fencing stages: but the Gospel was worth it, and carried more than enough in it, to make mankind amends. As long as religion is held in any value or esteem, and meets with opposers, it must occasion warm disputes who would wish that it should not? What remedy is there for it, while men are men, which is not infinitely worse than the disease? A total contempt of religion might end all disputes about it, nothing else will: and even then men's quarrels would not be fewer, but more; only they would be about matters of another kind, about every thing they should value or esteem. Upon the whole, it is better, I suppose, that we should have some religion, though we often contend about it, than to have none at all, and to quarrel ten times oftener about trifles. It has been complained of, and has been thought to be a shrewd remark, that ecclesiastical history is made up of little else but religious contests and animosities of churchmen. But, pray, what is the history of mankind, but a history of wars and contentions about something or other, which they had a tender concern for? And it would be strange indeed, if a history of religion, the greatest concern of all, should not contain many contests. Who could believe that men had any religion, if during the state of the Church militant, and while there is like to be great opposition, there should be no warmth or vivacity shown in defence of it? But this I have hinted more than once already. Now to return to our point. Though the censuring of men that corrupt the faith may provoke, may increase ill blood, &c. yet it must be done: and to decline it, when necessary, is a culpable moderation, a blameable timidity. And it is farther to be considered, that though rejecting some persons from the communion of the Church may inflame the quarrel between the Church and its adversaries, yet it tends to preserve and promote the peace of its members within: therefore St. Paul prescribes this very remedy, for the securing the peace of the Church: "Mark them which cause divisions and of❝ fences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, "and avoid them "." So that though in some sense or respect, strict order and discipline may accidentally heighten differences, yet its true and natural tendency is peace; which it serves and promotes in one view, much more than it obstructs or disserves it in another. The objection therefore is grounded upon a false presumption, that peace suffers upon the whole, by such conduct; which we deny for, upon a just balancing of the account, peace is very much befriended by it, and true and proper Christian peace could not long subsist without it. However, I allow there is so much weight in the objection which I have been answering, that the consideration of it ought to make us exceeding cautious and deliberate, as to the steps we take, and the heights we proceed to, in all cases of that nature: not to multiply necessaries without or beyond reason; not to divide upon indifferent rites, customs, ceremonies, as Pope Victor is known to have done; nor upon dubious points of discipline, as Pope Stephen did: who had indeed right on his side, as to the matter in dispute, but pushed it too rigorbusly; and St. Cyprian, though mistaken, was yet the wiser, humbler, and better man. Where the main cause is both clear and weighty, yet even there many prudential cautions should be taken; not to suspect any persons without sufficient evidence; not to be prying and inquisitive into their retired sentiments; (ministers only excepted, or candidates for the ministry, whose faith should be strictly inquired into P, before they be allowed;) not to proceed to rigours with any man, till all gentle measures have been first tried; nor to break communion with any who do not openly espouse and pertinaciously abet false and pernicious doctrines. These, I apprehend, are the prudential cautions proper in such cases: and there may be more of like kind, which every man's common reason and discretion may supply. If truth and peace can be n Rom. xvi. 17. • See Rogers's Review, p. 290, 291. P1 Tim. iii. 9, 10. v. 22. maintained together, that is the most desirable conjunction which a good man can wish for: but if human affairs will not always admit of both, then the rule is, out of two evils to choose the least, or of two advantages to prefer the greatest. Where divine truths and human customs or dictates clash, we must "obey God rather than man:" in other cases, civility and tenderness towards all men, is true obedience towards God. It requires good judgment to discern, under various circumstances, the true and precise boundaries between sinful men-pleasing and Christian charity but this is certain, we are as much (yea, and more) obliged to maintain the fundamentals of faith, as to keep up peace. And it would be but an ill way to preserve peace, (if it might be called peace,) by forfeiting our Christianity; or to enlarge Christian communion, by receiving those who, in a strict and proper sense, are not Christians 9. "Unity is not to be purchased at so dear a "rate. It were a thing much to be desired, that there 66 were no divisions; yet difference of opinions touching 66 things controverted, is rather to be chosen than unani"mous concord in damned errors: as it is better for 66 men to go to heaven by divers ways, or rather by divers paths of the same way, than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell. Amica pax, magis amica ve"ritas." 66 VIII. It has been sometimes pleaded, in bar to the principles which we have before asserted, "that no one "ought to be excluded from Christian communion, what66 ever his faith be, provided he acknowledges sacred "Writ for his rule, and is ready to admit any creeds or "confessions drawn up entirely in Scripture terms." To which I answer, that a man who never declares his faith otherwise than in Scripture words is very safe from censure, and can never be excluded from Christian communion for heresy. It is the maintaining doctrines contrary Vid. Suicer. in voce Xiriavos, p. 1540, 1541. Bingham, Antiq. b. i. c. iii. s. 4. Chillingworth, p. 218. to Scripture, in points fundamental, which makes a heretic; and therefore if a man never interprets it at all, but barely repeats the words, he is perfectly secure so far; and no one can condemn him. If this then be all that the plea aims at, it is foreign and impertinent to the cause in hand. But if the meaning of the plea be this, that though a man teaches any wild doctrines whatever, yet if he does but father those doctrines upon sacred Writ, by any feigned and forced construction, (acknowledging Scripture all the while as his rule of faith,) he ought to be received as a fellow Christian; I say, if this be the plea, it is so manifestly absurd and ridiculous, at the first hearing, that it can scarce deserve a serious answer. For does the faith of Christ lie in words only, or in things? or is the repeating of the bare letter of Scripture, after a man has spirited away the sense, delivering divine truths, or contradicting and defeating them? To make the case plainer, I shall illustrate it by a resembling instance. Franciscus a Sancta Clara, a known Papist, (who published his book A. D. 1634.) contrived to make our XXXIX Articles speak his own sentiments, reconciling them with great dexterity, and most amazing subtilty, to the Council of Trent. Now, put the question, whether upon his thus professing his faith in Protestant terms, popishly interpreted, he could justly claim every privilege of a Church of England man, and whether we were bound to receive him as a fellow Protestant? A very little share of common sense, I presume, will be sufficient to determine the question in the negative. The like I say of any person who interprets our Christian charter to an AntiChristian sense: he has no more right to be admitted as • Nulla vox divina ita dissoluta est et diffusa, ut verba tantum defendantur, et ratio verborum non constituatur. Tertullian. de Præscript. c. 9. Nec sibi blandiantur [hæretici] si de Scripturarum capitulis videntur sibi affirmare quod dicunt, quum et diabolus de scripturis aliqua sit loquutus; et scripturæ non in legendo consistant, sed in intelligendo. Hieronym. Dial. adv. Lucifer. p. 386. 151 a fellow Christian, than the other had to be received as a fellow Protestant. For though both admit the same words or forms which we do, yet so long as they teach things directly contrary to those very words or forms rightly understood, they are chargeable with false doctrine, in our account; and their teaching such doctrine in a manner so insidious and fraudulent is so far from alleviating their guilt, that it greatly enhances it. It may be said perhaps, in the way of reply, that the famous Abbot of St. Clare knew that he perverted the true meaning and intent of our Articles, while those that pervert the sense of Scripture may believe that they justly interpret it. If that be the case, it is true that it will make a difference: but I have no occasion to consider that difference here, being foreign to the present point. For supposing the perverters of Scripture to do it ever so wickedly and fraudulently, yet they may make use of the same plea, that they are ready to profess their faith in Scripture words, and therefore ought not to be excluded from Christian communion. A Valentinian, a Montanist, a Muggletonian, or any other wild sectary, by this rule, might equally claim Christian communion, provided he does not reject Scripture itself, and turn infidel. Now a plea which thus manifestly overshoots the mark ought to be rejected as an absurd plea, like as an argument which proves too much ought to be thrown aside as worth nothing. Those who undesignedly pervert Scripture should have something better to plead than their retaining the words of Scripture: otherwise their plea reaches no farther than theirs does who industriously do the same thing; for they also retain the same words. Upon the whole therefore, a man's retaining the bare letter of Scripture, while he corrupts the sense, is no sufficient reason for receiving him to Christian communion. For he is not only chargeable with denying the faith, as much as if he had rejected the text itselft, but • Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus, quantum et corruptor stilus. Tertull. de Præscript. c. 17. |
