Chapter 5. The Visible Catholic Church and Its Unity

Of the Catholick Church visible. Of the Nature thereof. In what sense the Universality of Professors is called a Church Amiraldus his Judgement in this businesse. The Union of the Church in this sense wherein it consists. Not the same with the Union of the Church Catholick. Nor that of a particular instituted Church. Not in relation to any one officer, or more, in subordination to one another. Such a subordination not proveable. [in non-Latin alphabet] of the Nicene Synod. Of generall Councells. Union of the Church visible not in a generall Councell. The true Unity of the Universality of professors asserted. Things necessary to this union. Story of a Martyr at Bagdat. The Apostacy of Churches from the unity of the Faith. Testimony of Hegesippus Vindicated Papall Apostacy. Protestants not guilty of the breach of this Unity. The Catholick Church in the sence insisted on, granted by the Ancients. Not a Politicall body.

The Second generall notion of the Church, as it is usually taken, signifies the Universality of men professing the Doctrine of the Gospell, and obedience to God in Christ, according to it, throughout the World. This is that, which is commonly called the visible Catholick Church, which now together with the union, which it has in its selfe, and how that Unity is broken, falls under consideration.

That all Professors of the Gospell throughout the World, called to the knowledge of Christ by the Word, doe make up, and constitute his visible Kingdome, by their professed subjection to him, and so may be called his Church, I grant. That they are precisely so called in Scripture is not unquestionable. What relation it stands in to all particular Churches, whether as a Genus to its Species, or as a Totum to its parts, has lately by many been discussed. I must crave leave to deny that it is capable of filling up, or of being included in, any of these denominations and Relations. The Universall Church we are speaking of, is not a thing that has as such, a specificative forme, from which it should be called an Universall Church; as a particular has for its ground of being so called. Its but a collection of all that are duely called Christians in respect of their profession; nor are the severall particular Churches of Christ in the world, so parts and members of any Catholick Church, as that it should be constituted, or made up by them and of them, for the order and purpose of an instituted Church, that is the cellebration of the worship of God, and Institutions of Jesus Christ according to the Gospell; which to assert, were to overthow a remarkable difference between the oeconomy of the Old Testament & the New. Nor do I think that particular Congregations doe stand to it in the Relation of Species to a Genus, in which the whole nature of it should be preserved and comprized, which would deprive every one of membership in this Universall Church, which is not joyned actually to some particular Church or Congregation, than which nothing can be more devoid of truth. To debate the thing in particular, is not my present intention, nor is needfull to the purpose in hand.

The summe is, the Universall Church is not so called upon the same account that a particular Church is so called. The formal Reason constituting a particular Church to be a particular Church, is, that those of whom it does consist, doe joyne together according to the minde of Christ in the excercise of the same numericall Ordinances for his worship. And in this sence the Universal Church cannot be said to be a Church, as though it had such a particular forme of its own; which that it has, or should have, is not only false but impossible. But it is so called, because all Christians throughout the world (excepting some individuall persons providentially excluded) do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the word, the same Sacraments administred in specie, profes one common faith and hope; but to the joynt performance of any exercise of Religion, that they should heare one Sermon together, or partake of one Sacrament, or have one Officer for their Rule and Government, is ridiculous to imagine; nor doe any professe to think so, as to any of the particulars mentioned, but those only, who have profit by the fable. As to the description of this Church, I shall acquiesce in that lately given of it by a very learned Man. Says he, Ecclesia Universalis est communio, seu societas omnium coetuum (I had rather he had said, and he had done it more agreeable to principles by himselfe laid down) omnium Fidem Christianam profitentium (sive illi ad Ecclesias aliquas particulares pertineant, sive non pertineant) qui Religionem Christianam profitentur, consistens in eo, quod tametsi neque exercitia pietatis uno numero frequentent, neque Sacramenta eadem numero participent, neque uno eodemque omnino ordine regantur, & gubernentur, unum tamen corpus in eo constituunt, quôd eundem Christum Servatorem habere se profitentur, uno in Evangelio propositum, iisdem promissionibus comprehensum, quas obsignant, & confirmant Sacramenta, ex eadem institutione pendentia. Amyrald. Thes. de Eccles. nom & defin The. 29.

There being then in the World a great multitude, which no man can number, of all Nations, Kindreds, people, and languages, professing the doctrine of the Gospell, not tied to mountaines, or hills (John 4), but worshipping [in non-Latin alphabet] (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:8), let us consider what union there is among them as such, wrapping them all in the bond thereof, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ; and wherein the breach of that union does consist, and how any man is or may be guilty thereof.

I suppose this will be granted: That only Elect believers belong to the Church in this sense considered, is a Chimaera feigned in the braines of the Romanists, and fastened on the Reformed Divines. I wholly assent to Austins dispute on this head against the Donatists: and the whole entanglement, that has been about this matter, has arisen from obstinacy in the Papists in not receiving the Catholick Church in the sense mentioned before; which to doe, they know would be injurious to their interest.

This Church being visible and professing, and being now considered under that constituting difference, that the union of it cannot be the same with that of the Catholick Church before mentioned, it is clear from hence, that multitudes of men belong to it, who have not the relation mentioned before to Christ and his body; which is required in all comprehended in that union; seeing many are called, but few are chosen. Nor can it consist in a joint assembly, either ordinary or extraordinary, for the celebration of the ordinances of the Gospel, or any one of them, as was the case of the Church of the Jews, which met at set times in one place, for the performance of that worship, which was then required, nor could otherwise be accomplished. For as it is not at all possible, that any such thing should ever be done, considering what is, and shall be, the estate of Christ's visible kingdom to the end of the world; so it is not (that I know of) pleaded, that Christ has made any such appointment: yes, it is on all hands confessed, at least cannot reasonably be denied, that there is a supersedeas granted to all supposals of any such duty, incumbent on the whole visible Church, by the institution of particular Churches, wherein all the ordinances of Christ are duly to be administered.

I shall only add, that if there be not an institution for the joining in the same numerical ordinances, the union of this Church is not really a Church union; I mean of an instituted Church, which consists therein but something of another nature. Neither can that have the formal reason of an instituted Church as such, which as such can join in no one act of the worship of God instituted to be performed in such societies: so that he that shall take into his thoughts, the condition of all the Christians in the world: their present state, what it has been for 1500 years, and what it is like to be [illegible], will easily understand, what Church state they stand in, and relate to.

3. It cannot possibly have its union by a relation to any one officer given to the whole, such an one as the Papists pretend the Pope to be. For though it be possible that one officer may have relation to all the Churches in the world, as the Apostles severally had (when Paul said the care of all the Churches lay on him) who by virtue of their apostolical commission were to be received, and submitted to in all the Churches in the world, being antecedent in office to them, yet this neither did, nor could make all the Churches one Church; no more than if one man were an officer or magistrate in every corporation in England, this would make all those corporations to be one corporation. I do not suppose the Pope to be an officer to the whole Church visible as such, which I deny to have a union or order capable of any such thing, but suppose him an officer to every particular Church, no union of the whole would from there ensue. That which is one Church must join at least in some one Church act, numerically one. So that though it should be granted, that the Pope were a general officer to all and every Church in the world, yet this would not prove, that they all made one Church, and had their Church-union in subjection to him, who was so an officer to them all; because to the constitution of such a union, as has been showed, there is that required, which in reference to the universal society of Christians, is utterly and absolutely impossible. But the non-institution of any such officer ordinarily to bear rule in, and over all the Churches of God, has been so abundantly proved by the divines of the Reformed Churches, and he who alone puts in his claim to that prerogative so clearly manifested to be quite another thing, that I will not needlessly go over that work again; something however shall afterwards be remarked, as to his pretensions, from the principles, whereon I proceed in the whole business.

There is indeed by some pleaded a subordination of officers in this Church, tending towards a union on that account; as that ordinary ministers should be subject to Diocesan Bishops, they to Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans, they again to Patriarchs; where some would bound the process, though a parity of reason would call for a Pope. Nor will the arguments pleaded for such a subordination rest, until they come to be centred in some such thing.

But [1] before this plea be admitted, it must be proved; that all these officers are appointed by Jesus Christ; or it will not concern us, who are enquiring solely after his will, and the settling of conscience therein. To do this with such an evidence, that the consciences of all those, who are bound to yield obedience to Jesus Christ, may appear to be therein concerned, will be a difficult task, as I suppose. And to settle this once for all; I am not dealing with the men of that lazy persuasion, that Church affairs are to be ordered by the prudence of our civil superiors and governors, and so seeking to justify a non submission to any of their constitutions, in the things of this nature, or to evidence, that the so doing is not schism; nor do I concern myself in the order and appointment of ancient times, by men assembled in synods and councils, wherein whatever was the force of their determinations in their own seasons, we are not at all concerned, knowing of nothing that is obligatory to us, not pleading from sovereign authority, or our own consent; but it is after things of pure institution that I am enquiring. With them who say there is no such thing in these matters, we must proceed on other principles, than any yet laid down.

Also it must be proved, that all these Officers are given, and do belong to the Catholick Church as such, and not to the particular Churches of several measures, and dimensions, to which they relate; which is not as yet, that I know of, so much as pretended by them, that plead for this order. They tell us indeed of various arbitrary distributions of the World, or rather of the Roman Empire into Patriarchats, with the dependent Jurisdictions mentioned; and that all within the precincts of those Patriarchats must fall within the lines of the subordination, subjection, and communication before described; but as there is no subordination between the Officers of one denomination in the inferior parts; no more is there any between the Superior themselves, but they are independent of each other. Now it is easily discernable, that these Patriarchats (how many or how few soever they are) are particular Churches, not any one of them the Catholick, nor altogether comprising all that are comprehended in the precincts of it, (which none will say that ever they did) and therefore this may speak something as to a combination of those Churches, nothing as to the union of the Catholick as such, which they are not.

Supposing this Assertion to the purpose in hand (which it is not at all) it would prove only a combination of all the Officers of several Churches, consisting in the subordination and dependance mentioned, not of the whole Church itself, though all the members of it should be at once imagined or fancied (as what shall hinder men from fancying what they please) to be comprised within the limits of those distributions, unless it be also proved, that Christ has instituted several sorts of particular Churches Parochial, Diocesan, Metropolitan, Patriarchal (I use the words in the present vulgar acceptation, their signification having been somewhat otherwise formerly; paroecia being the care of a private Bishop, Provincia of a Metropolitan, & Diocesis of a Patriarch) in the order mentioned, and has pointed out which of his Churches shall be of those several kinds throughout the world; which that it will not be done to the disturbance of my principles, while I live I have some present good security.

And because I take the men of this persuasion to be charitable men, that will not think much of taking a little pains for the reducing any person whatever from the error of his way, I would entreat them that they would inform me what Patriarchate according to the institution of Christ, I (who by the providence of God live here at Oxon) do de jure belong to; that so I may know how to preserve the union of that Church, and to behave myself therein. And this I shall promise them, that if I were singly, or in conjunction with any others, so considerable, that those great Officers should contend about, whose subjects we should be, (as was done heretofore about the Bulgarians,) that it should not at all startle me about the truth and excellency of Christian Religion, as it did those poor creatures, who being newly converted to the faith, knew nothing of it but what they received from men of such principles.

But that this constitution is human, and the distributions of Christians in subjection to Church Officers, into such and such divisions of nations and countries prudential and arbitrary, I suppose will not be denied. The [in non-Latin alphabet] of the Nicene Synod intends no more; nor is any thing of institution, nor so much as of Apostolical tradition pleaded therein. The following ages were of the same persuasion. Hence in the Council of Chalcedon the Archiepiscopacy of Constantinople was advanced into a Patriarchat, and many provinces cast in subjection thereunto, wherein the Primates of Ephesus and Thrace were cut short of what they might plead [in non-Latin alphabet] for. And sundry other alterations were likewise made in the same kind (Socrat lib. 5. cap. 8). The ground and reason of which procedure, the Fathers assembled sufficiently manifest in the reason assigned for the advancement of the Bishops of Constantinople, which was for the city's sake [in non-Latin alphabet] Can. 3. Con. Constan. And what was the judgement of the Council of Chalcedon upon this matter may be seen in the composition & determination of the strife between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Invenalis of Hierusalem (Ac. 7. Con. Cal.) with translation of Provinces from the jurisdiction of one to another. And he that shall suppose that such assemblies as these were instituted by the will and appointment of Christ in the Gospel, with Church authority for such dispositions and determinations, so as to make them of concernment to the unity of the Church, will if I mistake not, be hardly bestead in giving the ground of that his supposal.

4. I would know of them who desire to be under this law, whether the power with which Jesus Christ has furnished the Officers of his Church come forth from the supreme mentioned Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops, and is by them communicated to the inferiors, or vice-versa; or whether all have their power in an equal immediation from Christ. If the latter be granted, there will be a greater independency established than most men are aware of, (though the Papalins understood it in the Council of Trent) and a wound given to successive Episcopal Ordination, not easily to be healed. That power is communicated from the inferiors to the Superiors will not be pleaded. And seeing the first must be insisted on, I beseech them not to be too hasty with men not so sharp sighted as themselves, if finding the names they speak of barbarous and foreign as to the Scriptures, and the things themselves not at all delineated therein, [in non-Latin alphabet].

5. The truth is, the whole subordination of this kind, which de facto has been in the world, was so clearly a human invention, or a prudential constitution (as has been showed) (which being done by men professing authority in the Church, gave it as it was called vim Ecclesiasticam) that nothing else in the issue is pleaded for it. And now though I shall, if called thereunto, manifest both the unreasonableness & unsuitableness to the design of Christ for his worship under the Gospel, comparative novelty, and mischievous issue of that constitution; yet at the present, being no farther concerned but only to evince that the union of the General visible Church does not therein consist, I shall not need to add any thing to what has been spoken.

The Nicene Council, which first made towards the confirmation of something, like somewhat, of what was afterwards introduced in some places, pleaded only (as I said before) the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], old usage for it, which it would not have done, could it have given a better original thereunto. And whatever the antiquities then pretended might be, we know that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. And I do not fear to say, what others have done before me, concerning the Canons of that first and best general Council, as it is called, they are all hay and stubble; nor yet does the laying this custom on [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in my apprehension, evince their judgement of any long prescription. Peter speaking of a thing that was done a few years before, says, that it was done [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Acts 15:7). Somewhat a greater antiquity, than that by him intended, I can freely grant to the custom by the Fathers pretended.

But a general Council is pleaded with the best color and pretence for a bond of union to this general and visible Church. In consideration hereof, I shall not divert to the handling of the rise, right use, authority, necessity of such Councils; about all which, somewhat in due time towards satisfaction may be offered to those, who are not in bondage to names and traditions. Nor shall I remark what has been the management of the things of God in all ages in those assemblies, many of which have been the stains and ulcers of Christian religion. Nor yet shall I say, with what little disadvantage to the religion of Jesus Christ, I suppose a loss of all the Canons of all Councils that ever were in the world, since the Apostles' days, with their acts and contests (considering what use is made of them) might be undergone. Nor yet shall I digress to the usefulness of the assemblies of several churches in their representatives, to consider and determine about things of common concernment to them, with their tendency to the preservation of that communion, which ought to be among them; but as to the present instance only offer

1. That such general Councils, being things purely extraordinary and occasional, (as is confessed) cannot be an ordinary standing bond of union to the Catholic Church; and if any one shall reply, that though in themselves, and in their own continuance they cannot be so, yet in their authority, laws, and Canons they may, I must say, that besides the very many reasons I have to call into question the power of law-making for the whole society of Christians in the world, in all the general Councils that have been, or possibly can be on the earth; the dispute about the title of those assemblies, which pretend to this honor, which are to be admitted, which excluded, are so endless; the rules of judging them so dark, lubricous, and uncertain, framed to the interest of contenders on all hands; the laws of them, which de facto have gone under that title and name, so innumerable, burdensome, uncertain, and frivolous, in a great part so grossly contradictory to one another, that I cannot suppose that any man upon second thoughts, can abide in such an assertion. If any shall, I must be bold to declare my affection to the doctrine of the Gospel maintained in some of those assemblies, for some hundreds of years, and then to desire him to prove, that any general Council, since the Apostles fell asleep, has been so convened, and managed, as to be enabled to claim that authority to itself, which is, or would be due to such an assembly, instituted according to the mind of Christ.

That it has been of advantage to the truth of the Gospel, that godly learned men, bishops of churches, have convened, and witnessed a good confession, in reference to the doctrine thereof, and declared their abhorrence of the errors, that are contrary thereunto, is confessed. That any man, or men, is, are, or ever were entrusted by Christ with authority so to convene them, as that thereupon, and by virtue thereof, they should be invested with a new authority, power, and jurisdiction, at such a convention, and from there should take upon them to make laws and Canons, that should be ecclesiastically binding to any persons, or churches, as theirs, is not as yet to me attended with any convincing evidence of truth. And seeing at length it must be spoken, I shall do it with submission to the thoughts of good men, that are any way acquainted with these things, and in sincerity therein commend my conscience to God; that I do not know any thing that is extant, bearing clearer witness to the sad degeneracy of Christian religion in the profession thereof, nor more evidently discovering the efficacy of another Spirit, than what was poured out by Christ at his Ascension, nor containing more hay and stubble, that is to be burned and consumed, than the stories of the acts and laws of the Councils and Synods, that have been in the world.

2. But to take them as they are, as to that alone wherein the first Councils had any evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with them, namely, in the declaring the doctrine of the Gospel; it falls in with that which I shall give in for the bond of union to the Church in the sense pleaded about.

3. Such an assembly arising cumulative out of particular churches, as it is evident that it does, it cannot first and properly belong to the Church general, as such; but it is only a means of communion between those particular churches as such, of whose representatives (I mean virtually, for formally the persons convening for many years ceased to be so) it does consist.

4. There is nothing more ridiculous than to imagine a general Council, that should represent the whole Catholic Church, or so much as all the particular churches that are in the world; and let him that is otherwise minded, that there has been such a one, or that it is possible there should be such a one, prove by instance, that such there have been since the Apostles' times; or by reason, that such may be in the present age, or be justly expected in those that are for to succeed, and we will, as we are able, crown him for his discovery.

Indeed I know not how any council, that has been in the world these 1300 years and somewhat upwards, could be said to represent the church in any sense, or any churches whatever. Their convention, as is known, has been always by imperial or papal authority: the persons convened such, and only they, who as was pretended, and pleaded, had right of suffrage, with all necessary authority in such conventions, from the order, degree, and office, which personally they hold in their several churches. Indeed a Pope or Bishop sent his legate or proxy, to represent, or rather personate him, and his authority. But that any of them were sent, or delegated by the church wherein they did preside, is not so evident.

I desire then, that some man more skilled in laws and common usages than myself, would inform me, on what account such a convention could come to be a church representative, or the persons of it to be representatives of any churches. General grounds of reason and equity I am persuaded, cannot be pleaded for it. The Lords in Parliament in this nation, who being summoned by regal authority, sat there in their own personal right, were never esteemed to represent the body of the people. Supposing indeed all church power in any particular church, of whatever extract, or composition, to be solely vested in one single person; a collection of those persons (if instituted) would bring together the authority of the whole. But yet this would not make that assembly to be a church representative, if you will allow the name of the church to any, but that single person. But for men, who have but a partial power and authority in the church, and perhaps, separated from it, none at all, without any delegation from the churches to convene, and in their own authority to take upon them to represent those churches, is absolute presumption.

These several pretensions being excluded, let us see wherein the unity of this church, namely, of the great society of men professing the Gospel, and obedience to Christ, according to it, throughout the world, does consist. This is summed up by the Apostle (Ephesians 4:5): one Lord, one faith, one baptism. It is the unity of the doctrine of faith, which men profess, in subjection to one Lord Jesus Christ, being initiated into that profession by baptism. I say, the saving doctrine of the Gospel of salvation by Jesus Christ, and obedience through him to God as professed by them, is the bond of that union, whereby they are made one body, are distinguished from all other societies, have one head Christ Jesus, which as to profession they hold, and while they do so, are of this body, in one professed hope of their calling.

Now that this union be preserved, it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel, without the knowledge whereof no man can be saved by Jesus Christ, be so far believed, as to be outwardly and visibly professed in that variety of ways, wherein they are, or may be called out thereunto. There is a proportion of faith (Romans 12:6), an unity of faith, and of knowledge of the Son of God (Ephesians 4:13), a measure of saving truths, the explicit knowledge whereof in man, enjoying the use of reason within, and the means of grace without, is of indispensable necessity to salvation, without which it is impossible that any soul in an ordinary way should have communion with God in Christ, having not light sufficient for converse with him, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace. These are commonly called fundamentals, or first principles, which are justly argued by many to be clear, perspicuous, few, lying in an evident tendency to obedience. Now look what truths are savingly to be believed, to render a man a member of the church catholic invisible; that is, whatever is required in any one, to such a receiving of Jesus Christ; as that thereby he may have power given to him to become the Son of God, the profession of those truths is required, to enstate a man in the unity of the church visible.

2. That no other internal principle of the mind, that has an utter inconsistency with the real belief of the truths necessary to be professed, be manifested by the professors. Paul tells us of some, who, though they would be called Christians, yet they so walked, as that they manifested themselves to be enemies of the cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18). Certainly those, who on one account, are open and manifest enemies of the cross of Christ, are not on any, members of his church. There is one Lord, and one faith required, as well as one baptism. And a protestation contrary to evidence of fact, is in all law, null. Let a man profess 10000 times, that he believes all the saving truths of the Gospel, and by the course of a wicked and profane conversation evidence to all, that he believes no one of them, shall his protestation be admitted? Shall he be accounted a servant in, and of my family, who will call me master, and come into my house only to do me and mine a mischief, not doing any thing I require of him, but openly and professedly the contrary? Paul says of such (Titus 1:15, 16): they profess that they know God, yet in works they deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate; which though peculiarly spoken of the Jews, yet contains a general rule, that men's profession of the knowledge of God, contradicted by a course of wickedness, is not to be admitted, as a thing giving any privilege whatever.

3. That no thing, opinion, error, or false doctrine, everting or overthrowing any of the necessary saving truths professed, as above, be added in and with that profession; or deliberately be professed also. This principle the Apostle lays down and proves (Galatians 5:3, 4): notwithstanding the profession of the Gospel, he tells the Galatians, that if they were bewitched to profess also the necessity of circumcision, and keeping of the law for justification, that Christ or the profession of him would not profit them. On this account the ancients excluded many heretics from the name of Christians, so Justin of the Marcionites and others [illegible].

We are at length then arrived to this issue; the belief and profession of all the necessary saving truths of the Gospel, without the manifestation of an internal principle of the mind, inconsistent with the belief of them, or adding of other things in profession, that are destructive to the truths so professed, is the bond of the unity of the visible professing Church of Christ. Where this is found in any man or number of men, though otherwise accompanied with many failings, sins and errors, the unity of the faith is by him or them so far preserved, as that they are thereby rendered members of the visible Church of Christ, and are by him so esteemed.

Let us suppose a man by bare reading of the Scriptures, brought to him by some providence of God (as finding the Bible in the high way) and evidencing their authority by their own light, instructed in the knowledge of the truths of the Gospel, who shall thereupon make profession of them among them, with whom he lives, although he be thousands of miles distant from any particular Church, wherein the ordinances of Christ are administered; nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world, much less has ever heard of the Pope of Rome (which is utterly impossible he should, supposing him instructed only by reading of the Scriptures) I ask whether this man, making open profession of Christ according to the Gospel, shall be esteemed a member of the visible Church in the sense insisted on or no?

That this may not seem to be such a fiction of a case, as may involve in it any impossible supposition, which being granted will hold a door open for other absurdities, I shall exemplify it in its most material postulata by a story of unquestionable truth.

Elmacinus, who wrote the story of the Saracens, being Secretary to one of the Caliphs at Bagdat, informs us, that in the year 309 of their Hegira, about the year 921 of our account, Muctadinus the Caliph of Bagdat by the counsel of his wise men, commanded one Huseinus the son of Mansor to be crucified for certain poems, whereof some verses are recited by the historian, and are thus rendered by Erpenius.

From which remnant of his work it is easily to perceive, that the crime whereof he was accused, and for which he was condemned and crucified, was the confession of Jesus Christ the Son of God. As he went to the cross he added, says the same author, these that follow.

And so died constantly (as it appears) in the profession of the Lord Jesus.

Bagdat was a city built not long before by the Saracens, wherein it is probable there were not at that time any Christians abiding. Add now to this story what our Savior speaks (Luke 12:8): I say to you whoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man confess before the angels of God; and considering the unlimitedness of the expression as to any outward consideration, and tell me whether this man, or any other in the like condition, be not to be reckoned as a subject of Christ's visible kingdom; a member of this Church in the world.

Let us now recall to mind what we have in design; granting for our process sake, that schism is the breach of any unity instituted and appointed by Christ in what sense soever it is spoken of, our inquiry is, whether we are guilty in any kind of such a breach, or the breach of such a unity. This then now insisted on being the union of the Church of Christ, as visibly professing the word, according to his own mind, when I have laid down some general foundations of what is to ensue, I shall consider whether we are guilty of the breach of this union and argue the several pretensions of men against us, especially of the Romanists on this account.

1. I confess that this union of the general visible Church was once comprehensive of all the Churches in the world; the faith once delivered to the saints being received among them. From this unity it is taken also for granted, that a separation is made, and it continues not as it was at the first institution of the Churches of Christ, though some small breaches were made upon it, immediately after their first planting. The Papists say, as to the European Churches wherein their and our concernment principally lies, this breach was made in the days of our forefathers; by their departure from the common faith in those ages, though begun by a few some ages before. We are otherwise minded, and affirm, that this secession was made by them, and their predecessors in apostasy, in several generations by several degrees; which we manifest, by comparing the present profession and worship, with that in each kind, which we know was at first embraced, because we find it instituted. At once then, we say this schism lies at their doors, who not only have deviated from the common faith themselves, but do also actually cause, and attempt to destroy temporally and eternally all that will not join with them therein. For as the mystery of iniquity began to work in the Apostles' days; so we have a testimony beyond exception in the complaint of those that lived in them, that not long after, the operation of it became more effectual, and the infection of it to be more diffused in the Church. This is that of Hegesyppus in Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 26), who affirms that the Church remained a virgin (while the Apostles lived) pure and uncorrupted, but when that sacred society had ended its pilgrimage, and the generation that heard and received the word from them were fallen asleep, many false doctrines were preached and divulged therein.

I know who has endeavoured to elude the sense of this complaint, as though it concerned not any thing in the Church, but the despisers and persecutors of it, the Gnosticks. But yet I know also, that no man would so do but such a one, as has a just confidence of his own ability to make passable at least, any thing that he shall venture to say or utter. For why should that be referred by Hegesyppus to the ages after the Apostles and their hearers were dead, with an exception against its being so in their days; when if the person thus expounding this testimony may be credited, the Gnosticks were never more busy nor prevalent than in that time which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of. Nor can I understand how the opposition and persecution of the Church should be insinuated to be the deflowering and violating of its chastity, which is commonly a great purifying of it; so that speaking of that broaching and preaching of errors, which was not in the Apostles times, nor in the time of their hearers, the chiefest time of the rage and madness of the Gnosticks; such as spotted the pure and incorrupted virginity of the Church, which nothing can attain to that is foreign to it, and that which gave original to sedition in the Church: I am of the mind, and so I conceive was Eusebius that recited those words, that the good man intended corruptions in the Church, not out of it, nor oppositions to it.

The process made in after ages, in a deviation from the unity of the faith, till it arrived to that height wherein it is now stated in the Papal Apostacy, has been the work of others to declare; therein then I stated the rise and progress of the present schisme (if it may be so called) of the visible Church.

2. As to our concernment in this business, they that will make good a charge against us, that we are departed from the unity of the Church Catholick, it is incumbent on them to evidence, that we either do not believe and make profession of all the truths of the Gospel indispensably necessary to be known, that a man may have a communion with God in Christ and be saved. Or

2. That doing so, in the course of our lives we manifest and declare a principle, that is utterly inconsistent with the belief of those truths, which outwardly we profess; or

3. That we add to them, in opinion or worship, that, or those things, which are in very deed destructive of them; or do any way render them insufficient to be saving to us. If neither of these three can be proved against a man, he may justly claim the privilege of being a member of the visible Church of Christ in the world, though he never in all his life be a member of a particular Church: which yet if he have fitting opportunity and advantage for it, is his duty to be.

And thus much be spoken as to the state and condition of the visible Catholick Church! and in this sense we grant it to be, and the unity thereof. In the late practice of men, that expression of the Catholick Church has been an Individuum Vagum, few knowing what to make of it: A Cothurnus that every one accommodated at pleasure to his own principles and pretensions. I have no otherwise described it, than did Irenaeus of old; said he, judicabit omnes eos, qui sunt extra veritatem, id est, extra Ecclesiam. Lib 4. cap. 62. And on the same account, is a particular Church sometimes called by some, the Catholick. Quandoque ego Remigius Episcopus de hâc luce transiero, tu mihi Haeres esto, Sancta & venerabilis Ecclesia Catholica urbis Remorum. Flodoardus lib. 1.

In the sense insisted on, was it so frequently described by the Ancients.

So again Irenaeus; Etsi in mundo loquelae dissimiles sunt, sed tamen virtus traditionis una & eadem est, & neque hae, quae in Germania sunt [illegible]undatae, Ecclesiae aliter credunt, aut aliter tradunt, neque hae, quae in Hibernis sunt, neque hae quae in Celtis, neque hae, quae in Oriente, neque hae quae in Aegypto, neque hae quae in Lybia, neque hae quae in medio mundi constitutae: Sed sicut sol Creatura Dei in universo mundo unus & idem est, si[illegible] & lumen & praedicatio veritatis ubique lucet. lib. 1. cap. 3. to the same purpose Jus[illegible]in Martyr, [in non-Latin alphabet] Dialog. cum Tryphone.

The generality of all sorts of men worshipping God in Jesus Christ, is the Church we speak of: whose extent in his days Tertullian thus related: In quem alium crediderunt Gentes universae, nisi in ipsum, qui jam venit? Cui enim alii, Gentes crediderunt, Parthi, Medi, & Elamitae, & qui habitant Mesopotamiam, Armeniam, Phrygiam, & immorantes Aegyptum & regionem Africae, quae est trans Cyrenem Romani, & incolae tunt, & in Hierusalem Iudei & Gentes caeterae, ut jam Getulonum varietates & Maurorum nulli fines Hispanarum omnes termini, & Galliarum diversae Nationes & Britanorum inaccessa loca Romanis, Christo vero subdita & Sarmatarum & Dacorum & Germanorum & Seytharum & abditarum multarum Gentium & Provinciarum & Ins[illegible]larum multarum nobis ignotarum, & quae enumerare non possumus, in quibus omnibus locis Christi nomen, qui jam venit, regna[illegible] ad Iudaeos.

Some have said, and do yet say, that the Church in this sense, is a visible, organical, political body. That it is visible is confessed, both its matter and form bespeaks visibility, as an unseparable adjunct of its subsisting. That it is a body also in the general sense wherein that word is used, or a society of men embodied by the profession of the same faith, is also granted. Organical, in this business, is an ambiguous term. The use of it is plainly metaphorical, taken from the members, instruments and organs of a natural body. Because Paul has said that in one body there are many members, as eyes, feet, hands, yet the body is but one; so is the Church: it has been usually said, that the Church is an organical body. What Church Paul speaks of in that place is not evident: but what he alludes to, is. The difference he speaks of, in the individual persons of the Church, is not in respect of office, power, and authority; but gifts or graces, and usefulness on that account; such an organical body we confess the Church Catholick visible to be; in it are persons endued with variety of gifts and graces for the benefit and ornament of the whole.

An organic political body is a thing of another nature; a politic body or commonwealth is a society of a certain portion of mankind, united under some form of rule or government, whose supreme and subordinate administration is committed to several persons, according to the tenor of such laws and customs as that society has, or does consent to. This also is said to be organic on a metaphorical account, because the officers and members that are in it, and over it, hold proportion to the more noble parts of the body. Kings are said to be heads, counselors [in non-Latin alphabet]: to the constitution of such a commonwealth distinctly, as such, it is required that the whole has the same laws; but not that only. Two nations most distinct and different, on the account of other ends and interests, may yet have the same individual laws and customs, for the distribution of justice, and preservation of peace among themselves. An entire form of regiment and government peculiar thereunto is required for the constitution of a distinct political body. In this sense we deny the Church whereof we speak, to be an organic, political body — as not having indeed any of the requisites thereunto. Not one law of order? The same individual moral law, or law for moral duties it has, but a law given to the whole, as such, for order, polity, rule, it has not; all the members of it are obliged to the same law of order and polity in their several societies; but the whole, as such, has no such law. It has no such head or governor as such: nor will it suffice to say, that Christ is its head: for if as a visible political body it has a political head, that head also must be visible. The commonwealth of the Jews was a political body; of this God was the head and king; hence their historian says their government was [in non-Latin alphabet]; and when they would choose a king, God said they rejected him, who was their political head; to whom a sickle was paid yearly as tribute, called the sickle of the Sanctuary. Now they rejected him, not by asking a king, simply, but a king after the manner of the nations; yet that it might be a visible political body, it required a visible supreme magistrate to the whole [illegible]; which when there was none, all polity was dissolved among them (Judges 21). Christ is the head of every particular Church, its lawgiver and ruler: but yet to make a Church a visible, organic, political body, it is required that it has visible governors and rulers, and of the whole; nor can it be said, that it is a political body, that has a supreme government and order in it; as it is made up and constituted of particular Churches; and that in the representatives convened does the supreme visible power of it consist; for such a convention in the judgment of all, ought to be extraordinary only; in ours is utterly impossible, and de facto was not among the Churches for 300 years, yes, never. Besides, the visible catholic Church is not made up of particular Churches as such; for if so, then no man can be member of it, but by virtue of his being a member of some visible Church, which is false; profession of the truth — as before stated — is the formal reason and cause of any person's relation to the Church visible, which he has thereby, whether he belong to any particular Church or no.

Let it be evidenced, that the universal Church whereof we speak, has any law or rule of order and government, as such, given to it; or that it is in possibility as such, to put any such law or rule into execution, that it has any homogeneous ruler or rulers that have the care of the administration of the rule and government of the whole, as such, committed to him or them by Jesus Christ; that as it has the same common spiritual, and known orders and interests, and the same specific ecclesiastical rule given to all its members, so it has the same political interest, order and conversation, as such, or that it has any one cause constitutive of a political body, whereby it is such, or has at all the form of an instituted Church, or is capable of any such form, and they that do so, shall be further attended to.