Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church Discipline by Hooker, Book 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
M. Hookers 2. Argument to prove that preaching of the sound Doctrine of the Gospel is no mark of the visible Church.
MAster Hooker addeth, par. 1. chap. 2. pag. 34.
If you say that settled preaching as established and remaining in the Church is a mark of the Church, so you make the Church a mark of it self, this plea is too narrow.
Answ. It is not narrow, nor a plea either to say, that seeing That setled preaching is a note of the visible Church.eyes as fixed in a living creature we call animal, and hearing ears, &c. are an essentiall note of a living creature, whereas the eyes and ears not fixed in a living creature, but separated from it; should be a narrow plea indeed, to be called the essentiall mark of a living creature; and yet none can say that a living creature is made a mark of it self. They speak not feebly, but rationally, who say that rationall discoursing as fixed in a man is an essentiall mark of a man.
M. H. par. 1. c. 2. pag. 19.
M. Rutherfurd said, the argument is nothing against us, such adulterers. Psal. 50. as are not to take the Law in their mouth, are to be cast out, but the question is whether, if they be not cast out, the Church for that be no true Church. M. H. Answer, the first part yieldeth the cause again, for if they should be cast out, there is no reason they should be received, or taken in, nor have they any right thereunto, nor be they fit matter.
Answ. M. Rutherfurd is not such a yielder of truth as so; for Though scandalous men, as adulterers, ought to be cast out, yet M. H. loosly inferres, ergo they had never right to be admitted members.M. Hookers argument yieldeth more thus, these who are worthy to be casten out, had never right to be received in, as Church members, so M. H. But adulterers who take the law in their mouth, known adulterers (so M. Rutherfurd yieldeth and no otherwayes) are worthy to be casten out: ergo adulterers; who take the law in their mouth, had never right to be received in as Church-members. 1. M. Hookers proposition is most false, for thousands, as Magus, and others worthy to be casten out, had right (Church right, of that onelyonly we speak) such as pastors can give them, to be admitted members, so the Scripture, so M. H. part 1. chap. 2. conclus. 3. pag. 27 When then both the proposition and assumption are taught in Scripture, granted by M H see now who yieldeth the cause. 2. to say if they should be casten out, ergo they had never right to come in; is, as if he wou…d say, such a woman hath committed harlotry with many men beside her husband, ergo she had never right to be a married wife, and was never lawfully marryed; and so hath neither committed adultery, nor deserveth a bill of divorce.
3 No more can follow from this, that adulterers once admitted to membership, falling into scandals ought to be casten out, ergo if they had been under the same scandall visibly, they ought not to have been taken in, but this supposeth a begging of the question, that there is in Scripture a gathering of Churches of visible converts out of Churches of men and women born and baptized in their infancy within the visible Church, which yet I say was never dreamed of by the Apostles, and though it were so, whether we speak of such a gathering, or of gathering of Churches out of Pagans, persons not capable of Gospelscandals, before their admission, which may hold them out, as they are guilty of Gospel-scandals, after they profess the Gospel. For then an unmarried woman might be capable of adultery with her own husband, before she be married upon him. 2. as to that which M. Rutherfurd said, that supposed they were not cast out, the question is whether the Church for that be no Church. M. H. saith, that wholly misseth the mark again, for the question is twitching the constitution of the Church, of what matter it should be made, it is not twitching separation from the Church. To which I answer, because I dispute against both these of the congregation, and the Separatists our brethren, having no arguments but such M R yields not the cause because he gives two answers to the same argument; one to the rigid Separatists, another to our brethren.as Separatists and Anabaptists have, and with more vigour prosecuted then they, because I conclude against separation as well as against them, having to do with two adversaries, and giving one answer to the one, (which yet is not taken off) and another answer to the other, it is not equal dealing to say the answer to the Separatists wholly misseth the mark, because it is not the same with the answer to the congregational way.
2. M. H. declineth an answer to that which I said against the separation, that if any were not casten out, it followeth not that the Church leaveth off to be a Church, and must be separated from. But our brethrens practise in New England is, if any Church do not cast out such as deserved to be cast out, to noncommunion them, and declare them to be no Churches of Christ, and so they must be separated from; which can be upon no ground, but because they maintain a Church to be no true Church consisting of false matter, and visibly unregenerate; False matter makes a Church to be no Church by our brethrens way. M. Can. Necess. of Separ. Sect. 3. pag. 176. 177. that which destroyes a Church, and maketh it either become a false Church, or no Church at all, cannot be a true Church, nor true member of the Church.and would M. H. have Church-Communion kept with such? yea his arguments first and second, which are both but one, (though he find out four, where there are scarce three) prove them to be no visible Church, for he must stand by this as his own.
These to whom Christ is head and king by the influence of politick guidance, and motion of the head as leige subjects, are the onelyonly fit matter of the visible Church, and the onelyonly true visible Church.
But such as deserve to be casten out, and are not casten out, yea are owned still as Church-members, are not such to whom Christ is head and king. Ergo such leave off to be members and are not a visible Church; the proposition and assumption both are M. Hookers. I confesse when an answer cannot be taken away, it is a compendious way, to say not one word to it, but simply, the answer doth wholly misse the marke. M. H. must say a Church of false matter is no Church, or then with us, a society professing the pure doctrine of Christ, though the members be wicked, is a true Church.