Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Of the Church Catholick viſible, and its Union.
§. 1 THe next whereof is, the Catholick viſible Church, which he deſcribes to be,p. 112. The univerſality of men profeſſing the doctrine of the Goſpel, and obedience to God in Chriſt, throughout the World. Theſe he grants, do conſtitute the viſible Kingdom of Chriſt, and ſo may be called his Church: but whether preciſely, ſo called in Scripture, (he ſaies) is not unqueſtionable: But to me and others (whom he may do well to ſatisfie) this is out of question. He makes the queſtion to be,p. 113. what relation it ſtands in, to all particular Churches, whether as a Genus to its Species, or as a Totum to its parts. And he ſeems to be Negative in both. His general reaſon is, becauſe The univerſal viſible Church we ſpeak of, is not a thing that hath, as ſuch, a ſpecificative form, from which it ſhould be ſo called, as a particular hath for its ground of being ſo called. That ſhall be tryed, when we hear what is the ſpecificative form of a particular Church. In the mean time, let us conſider why he denies this Catholick Church, to ſtand in relation to the particular Churches, as a Genus to its Species; becauſe this would deprive every one of memberſhip in this univerſal Church, which is not joyned actually to ſome particular Church, which is devoid of truth. What force there is in this conſequence againſt them of New England, who make particular Churches to be Species of the univerſal Church,Mr. Hookers Survey. as (ſay they) ſeveral drops of water, are Species of water; and alſo make a man firſt a member of a particular Church, before he can be a member of the Catholick, I ſay, what force there is, in this conſequence againſt them, I do not ſee; I only note his diſagreement with them; though I agree with him in the thing. For the other, That particular Churches are parts of the Catholick, he alſo denies, becauſe, this were to overthrow a remarkable difference,p. 113. between the Oeconomy of the old Teſtament and the New, to parts & members of any Catholick Church, as that it ſhould be conſtituted or made up of them, or by them, for the order and purpoſe of an inſtituted Church, for worſhip of God: he means, as the worſhip of God was National among the Jewes. Mr. Hudſon Vind.But (beſides what others have ſaid, to prove the Catholick Church, to be a Political Church, in a candid ſenſe) I would ſay, the Ceremonial worſhip only (or chiefly) was National; the moral worſhip was performed in ſeveral Congregations, or Synagogues, (wherein there were Rulers and ruled) and yet thoſe might be called parts of the Jewiſh Church, as a Totum, or whole. And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholick (which is but the National Church enlarged) I yet ſee no reaſon. That all the members of the Catholick Church ſhould meet together, to hear one Sermon, to partake of one Sacrament, &c. as it was poſſible once, when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. ſo they are bound ſtill, but that the multitude makes it impoſſible. That the particular Congregations ſhould joyn together, in the ſame ſpecifical Ordinances, and have Officers over them alike, is certainly an inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, as well, as to make the ſame profeſſion of Faith, and hope. Indeed, that, being ſo numerous, they ſhould have one Officer over them all, and joyn to hear one Sermon, or receive the ſame Sacrament numerical, (as he ſpeaks) is a ridiculous fancy; and not only falſe, but impoſſible. But I would gladly know a reaſon,See John 4.22, 23. why 40, or more, members of no particular Church, but only of the Catholick, meeting together, and having a Miniſter among them, may not joyn together to worſhip God, in prayer preaching, and partaking of the Sacrament, as well as the members of ſeveral particular Churches, and himſelf among them, may do the ſame; as they do often at London and Oxford, when he preaches, unleſſe he will count thoſe Ord…nances then and there adminiſtred no acts of inſtituted worſhip, And if he grant them to be worſhip, how can he deny that Aſſembly, to be a particular Church, though it be not fixed nor gathered and united, by any explicite Covenant, or conſent to live and dye together. I ſhall only note again, that herein he deſerts his friends in New England, Ubi ſupr.who ſay, particular Churches, are parts of the univerſal as a Totum or Integrum. And none think otherwiſe, but they (to uſe his words) who have profit by the fable.
§ 2 What then is the ſpecificative form of a particular Church?p. 114. The formall reaſon conſtituting a particular Church, is, their joyning together, in the ſame numerical Ordinances for Gods worſhip. It is true indeed, the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the ſame ſpecification form: For whether it be conſidered as a Genus or as a Totum, it cannot have the ſame form, with the Species, or parts. But if it have another ſpecificative form of its own it may from that be called an Univerſal Church; as well as a particular, from its form, may be called a particular Church. Why then is the Catholick called a Church Univerſal? Becauſe all Chriſtians through the world, (excepting ſome individuals providentially excluded) do upon the enjoyment of the ſame preaching of the Word, the ſame Sacraments administred in Specie, profeſſe one common Faith, & Hope. The ſum is the ſpecificative form of the Catholick viſible Church (if it have any) is the profeſſion of the ſame Faith and Hope of the Goſpel; whether the members enjoy the ſame Word and Sacraments, adminiſtred in Specie or no? And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from thoſe Ordinances: for himſelf tells us an inſtance of a man, that never was partaker of thoſe Ordinances, and yet a ſubject of Chriſts viſible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world, p. 139. And before that ſuppoſes, A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Goſpel, by the Scripture it ſelf, and make profeſſion of it, where he lives, though he be a thouſand miles diſtant from any particular Church, wherein the Ordinances are adminiſtred, nor perhaps knows there is any ſuch Church in the world. p. 137. If then a joyning together in the ſame numerical Ordinances, be the ſpecificative form, of a particular Church, (of which more anone) why may not the profeſſion of the ſame Faith, and hope of the Goſpel, be the ſpecificative form of the Catholick Church. The truth is, the Church conſidered in the threefold notion, with the threefold differences, is not diſtinguiſhed into Species, or hath any ſuch ſpecificative forms; but is one and the ſame Church, conſidered in that threefold Notion, as the members may be conſidered, as 1. Believers. 2. As Profeſſors. 3. As Partakers of the ſame numericall Ordinances of worſhip, as is ſaid above, and ſhall appear more hereafter.
§ 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be conſidered; which, we ſhall eaſily grant him,pag. 116. is not firſt the ſame with that of the Catholick inviſible, becauſe many are members of this, who are not true believers. 2. Nor the ſame with that of a particular Church, becauſe many are of the Catholick, who never were of a particular Church. 3. Nor yet, hath it its union, by a Relation to any one Officer, given to the whole, or a ſubordination of Officers, as Papists pretend: In all theſe we conſent with him; and therefore paſſe by the large diſcourſe about them, as not concerned in it, It conſiſts ſaies he, In the profeſſion of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, Eph. 4.5. p. 133.That all the members of the Catholick Church are united in this profeſſion, is very true; but this is not all, they are bound to more than this, viz. to the exerciſe of the ſame ſpecifical Ordinances, to ſubjection to the ſame Diſcipline; as alſo to Love to one another; and, where it is poſſible, to the celebrating together, of the ſame numerical worſhip. And in any of theſe, to make any differences, is a breach of that union, that ought to be among the members of the Catholick viſible Church. Whereupon that is a ſtrange aſſertion, or addition of his,pag. 117. If there he not an inſtitution for joyning in the ſame Numerical Ordinances, the union of this Church, is not really a Church-union. For when Chriſt hath inſtituted, that every Church meeting together, and every member of of the Catholick Church, ſhould exerciſe the ſame ſpecifical Ordinances, is not this a Church union, or union of Churches? And let it then be conſidered, That if every member of the Church Catholick, may be a member of any, or every particular Church, where providence may caſt him, (being rightly qualified thereunto) having right firſt to the ſame ſpecifical Ordinances, as a member of the Catholick, and then to the ſame numerical Ordinances, where he comes and finds them, (as ſome of his own way do grant, and cannot well be denyed) then the denyal of ſuch a perſon to joyn in thoſe numerical Ordinances, is a breach of that union and love, which ought to be, between the members of the Cath. Church, which whether it may be called a Schiſm or no, we ſhall examine hereafter; Sure we are, this is done continually, by ſome particular Churches, and members of the ſame.
§ 4 The properties of that profeſſion, for the preſervation of this Union he makes to be three, 1. p. 134.That all neceſſary truths of the Goſpel, be believed and profeſſed. 2. That no other principle of the mind, inconſiſtent with the real belief of thoſe truths profeſſed, be manifeſted by the profeſſors; Thoſe that are enemies of the Croſſe of Chriſt, are not any members of his Church. 3. That no opinion error or falſe doctrine everting any neceſſary truth profeſſed, be added and deliberately profeſſed alſo. To which I have but this to ſay, 1. The Apoſtles of Chriſt were for a time ignorant of many neceſſary truths of the Goſpel, and ſome profeſſors there were, that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghoſt or no. Acts 19. Yet theſe were members of th… Catholick Church. 2. Thoſe whom the Apoſtle called enemies of the Croſſe of Chriſt, were Chriſtians, and ſo members at leaſt of the Catholick Church, if not of a particular. As the inceſtuous perſon, was a member of the Church of Corinth, till he was ejected. And it is a poſition of his own party. A ſcandalous member tolerated, is a member to all Ordinances, for himſelf, and his ſeed: wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees, may be ſeen, when he ſaies,p. 136. "Mens profeſſion of the knowledge of God contradicted by a courſe of wickedneſs, is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever. So that ſuch a man is ipſo facto unmembred, without excommunication; and if he be a wicked Miniſter, he is ipſo facto unminiſtred or degraded, and all his Miniſterial acts are null: Adde to this what he ſaies p. 159. Let thoſe (that are prophane) profeſs what they will, and cry out a thouſand times that they are Chriſtians, I ſhall never acknowledge them for others, than viſible enemies of the croſſe of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not, de facto, Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are ſo. They are not within the Church, any more than a Jew, or Mahumetan within the ſame precincts. There are in a few lines, many miſtakes; For 1. Though they be as bad as, or worſe than Mahumetans, in regard of their ſpiritual eſtate, yet are they better in regard of Church eſtate; Does the wickedneſs of their lives, make their Baptiſm a meer nullity? then muſt they be rebaptized, upon their converſion, as heathens are. 2. If they be no better than Heathens, then are their children to be denyed Baptiſm, and are very Infidels: yet a child of the prophaneſt Jew was circumciſed, and had right to other priviledges. 3. That is ſo far from truth, That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are ſo, that they cannot poſſibly be Traytors and Rebels to him, unleſs they be his Subject. As he ſaid, A man cannot poſſibly be a Schiſmatick, unleſſe he be a Church-member; either of a particular, or of the Catholick Church. 4. Doth not the Apoſtle call fornicators, drunkards, unruly walkers, brethren? 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Theſ. 3.17. But theſe three properties, are in…ed on to inſinuate, that if there be no breach of Union, in any of theſe th…re is no Schiſm to be found in the Catholick Church, nor between the members thereof: as appears in his application of them.
§. 2 For granting for proceſs ſake, That Schiſm is the breach of any union instituted by Chriſt; the enquiry is,p. 140. Whether we be gu…lty of the breach of ſuch an unity. And for the firſt of theſe the profeſſion of all neceſſary truths of the Goſpel, the Church of England in her doctrine, is as Orthodox as any Chuch under Heaven, conſonant to the Scriptures, and Apoſtolicall Church; (till by Toleration, ſome falſe Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Hereſies, and blaſphemies, diſowned by the Church) The Schiſm then charged upon us by Papiſts, See p. 141in this reſpect, lieu at their own door, who have not only deviated from the common Faith themſelves, but cauſe others alſo ſo to do, and attempt to deſtroy all that will not joyn with them: Unleſs we may lay it alſo upon thoſe Sectaries, and Hereticks among us, who are their Diſciples, who agree with them, in many of their errors, and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith, of the Church of England. As for the ſecond; That in our lives, we do not manifest a principle, utterly inconſiſtent with the truths we profeſs; As Rome hath little reaſon to charge us with Schiſm, in this reſpect, whoſe lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines: So I may rather wiſh I could,See p. 148 than profeſſe I can, acquit our Churches from the charge. §. 8 It cannot be denyed but the converſations of too many eminent Profeſſors and Saints, as they would be called, are not ſuch as becomes that truth of Doctrine, which we have ſo long enjoyed. And as for the laſt, That we add not unto them, in opinion or worſhip, ſuch things as are destructive of them or render them inſufficient to be ſaving unto us. For our worſhip, we may I hope, without offence, ſay, that it is in the publick Congregations, (whatever it is in private Conventicles) according to the ſimplicity of the Goſpel, though perhaps, in ſome circumſtances defective, wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation. §. 7 Thus far we are cleared, of breach of Unity, and ſo of Schiſm. But I have intimated, and partly proved, there may be a breach of Union, with reſpect to the Catholick Church, upon other conſiderations. As firſt, there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church,See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exerciſing the ſame ſpecifical Ordinances of worſhip. When then any man ſhall refuſe to joyn with others, or refuſe others to joyn with him, in theſe Ordinances; 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. And what thinks he of thoſe Churches, who deny Baptiſm, to Infants altogether? or thoſe that deny Baptiſm to the children of godly Parents, not of their own confederate Church? and the Lords Supper to the Parents of ſuch Children? The Anabaptiſts do the one, contrary to the practi…e of the Univerſal Church in all Ages ſince the Apostles; and themſelves do the other dayl…, as is too well known. Is not this a raiſing of differences in the Univerſal Church, a breach of union, and ſo a Schiſm? Yet as he is earneſt to free him…elf from Schiſm in his ſ…paration; ſo he ſeems not to think Anabaptiſm to be a Schiſm. p. 226. He that will upon that account, undertake to prove them Schiſmaticall, may find himſelf to be entangled. Of which more hereafter.
§. 8 That this Catholick Church is viſible, he grants, which others of his friends have denyed.p. 146. That it is an Organical political body, in a right ſenſe, is largely and learnedly proved by others,Mr. Hudſ. (though he denies it) to them I refer it. One thing I cannot but take notice of, he ſayes, It will not ſuffice to ſay that Christ is its Head; for if as a viſible politicall body, it hath a politicall Head, that Head alſo muſt be viſible. But 1. What neceſſity is there, the Head muſt be viſible?p. 148. ſeeing he confeſſes, the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body, and God (who is inviſible) was their Political Head. 2. Jeſus Chriſt, the Head of the Church, is a viſible Head, yea ſometimes more, viſus, ſeen of men, while on earth, though now for a time, in Majeſty (as ſome great Princes do) he hath withdrawn himſelf from the ſight of men on earth, yet is he ſeen of Angels, and Saints in Heaven. But that, by the by.