Chapter 7 — The Catholic Visible Church

Our progresse in the next place is to the consideration of the Catholick Church visible. Who are the members of this church, whereof it is constituted, what is required to make them so, on what account men visibly professing the gospel may be esteemed justly devested of the priviledge of being members of this church, with sundry respects of the church in that sense, are in my treatise discussed. The union of this church that is proper and peculiar to it as such, I declared to be the profession of the saving doctrine of the gospel, not everted by any of the miscarriages, errors, or oppositions to it, that are there recounted. The breach of this union I manifest to consist in apostasy, from the profession of the faith, and so to be no Schisme, upon whoever the guilt of it does fall; pleading the immunity of the Protestants as such from the guilt of the breach of this union, and charging it upon the Romanists, in all the waies whereby it may be broken, an issue is put to that discourse.

What course our Reverend Author takes in the examination of this chapter, and the severalls of it, whereon the strength of the controversie does lie, is now to be considered. Does he deny this church to be a collection of all that are duly called Christians in respect of their profession? To be that great multitude who throughout the world, professe the doctrine of the gospel, and subjection to Jesus Christ? Does he denie the union of this church, or that whereby that great multitude are incorporated into one body as visible and professing, to be the profession of the saving doctrines of the gospel, and of subjection to Jesus Christ according to them? Does he denie the dissolution of this union as to the interest of any member by it in the body, to be by apostasy from the profession of the gospel? Does he charge that apostasy upon those whom he calls Independents as such, or if he should, could he tolerably defend his charge? Does he prove that the breach of this union, is under that formality properly Schisme? Nothing lesse! as far as I can gather. Might not then the trouble of this Chapter have been spared? Or shall I be necessitated to defend every expression in my book, though nothing at all to the main businesse under debate, or else Independency must goe for a great Schisme. I confesse this is somewhat an hard Law, and such as I cannot proceed in obedience to it, without acknowledging his ability to compell me to go on further then I am willing; yet I do it with this ingagement, that I will so looke to my selfe, that he shall never have that power over me any more; nor will I upon any compulsion of useless needlesse cavils and exceptions do so again — so that in his reply he now knowes how to order his affairs so, as to be freed from the trouble of a Rejoinder.

His first attempt in this chapter, is upon a short discourse of mine, in my processe, which I professe not to be needfull to the purpose in hand, relating to some later disputes about the nature of this Church, wherein some had affirmed it to be a Genus to particular churches, which are so many distinct species of it, and others that it was a totum made up of particular churches as its parts, both which in some sense I denyed; partly out of a desire to keep off all debates about the things of God, from being enwrapped and agitated in and under Philosophicall notions and faigned tearms of Art, which has exceedingly multiplied controversies in the world and rendred them endlesse, and does more or lesse streighten or oppose every truth that is so dealt withall; partly because I evidently saw men deducing false consequents from the supposition of such notions of this Church. For the first way, our Reverend Author lets it passe, onely with a remarke upon my dissenting from Mr Hooker of New England, which he could not but note by the way, although he approves what I affirme. A worthy note! as though all the brethren of the Presbyterian way, were agreed among themselves in all things of the like importance; or that I were in my judgment enthralled to any man or men, so that it should deserve a note when I dissent from them. Truly I blesse God, I am utterly unacquainted with any such frame of spirit, or bondage of mind, as must be supposed to be in them whose dissent from other men is a matter of such observation. One is my Master, to whom alone my heart and judgement are in subjection. For the latter I do not say absolutely that particular Churches are not the parts of the Catholique visible, in any sense, but that they are not so parts of it as such, so that it should be constituted and made up by them, and of them, for the order and purpose of an instituted Church, for the celebration of the worship of God, and institutions of Christ, according to the gospel; which when our Author proves that it is, I shall acknowledge my selfe obliged to him. He saies indeed, that it was once possible that all the members of the Catholique Church, should meet together, to heare one sermon, &c. But he is to prove, that they were bound to do so, as that Catholique Church, and not that it was possible for all the members of it under any other notion, or consideration so to convene. But he saies, they are bound to do so still, but that the multitude makes it impossible. Credat Apella: that Christ has bound his Church to that which himselfe makes impossible. Neither are they so bound: they are bound, by his own acknowledgement, to be members of particular Churches; and in that capacity, are they bound so to convene; those churches being by the will of God, appointed for the seat of ordinances. And so what he adds in the next place of particular Churches, being bound according to the institution of Christ to assemble for the celebration of ordinances, is absolutely destructive of the former figment. But he would know a reason why 40 or more, that are not members of one particular church, but only of the Catholick, meeting together, may not join together in all ordinances, as well as they may meet to heare the word preached, and often doe; to which I answer; that it is because Jesus Christ has appointed particular Churches, and there is more required to them, then the occasionall meeting of some, any, or all, if possible of the members of the Catholick church as such, will afford.

His reflexions upon my selfe, added in that place, are now growne so common, that they deserve not any notice. In his ensuing discourse, if I may take leave to speak freely to our Reverend Author, he wrangles about termes and expressions, adding to, and altering those by me used in this businesse at his pleasure, to make a talke to no purpose. The summe of what he pretends to oppose is, that this universall church, or the universality of Professors considered as such, neither formally as members of the church Catholick, mistically Elect, nor as any members of any Particular Church, have not as such, any Church forme of the institution of Christ, by virtue whereof, they should make up one instituted Church, for the end and purpose of the celebration of the Ordinances of the Gospell therein. If he suppose he can prove the contrary, let him cease from cavilling at words, and by expressions, which is a facile taske for any man to engage in, and no way usefull, but to make controversies endlesse; and answer my Reasons against it, which here he passeth over, and produce his testimonies and arguments for that purpose. This triviall ventilation of particular passages cut off from their influence into the whole, is not worth a nut-shell, but is a businesse fit for them who have nothing else to employ themselves about.

Coming to consider the union that I assigne to this Church, after whose breach an enquiry is to be made, which is the maine, and only thing of his concernment, as to the aime he has proposed to himselfe, he passeth it over very slightly: taking no notice at all of my whole discourse, from p. 116. to p. 133. of my treatise; wherein I disprove the pretensions of other things to be the union, or bond of union to this church; he fixes a very little while on what I assigne to be that union. This I say is profession of the faith of the Gospell, and subjection to Jesus Christ according to it: to which he adds, that they are bound to more then this, namely: to the exercise of the same specificall Ordinances, as also to love one another, to subjection to the same discipline, and where it is possible to the exercise of the same numericall worship. All this was expresly affirm'd by me before; it is all virtually contained in their profession, so far as the things mentioned are revealed in the Gospell: only as to the celebrating of the same numericall Ordinances, I cannot grant that they are obliged hereunto as formally considered members of that Church, nor shall, untill our Reverend Author shall think meet to prove, that particular congregations are not the institutions of Jesus Christ. But hereupon he affirms, that that is a strange assertion used by me pa: 117. namely, that if there be not an institution of joining in the same numericall ordinances, the union of this Church is not really a Church union. This is no more but what was declared before, nor more then what I urged the testimony of a learned Presbyterian for: no more but this, that the universality of Christians throughout the world, are not under such an institution, as that, to assemble together for the celebration of the same numericall Ordinances; the pretence of any such institution being supplied by Christ's acknowledged institution of particular Churches for that purpose.

What I have offered in my Treatise, as evidence that Protestants are not guilty of the breach of this union, and that where any are, their crime is not Schisme but Apostacy, either as to profession or conversation, I leave to the judgment of all candid, sober, and ingenious Readers; for such as love strife, and debates, and disputes, whereof the world is full, I would crave of them, that if they must chuse me for their Adversary, they would allow me to answer in person, vivâ voce, to prevent this tedious trouble of writing, which for the most part is fruitlesse and needlesse. Some exceptions our Author laies in, against the Properties of the profession by me required, as necessary to the preservation of this union: as to the first of professing all necessary saving truths of the Gospell, he excepts that the Apostles were ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospell for a season, and some had never heard of the holy Ghost (Acts 19), and yet they kept the union of the Catholick Church. And yet our Author before he closeth this chapter, will charge the breach of this union on some, whose errors cannot well be apprehended to lie in the deniall of any necessary truth of the Gospell, that is, indispensably necessary to salvation. As to his instance of the Apostles, he knows it is one thing not to know clearly and distinctly for some season, some truths in hypothesi, and another to deny them being sufficiently and clearly revealed in thesi; and for those in the Acts, it is probable they were ignorant of the dispensations of the holy Ghost, with his marvelous effects under the Gospell, rather then of the person of the holy Ghost: for even in respect of the former it is absolutely said that the holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. I shall not pursue his other exceptions, being sorry that his judgment leads him to make them; that which alone beares any aspect to the business in hand, he insists on pag. 99. in these words. I have intimated and partly proved, that there may be a breach of union, with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations (namely besides the renuntiation of the profession of the Gospell:) As first, there is a bond that obliges every member of this Church, to joine together in exercising the same Ordinances of worship: when then any man shall refuse to joine with others, or refuse others to joine with him, here is a breach of love and union among the members of the Catholick Church; and in the Particular Churches as parts of the Catholick.

The Reader must pardon me for producing and insisting on these things, seeing I do it with this profession, that I can fix on nothing else so much to the purpose in hand: and yet how little these are so, cannot but be evident upon a sleight view to the meanest capacities. For 1. he tells us there may be a breach of union with respect to the Catholick church, on other considerations: not that there may be a breach of the union of the Catholick Church. 2. That there is a bond binding men to the exercise of Ordinances; so there is binding man to all holiness; and yet he denies the vilest profane persons to break that bond or this union. 3. That there may be a breach of union among the members of the Church: but who knows it not, that knows all members of Particular Churches, are also members of this church general. Our enquiry is after the union of the Catholick-Church visible, what it is, how broken, and what the crime or evil is, whereby it is broken, what obligations lie on the members of that Church, as they stand under any other formal consideration; what is the evil they are any of them guilty of, in not answering these obligations, we were not at all enquiring, nor does it in this place concern us so to do. And in what he afterwards tells us of some proceedings contrary to the practice of the universal Church she intends I suppose all the Churches in the world, wherein the members of the universal Church have walked or do so; for the universal Church as such, has no practice as to celebration of ordinances; and if he suppose it has, let him tell us what it is, and when that practice was. His appeal to the primitive believers, and their small number will not avail him: for although they should be granted to be the then Catholick visible Church (against which he knows what exceptions may be laid from the believers among the Jews, such as Cornelius, to whom Christ had not as yet been preached, as the Messiah come, and exhibited) yet as such, they joined not in the celebration of ordinances, but (as yet they were) as a particular congregation; yes, though all the Apostles were among them, the foundation of all the Churches that afterwards were called.

He concludes this chapter with an exception to my assertion, that if the Catholick Church be a political body, it must have a visible political head, which nothing but the Pope claims to be. Of this he says, 1. There is no necessity, for says he, he confesses the commonwealth of the Jews, was a political body, and God who is invisible, was their political head: 2. Jesus Christ is a visible head, yes, sometimes more, visus, seen of men while on earth, though now for a time in majesty (as some great Princes do,) he has withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in heaven. A. 1. I confess God was the King and Ruler of the Jews, but yet that they might be a visible political body, the invisible God, appointed to them under him, a visible head; as the Pope blasphemously pretends to be appointed under Jesus Christ. 2. Jesus Christ is in his human nature still visible, as to his Person, wherein he is the head of his Church, he ever was, and is still invisible. His present absence, is not upon the account of Majesty, seeing in his majesty he is still present with us; and as to his bodily absence he gives other accounts, than that here insinuated. Now it suffices not to constitute a visible political body, that the head of it, in any respect may be seen, unless as that their head he is seen: Christ is visible, as this Church is visible; He in his laws, in his word; that in its profession, in its obedience. But I marvel that our Reverend Author thus concluding for Christ to be the political head of this Church, as a Church, should at the same time contend for such subjects of this head as he does, p. 96. namely persons, contradicting their profession of the knowledge of God, by a course of wickedness, manifesting principles of profaneness, wherewith the belief of the truth they profess, has an absolute inconsistency; as I expressly describe the persons, whose membership in this church, and relation thereby to Christ their head he pleads for. Are indeed these persons any better than Mahumetans as to church privileges? They are indeed in some places, as to providential advantages of hearing the word preached; but woe to them on that account; it shall be more tolerable for Mahumetans in that day of Christ, than for them. Shall their Baptism avail them? Though it were valid in its administration, that is, was celebrated in obedience to the command of Christ, is it not null to them? Is not their circumcision uncircumcision? Shall such persons give their children any right to church privileges? Let them if you please be so subjects to Christ, as Rebels and Traitors are subject to their earthly princes: they ought indeed to be so, but are they so? Do they own their Authority? Are they obedient to them? Do they enjoy any privilege of Laws? Or does the Apostle any where call such persons as live in a course of wickedness, manifesting principles utterly inconsistent with the profession of the Gospel, brethren? God forbid we should once imagine these things so to be! And so much for that chapter.