mentioned in that caſe of the Corinthians, yet may another ſence be intimated in Scripture and deduced by regular and rationall conſequence: Perhaps this will not be ſo eaſy an undertaking, this being the onelyonly place where the name is mentioned, or thing ſpoken of in an Eccleſiaſticall ſence: but when any proofe is tendred of what is here affirmed, we ſhall attend unto it. It is ſaid indeed that if ſeparation in Judgment in a Church be a Schiſme, much more to ſeparate from a Church! but our queſtion is about the preciſe notion of the word in Scripture, and conſequences from thence, not about conſequents from the nature of things, concerning which if our Author had been pleaſed to have ſtaid a while, he would have found me granting as much as he could well deſire. 3. 1 John 2. 19. is ſacrificed foreign and interpreted of Schiſme. Where (to make one venture in imitation of our Author) All Orthodox Interpreters, and writers of controverſies expound it of Apoſtacy; neither will the context or arguing of the Apoſtle admit of another expoſition; mens wreſting of Scripture to give countenance to inveterate errours is one of their worſt concomitants; ſo then that ſeperation from Churches is oftentimes evill is readily granted: of what nature that evill is, with what are the aggravations of it, a judgment is to be made, from the pleas and pretences that its circumſtances afford: ſo farr as it proceeds from ſuch diſsenſions as before were mentioned, ſo far it proceeds from ſchiſme, but in its own nature abſolutely conſidered it is not ſo.
To render my former aſſertions the more unqueſtionably evident, I conſider the ſeverall accounts given of mens blameable departures' from any Church, or Churches mentioned in Scripture, and manifeſt that none of them come under the head of Schiſme. Apoſtaſy, irregularly of walking, and profeſſed ſenſuality, are the heads, whereunto all blameable departures from the Churches in the Scripture are referred.
That there are other accounts of this crime, our Author doth not aſſert; he onelyonly ſaies, that all, or ſome of the places I produce, as inſtances of a blameable ſeparation from a Church, do mind the nature of Schiſme as precedaneous to the ſeparation; What ere the matter is I do not find him ſpeaking▪ ſo faintly and with ſo much caution through his whole diſcourſe as in this place: all, or ſome do it; they mind the nature of Schiſme; they mind it as precedaneous to the ſeparation, ſo the ſumme of what he aims at in conteſting about the expoſition of thoſe places of Scripture is this; ſome of them do mind (I know not how) the nature of Schiſme, which he never once named as precedaneous to ſeparation; therefore the preciſe notion of Schiſme in the Scripture doth not denote differences and diviſions in a Church only; Quod erat demonſtrandum: That I ſhould ſpend time in debating a conſideration ſo remote from the ſtate of the controverſie in hand, I am ſure will not be expected by ſuch as underſtand it.
Pag. 77. Of my treatiſe I affirm that for a man to withdraw or withold himſelfe from the communion externall and viſible of any Church or Churches, on that pretention or plea (be it true or otherwiſe) that the worſhip, doctrine, or diſcipline inſtituted by Chriſt is corrupted among them, with which corruption he dares not defile himſelfe, is no where in the Scripture called Schiſme, nor is that caſe particularly exemplified, or expreſſely ſuppoſed, whereby a Judgment may be made of the fact at large, but we are left, upon the whole matter, to the guidance of ſuch generall rules and principles as are given us for that end and purpoſe: Such is my meaneſſe of apprehenſion that I could not underſtand, but that either this aſſertion muſt be ſubſcribed unto, as of irrefragable verity, or elſe that inſtances to the contrary muſt have been given out of the Scripture; for on that hinge alone doth this preſent controverſie (and that by conſent) turne it ſelfe: But our Reverend Author thinks good to take another courſe (for which his reaſons may eaſily be conjectured) and excepts againſt the aſſertion it ſelfe in Generall: firſt, as ambiguous and fallacious, And then alſo intimates that he will ſcan the words in perticular; Mihi juſſa capeſſere, &c. 1. He ſaies, that I tell not whither a man may ſeparate where there is corruption in ſome one of theſe onelyonly or in all of them, nor 2. How farre ſome or all of theſe muſt be corrupted before we ſeparate. A. This is no ſmall vanity under the ſunne, that men will not onelyonly meaſure themſelves by themſelves, but others alſo by their own meaſure: Our Author is ſtill with his finger in the ſore, and therefore ſuppoſes that others muſt needs take the ſame courſe. Is there any thing in my aſsertion whither a man may ſeparate from any church or no? any thing upon what Corruption he may lawfully ſo do? any thing of ſtating the difference betwixt the Presbiterians and Independants? do I at all fix it on this fo…t of account when I come ſo to doe? I humbly beg of this Author, that if I have ſo obſcurely and intricately delivered my ſelfe and meaning, that he cannot come to the underſtanding of my deſigne, nor import of my expreſſions, that he would favour me with a command to explain my ſelfe, before he engage into a publicke refutation of what he doth not ſo clearly apprehend! Alas, I do not in this place in the leaſt intend to juſtify any ſeparation, nor to ſhew what pleas are ſufficient to juſtify a ſeparation, nor what corruption in the church ſeparated from, is neceſſary thereunto, nor at all regard the controverſie his eye is allwaies on; but onelyonly declare what is not compriſed in the preciſe Scripture notion of Schiſme, as alſo how a Judgment is to be made of that which is ſo by me excluded, whither it be good or evill. Would he have been pleaſed to have ſpoken to the buſineſſe in hand, or any thing to the preſent purpoſe, it muſt not have been by an inquiry into the grounds & reaſons of ſeparation, how farre it may be juſtified by the plea mentioned, or how farre not▪ when that plea is to be allowed, and when rejected; but this only was incumbent on him to prove! namely, that ſuch a ſeparation upon that plea, or the like, is called Schiſme in the Scripture, and as ſuch a thing condemned. What my concernment is in the enſuing obſervations; that the Judaicall Church was as corrupt as ours, that if a bare plea true or falſe will ſerve to juſtifie men, all ſeparatiſts may be juſtified, he himſelfe will eaſily perceive: But however, I cannot but tell him by the way, that he who will dogmatize, in this controverſy from the Judaicall Church, and the courſe of proceedings amongw them, to the direction and limitation of duty, as to the churches of the Goſpel, conſidering the vaſt & important differences between t he conſtitutions of the one & the other, with the infallible obligation to certain principles, on the account of the typicall inſtitution in that Primitive Church, when there neither was nor could be any more in the world, muſt expect to bring other Arguments to compaſſe his deſigne, then the analogie pretended. For the juſtification of Separatiſts of the reaſon, if it will enſue, upon the examination for ſeparation, and the circumſtances of the ſeperating, whereunto I referre them, let it follow, and let who will complain; But to fill up the meaſure of the miſtake he is ingaged in, he tells us pag. 75. that this is the pinch of the queſtion, whither a man or a company of men may ſeparate from a true Church, upon a plea of Corruptiō in it, true or falſe, & ſet up another Church, as to ordinances, renouncing that Church to be a true Church. This (ſaith he) is plainely our caſe at preſent, with the Doctor and his Aſſociates; truly I do not know that ever I was neceſſitated to a more ſad and fruitleſſe imployment in this kind of labour and travaile. Is that the queſtion in preſent agitation? is any thing, word, title, or iota ſpoken to it? is it my preſent buſineſſe to ſtate the difference between the Preſbyterians and Independents? do I any where do it upon this account? do I not every where poſitively deny that there is any ſuch ſeparation made? nay can common honeſty allow ſuch a ſtate of a queſtion, if that were the buſineſſe in hand to be put upon me? are their ordinances and churches ſo denied by me as is pretended? what I have often ſaid, muſt again be repeated, The Reverend Author hath his eye ſo fixed on the difference between the Preſbyterians and the Independants, that he is at every turn lead out of the way into ſuch miſtakes, as it was not poſſible he ſhould otherwiſe be overtaken withall; this is perhaps mentis gratiſsimus error: But I hope it would be no death to him to be delivered from it. When I laid downe the principles which it was his good will to oppoſe, I had many things under conſideration, as to the ſettling of Conſcience in reſpect of manifold oppoſitions; and to tell him the truth, leaſt valued that which he is pleaſed to mannage, and to look upon as my ſole intendment; if it be not poſsible to deliver him from this ſtrong imagination, that carries the images and ſpecies of Independency alwaies before his eies, we ſhall ſcarce ſpeak ad idem in this whole diſcourſe. I deſire then that he would take notice, that as the ſtate of the controverſy he propoſes, doth no more relate to that which peculiarly is pretended to ly under his conſideration, then any other thing whatever that he might have mentioned; ſo when the peculiar difference between him and the Independents comes to be mannaged, ſcarce any one terme of his ſtate will be allowed. Exceptions are in the next place attempted to be put in to my aſſertion, that there is no example in the Scripture of any one Churches departure from the union which they ought to hold with others, unleſſe it be in ſome of their departures from the common faith, which is not Schiſme; much with the ſame ſucceſſe as formerly: let him produce one inſtance, and, En Herbam. I grant the Roman church on a ſuppoſition that it is a Church (which yet I utterly deny) to be a ſchiſmaticall Church upon the account of the inteſtine diviſions of all ſorts; or what other accounts other men urge them with the ſame guilt I ſuppoſe he knows by this, that I am not concern'd. Having finiſhed this exploit, becauſe I had ſaid, if I were unwilling, I did not underſtand how I might be compelled to carry on the notion of Schiſme any farther; he tells me, though I be unwilling, he doubts not but to be able to compell me: but who told him I was unwilling ſo to do? do I not immediately without any compulſion very freely fall upon the worke? did I ſay I was unwilling? Certainly it ought not to be thus; of his abilities in other things I do not doubt; in this diſcourſe he is pleaſed to exerciſe more of ſomething elſe.
There is but one paſſage more that needs to be remarked, and ſo this Chapter alſo is diſmiſſed; He puts in a Caveat that I limit not Schiſme to the worſhip of God, upon theſe words of mine; the conſideration of what ſort of union in reference to the worſhip of God (where he inſerts in the repetition; marke that) is inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt, is the foundation of what I have further to offer; whereto he ſubjoined the deſigne of this in that he may have a fair retreat, when he is charged with breach of union in other reſpects, and ſo with Schiſme; to eſcape by this evaſion: this breach of union is not in reference to the worſhip of God in one aſſembly met to that end. I wiſh we had once an end of theſe miſtakes, and falſe uncharitable ſurmiſes. By the worſhip of God I intend the whole compaſſe of inſtitutions, and their tendency thereunto. And I know that I ſpeak properly enough in ſo doing; I have no ſuch deſigne as I am charged withall, nor do I need it; I walke not in feare of this Authors forces, that I ſhould be providing before hand to ſecure my retreat. I have paſſed the bounds of the preciſe notion of Schiſme before inſiſted on, and yet doubt not but God aſſiſting to make good my ground. If he judge I cannot, let him command my perſonall attendance on him at any time, to be driven from it by him; let him by any meanes prove againſt me at any time a breach of any union inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt, and I will promiſe him, that with all ſpeed I will retreate from that ſtate, or thing, whereby I have ſo done. I muſt profeſſe to this Reverend Author, that I like not the cauſe he mannages one whit the better for the way whereby he mannageth it. We had need watch and pray that we be not lead into temptation: ſeeing we are in ſome meaſure not ignorant of the devices of Sathan.
Now that he may ſee this door of eſcape ſhut up, that ſo he may not need to trouble himſelfe any more in taking care, leaſt I eſcape that way, when he intends to fall upon me with thoſe blowes, which as yet I have not felt, I ſhall ſhut it faſt my ſelfe, beyond all poſſibility of my opening againe: I here then declare unto him, that when ever he ſhall prove that I have broken any union of the inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, of what ſort ſoever, I will not in excuſe of my ſelfe, inſiſt on the plea mentioned, but will ſubmit to the diſcipline, which ſhall be thought meet by him to be exerciſed towards any one offending in that kind: yet truely on this engagement I would willingly contract with him, that in his next reply he ſhould not deale with me, as he hath done in this, neither as to my perſon, nor as to the differences between us.