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 figâ—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 onely 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 onely 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
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 onely 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 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 onely 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 onely 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 onely 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
some joy one day that I was so He seems to be offended with my notion of Schisme because if it be true it will carry it almost out of the world and blesse the churches with everlasting peace He tells me that a learned Dr. said my book was one great Schisme I hope that is but one Drs. opinion because being non-sence it is not fit it should be entertained by many In the processe of his discourse he culls out sundry passages deliverd 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 rationall man will expect that I should follow our Reverend Author in such waies and pathes as these it were easie in so doing to enter into an endlesse maze of words to little purpose and I have no mind to deale 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. 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 onely or onely 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 onely 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to stand in opposition only to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Applied to Ecclesiasticall things the Reverend Author confesses with me that the word is onely 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