Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

heat abated and ready to vanish: wherein he hath invincibly compelled me to acknowledge my mistake; and I assure him I am heartily sorry that I was mistaken, it will not be somebody's joy one day that I was so. He seems to be offended with my notion of schism, because if it be true, it will carry it almost out of the world, and bless the churches with everlasting peace. He tells me, that a learned doctor said my book was one great schism;' I hope that is but one doctor's opinion; because, being nonsense, it is not fit it should be entertained by many. In the process of his discourse, he culls out sundry passages, delivered by me in reference to the great divisions and differences that are in the world among men professing the name of Christ, and applies them to the difference between the Presbyterians and Independents, with many notable lashes in his way; when they were very little in my thoughts, nor are the things spoken by me in any tolerable measure applicable to them. I suppose no rational man will expect that I should follow our reverend author in such ways and paths as these; it were easy in so doing to enter into an endless maze of words, to little purpose, and I have no mind to deal with him as he hath done by me, I like not the copy so well as to write by it; so his first chapter is discussed, and forgiven.

CHAP. IV.

Of the nature of schism.

THE second chapter of my book, 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 schism 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 down clearly what I proposed to confirmation, that the state of the controversy being rightly formed, all might understand what we say, and whereof we do affirm: but he thought better of another way of procedure, which I am now bound to allow him

in; the reason whereof he knows, and other men may conjecture.

[ocr errors]

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 replies, It is an ill sign or omen, to stumble at the threshold in going out; these words are ambiguous, and may have a double sense, either that schism is to be found in matter of instituted worship only, or only 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, schism 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 schism in the church is either about instituted worship, or only 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 possible 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 controversy about the nature of schism, he insists on the Scripture use and notion of the word, according to what I had proposed; only in the metaphorical sense of the word, as applied unto civil and political bodies, he endeavours to make it appear, that it doth not only denote the difference and division that falls among them in judgment, but their secession also into parties; which though he proves not from any of the instances produced, yet because he may not trouble himself farther in the like kind of needless labour, I do here inform him, that if he suppose that I deny that to be a schism, where there is a separation, and that because there is a separation, as though schism 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 has done the whole design of my book, and my sense in his first animadversions

any

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 vii. 43. 'There was a schism among the people:' it is not pretended that here was any separation: Acts xiv. 4. the multitude of the city was divided,' that is, in their judgment about the apostles and their doctrine; but not only so, for oi pèv hoav, is spoken of them, which expresses their separation into parties: what weight this new criticism is like to find with others, I know not; for my part, I know the words enforce not the thing aimed at, and the utmost that seems to be intended by that expression, is the siding of the multitude, some with one, some with another, whilst they were all in a public commotion, nor doth the context require any more. The same is the case, Acts, xxiii. 7. where the Sadducees and Pharisees were divided about Paul, whilst abiding in the place where the sanhedrim sat, 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 διεμερίσθησαν εἰς τὰ μέρη, to stand in opposition, only to ώμοvon☛av, 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 own producing, Acts xix. 9. proves indeed that then and there, there was a separation, but as the author confesses in the margent, the word there used to express it hath no relation to oxioua. Applied to ecclesiastical things, the reverend author confesses with me, that the word is only used in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xi. 18, 19. and therefore, that from thence the proper use and importance of it is to be learned. Having laid down 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 design, I proceed to the particular accommodation of it, to church-rents and schism in that solitary instance given of it in the church of Corinth. What says our author hereunto? Says he, p. 26. This is a forestalling the reader's judgment, by a mere begging of the thing in question: as it hath in part been proved from the Scripture itself, where it is used for separation into parties, in the political use of the word, why it may not so be

used in the ecclesiastical sense, I see no reason.' But if this be the way of begging the question, I confess I know not what course to take to prove what I intend. Such words are used sometimes in warm disputes causelessly; it were well they were placed where there is some pretence for them; certainly they will not serve every turn. 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 work 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 ecclesiastical sense, according to his conception, my inquiry was how it was used, not how it might be used in this reverend author's judgment. And this is the substance of all that is offered to overthrow that principle, which if it abide and stand, he must needs confess all his following pains to be to no purpose. He sees no reason but it may be as he says.

[ocr errors]

After the declaration of some such suspicions of his, as we are now wonted unto, and which we cannot deny him the liberty of expressing, though I profess he do it unto my injury, he says, 'this is the way on the one hand to free all church-separation from schism, and on the other to make all particular churches more or less inschismatical;' well, the first is denied; what is offered 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 design. I doubt whether his own be free therefore.' If any 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 whom it is otherwise, it will appear at last to be more or less blameable on the account of schism.

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 solemn assemblies, probably much vain janglings, alienation of affections, exasperations of

spirit, with a neglect of due offices of love ensued hereupon;' whereunto he subjoins, '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 assertio.; the truth is, 'hic pes figendus,' 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 several churches, assemblies, or congregations, any of them setting up new churches on a new account, or separating from the public assemblies of the church whereof they were, and that their so doing is reproved by the apostle under the name of schism, then I tell him that this is that indeed whose proof is incumbent on him. Fail he herein, the whole foundation of my discourse continues firm 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, than only to find myself reviled 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 myself confess they had solemn assemblies, not one assembly only; that I beg the question by taking it for one single congregation.' But I suppose one particular congregation may have more than one solemn 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 apo

« AnteriorContinuar »