Review of the True Nature of Schism, Treatise · Chapter 7
CHAP. 7.
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 goſpell 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 unto it as ſuch, I declared to be the profeſsion of the ſaving doctrine of the goſpell, 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 whomſoever the guilt of it doth 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, & the ſeveralls of it, whereon the ſtrength of the controverſie dothly; is now to be conſideed; doth 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 Goſpell, and ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt? doth 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 Goſpell, & of ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt according to them? Doth 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 Goſpell? Doth he charge that apoſtaſy upon thoſe whom he calls Independents as ſuch, or if he ſhould, could he tolerably defend his charge? Doth 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 unto 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 & 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, frō being enwrapped and agitated in and under Philoſophicall notions and faigned tearms of Art, which hath exceedingly multiplied controverſies in the world and rendred them endleſſe, and doth 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, onelyonly 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 & made up by thē, & of thē, for the order and purpoſe of an inſtituted Church, for the celebration of the worſhip of God, and inſtitutions of Chriſt, according to the Goſpell; 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 hath 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: & 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 hath 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 hath propoſed to himſelfe, he paſſeth it over very ſlightly: taking no notice at all of my whole diſcourſe, frō p. 116. top. 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, viz: 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 inſtitutiō 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. Act. 29. 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 uniō of the Catholick Church. 2. That there is a bond binding men to the exerciſe of Ordinances; ſo there is binding man to all holineſſe; 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 generall. Our enquiry is after the union of the Catholick-Church viſible, what it is, how broken, and what the crime or evill is, whereby it is broken, what obligations lie on the members of that Church, as they ſtand under any other formall conſideration; what is the evill they are any of them guiltie of, in not anſwering theſe obligations, we were not at all enquiring, nor doth it in this place concerne us ſo to do. And in what he afterwards tells us of ſome proceedings contrary to the practiſe of the univerſall Church ſhe intends I ſuppoſe all the Churches in the worldj wherein the members of the univerſall Church have walked or do ſo; for the univerſall Church as ſuch, hath no practice as to cecelebration of ordinances; & if he ſuppoſe it hath, let him tell us what it is, and when that practice was. His appeale to the primitive believers, and their ſmall number will not availe him: for although they ſhould be granted to be the then Catholick viſible Church (againſt which he knowes what exceptions may be laid from the believers amongſt the Jewes, 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; yea though all the Apoſtles were amongſt 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 politicall body, it muſt have a viſible politicall head, which nothing but the Pope claimes to be. Of this he ſaies, 1. There is no neceſsity, for ſaith he, he confeſses the common wealth of the Jews, was a politicall body, and God who is inviſible, was their politicall head: 2. Jeſus Chriſt is a viſible head, yea ſometimes more, viſus, ſeen of men whilſt on earth, though now for a time in majeſty (as ſome great Princes do,) he hath withdrawn himſelfe from the ſight of men on earth, yet is he ſeen of Angels and Saints in he aven. A. 1. I confeſſe God was the King and Ruler of the Jewes, but yet that they might be a viſible Politicall 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 humane 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, then that here inſinuated. Now it ſufficeth not to conſtitute a viſible politicall body, that the head of it, in any reſpect may be ſeen, unleſſe as that their head he is ſeen: Chriſt is viſible, as this Church is viſible; He in his lawes, in his word; that in its profeſsion, in its obedience. But I marvell that our Reverend Author thus concluding for Chriſt to be the politicall head of this Church, as a Church, ſhould at the ſame time contend for ſuch ſubjects of this head as he doth, p. 96. namely perſons, contradicting their profeſſion of the knowledge of God, by a courſe of wickedneſs, manifeſting principles of profaneneſs, wherewith the beliefe of the truth they profeſs, hath an abſolute inconſiſtency; as I expreſly deſcribe the perſons, whoſe memberſhip in this church, and relation thereby to Chriſt their head he pleads for. Are indeed theſe perſons any better thē Mahumetans as to church priviledges? they are indeed in ſome places, as to providentiall advantages of hearing the word preached; but woe unto them on that account; it ſhall be more tolerable for Mahumetans in that day of Chriſt, then for them: ſhall their Baptiſme availe them? though it were valid in its adminiſtration, that is, was celebrated in obedience to the cōmād of Chriſt, is it not null to thē? is not their circumciſion uncircūciſion? ſhall ſuch perſons give their children any right to church priviledges? let them if you pleaſe be ſo ſubjects to Chriſt, as Rebells and Traitors are ſubject to their earthly princes: they ought indeed to be ſo, but are they ſo? do they owne their Authority? are they obedient to them? do they enjoy any priviledge of Lawes? or doth▪ the Apoſtle any where call ſuch perſons as live in a courſe of wickedneſſe, manifeſting principles utterly inconſiſtent with the profeſſion of the Goſpell, brethren? God forbid we ſhould once imagine theſe things ſo to be! And ſo much for that chapter.