Page images
PDF
EPUB

own measure.

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 controversy (and that by consent) turn itself. But our reverend author thinks good to take another course (for which his reasons may easily be conjectured), and excepts against the assertion itself in general: first, as ambiguous and fallacious; and then also intimates that he will scan the words in particular, ‘Mihi jussa capessere,' &c. 1. He says, that I tell not whether a man may separate where there is corruption in some one of these only, or in all of them; nor, 2. How far some or all of these must be corrupted before we separate.' Ans. This is no small vanity under the sun, that men will not only measure themselves by themselves, but others also by their 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 whether 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 Presbyterians and Independents? do I at all fix it on this foot of account when I come so to do? I humbly beg of this author, that if I have so obscurely and intricately delivered myself and meaning, that he cannot come to the understanding of my design, nor import of my expressions, that he would favour me with a command to explain myself, before he engage into a public 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 controversy his eye is always on; but only declare what is not comprised in the precise Scripture notion of schism, as also how a judgment is to be made of that which is so by me excluded, whether it be good or evil. Would he have been pleased to have spoken to the business in hand, or any thing to the present purpose, it must not have been by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of separation, how far it may be justified by the plea mentioned, or how far 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 schism in the Scripture, and as such a thing condemned. What my concernment is in the ensuing observations, that the Judaical church was as corrupt as ours, that if a bare plea, true or false, will serve to justify men, all separatists may be justified,' he himself will easily perceive. But however, I cannot but tell him by the way, that he who will dogmatize, in this controversy, from the Judaical church, and the course of proceedings amongst them, to the direction and limitation of duty as to the churches of the gospel, considering the vast and important differences between the constitutions of the one and the other, with the infallible obligation to certain principles, on the account of the typical institution in that primitive church, when there neither was nor could be any more in the world, must expect to bring other arguments to compass his design, than the analogy pretended. For the justification of separatists of the reason, if it will ensue, upon the examination for separation, and the circumstances of the separating, whereunto I refer them, let it follow, and let who will complain. But to fill up the measure of the mistake he is engaged in, he tells us, p. 75. that this is the pinch of the question, whether a man or a company of men may separate from a true church, upon a plea of corruption in it, true or false, and set up another church, as to ordinances, renouncing that church to be a true church. This,' saith he, is plainly 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 fruitless employment in this kind of labour and travail. Is that the question in present agitation? is any thing, word, tittle, or iota spoken to it? is it my present business 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 business 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 Independents, that he is

at every turn led out of the way into such mistakes, as it was not possible he should otherwise be overtaken withal; this is perhaps mentis gratissimus error:' but I hope it would be no death to him to be delivered from it. When I laid down 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 manage, 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 always before his eyes, 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 lie under his consideration, than any other thing whatever that he might have mentioned; so when the peculiar difference between him and the Independents comes to be managed, scarce any one term 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 church's departure from the union which they ought to hold with others, unless it be in some of their departures from the common faith, which is not schism; much with the same success 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 schismatical church upon the account of the intestine divisions of all sorts on what other accounts other men urge them with the same guilt, I suppose he knows by this, that I am not concerned. 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 schism any farther; he tells me, though I be unwilling, he doubts not but to be able to compel me.' But who told him I was unwilling so to do? do I not immediately, without any compulsion, very freely fall upon the work? 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 schism 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, 'mark that'), 'as instituted by Jesus Christ, is the foundation of what I have farther to offer;' whereto he subjoined the design of this is, that he may have a fair retreat, when he is charged with breach of union, in other respects, and so with schism, 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 compass of institutions, and their tendency thereunto; and I know that I speak properly enough. In so doing I have no such design as I am charged withal, nor do I need it; I walk not in fear of this author's forces, that I should be providing beforehand to secure my retreat. I have passed the bounds of the precise notion of schism before insisted on, and yet doubt not but, God assisting, to make good my ground. If he judge I cannot, let him command my personal attendance on him at any time, to be driven from it by him: let him by any means 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 retreat from that state, or thing, whereby I have so done. I must profess to this reverend author, that I like not the cause he manages one whit the better for the way whereby he manageth it. We had need watch and pray that we be not led into temptation; seeing we are in some measure not ignorant of the devices of Satan.

Now that he may see this door of escape shut up, that so he may not need to trouble himself any more in taking care lest I escape that way, when he intends to fall upon me with those blows which as yet I have not felt, I shall shut it fast myself, beyond all possibility of my opening again. I here then declare unto him, that whenever 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 myself insist on the plea mentioned, but will submit to the discipline, which shall be thought meet by him to be exer

cised towards any one offending in that kind: yet truly on this engagement I would willingly contract with him, that in his next reply he should not deal with me as he hath done in this, neither as to my person, nor as to the differences between us.

CHAP. VI.

HAVING declared and vindicated the Scripture proper notion of schism, and thence discovered the nature of it, with all its aggravations, with the mistakes that men have run into who have suited their apprehensions concerning it unto what was their interests to have it thought to be, and opened a way thereby for the furtherance of peace among professors of the gospel of Jesus Christ; for the farther security of the consciences of men unjustly accused and charged with the guilt of this evil, I proceeded to the consideration of it in the usual common acceptation of the word and things, that so I might obviate whatever with any tolerable pretence is insisted on, as deduced by a parity of reason from what is delivered in the Scripture, in reference to the charge managed by some or other against all sorts of Protestants. Hereupon I grant, that it may be looked on in general as Siaipeσiç évÚTETOç, a branch of union,' so that it be granted also, that that union be an union of the institution of Jesus Christ. To find out then the nature of schism under the consideration of the condescension made, and to discover wherein the guilt of it doth consist, it is necessary that we find out what that union is, and wherein it doth consist, whereof it is the breadth and interruption, or is supposed so to be, over and above the breach above-mentioned and described. Now this union being the union of the church, the several acceptations of the church in Scripture are to be investigated, that the union inquired after may be made known. The church in Scripture being taken either for the church catholic, or the whole number of elect believers in the world (for we lay aside the consideration of that part of this great family of God, which is already in heaven, from this distinction), or else for the general visible body of those who profess the gospel of Christ, or for a particular society joining

« PreviousContinue »