Independencie a great schism proved against Dr. Owen, his apology in his tract of schism : as also an appendix to the former discourse, shewing the inconstancy of the Dr. and the inconsistency of his former and present opinions / by D. Cawdrey ...

CHAP. V. Of the Church Catholick visible, and its Union.

[§. 1] THe next whereof is, the Catholick visible Church, which he describes to be,* 1.1

The universality of men pro∣fessing the doctrine of the Gospel, and obedience to God in Christ, through∣out 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,* 1.2

what relati∣on it stands in, to all particular Chur∣ches, whether as a Genus to its Spe∣cies, or as a Totum to its parts.

And he seems to be Negative in both. His gene∣ral 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 cal∣led, 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 uni∣versal 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,* 1.3 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 particu∣lar Churches are parts of the Catholick, he also denies, because,

this were to overthrow a remarkable difference,* 1.4 between the Oeconomy of the old Te∣stament and the New, to parts & mem∣bers 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.

* 1.5 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 wor∣ship 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 Ca∣tholick Church should meet together, to hear one Sermon, to partake of one Sacra∣ment, &c. as it was possible once, when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still, but that the multi∣tude makes it impossible. That the parti∣cular Congregations should joyn toge∣ther, 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 Ser∣mon,

or receive the same Sacrament nume∣rical, (as he speaks) is a ridiculous fancy; and not only false, but impossible. But I would gladly know a reason,* 1.6 why 40, or more, members of no particular Church, but only of the Catholick, mee∣ting together, and having a Minister a∣mong 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 Lon∣don and Oxford, when he preaches, un∣lesse he will count those Ord••nances then and there administred no acts of institu∣ted 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 a∣ny explicite Covenant, or consent to live and dye together. I shall only note a∣gain, that herein he deserts his friends in New England,* 1.7 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?* 1.8

The formall reason

constituting a particular Church, is, their joyning together, in the same numeri∣cal Ordinances for Gods worship.

It is true indeed, the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specifi∣cation form: For whether it be conside∣red 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 providential∣ly excluded) do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word, the same Sa∣craments administred in Specie, professe one common Faith, & Hope.

The sum is the specificative form of the Catholick visi∣ble Church (if it have any) is the professi∣on of the same Faith and Hope of the Go∣spel; whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments, admini∣stred in Specie or no? And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from those Ordi∣nances: 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 thou∣sand miles distant from any particular Church, wherein the Ordinances are ad∣ministred, 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 a∣none) 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 consi∣dered 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 Or∣dinances 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,* 1.9 is not first the same with that of the Catholick invisible, because many are members of this, who are not true be∣lievers. 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church, because many are of the Catholick, who never were of a par∣ticular 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 there∣fore 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.

* 1.10 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 nu∣merical worship. And in any of these, to make any differences, is a breach of that union, that ought to be among the mem∣bers of the Catholick visible Church. Whereupon that is a strange assertion, or

addition of his,* 1.11

If there he not an insti∣tution 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 particu∣lar Church, where providence may cast him, (being rightly qualified thereunto) having right first to the same specifical Or∣dinances, as a member of the Catholick, and then to the same numerical Ordi∣nances, 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, be∣tween 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.* 1.12 That all necessary truths of the Gospel, be believed and pro∣fessed. 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 cal∣led 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 him∣self, and his seed: wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees, may be seen, when he saies,* 1.13 "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 unmem∣bred, 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 Chri∣stians, I shall never acknowledge them for others, than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not, de fa∣cto, Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are so. They are not within the Church, any more than a Jew, or Ma∣humetan 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 spi∣ritual 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 rebap∣tized, upon their conversion, as hea∣thens are. 2. If they be no better than Heathens, then are their children to be denyed Baptism, and are very Infi∣dels: 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 pos∣sibly be Traytors and Rebels to him, un∣less 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 in∣stituted by Christ; the enquiry is,* 1.14 Whe∣ther we be gu••lty of the breach of such an unity.

And for the first of these the pro∣fession of all necessary truths of the Go∣spel, the Church of England in her do∣ctrine, is as Orthodox as any Chuch un∣der Heaven, consonant to the Scriptures,

and Apostolicall Church; (till by Tolera∣tion, some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies, and blasphemies, disowned by the Church) The Schism then charged upon us by Pa∣pists,* 1.15 in 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 ma∣ny 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 abo∣minable as their Doctrines: So I may ra∣ther wish I could,* 1.16 than professe I can, ac∣quit 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 de∣structive of them or render them insuf∣ficient to be saving unto us.

For our wor∣ship, 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 endeavou∣ring 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,* 1.17 to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinan∣ces of worship. When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others, or refuse others to joyn with him, in these Ordi∣nances; here is a breach of Love and Union, among the members of the Ca∣tholick 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 chil∣dren

of godly Parents, not of their own confederate Church? and the Lords Sup∣per 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 here∣after.

[§. 8] That this Catholick Church is visible, he grants, which others of his friends have denyed.* 1.18 That it is an Organical political body, in a right sense, is largely and learnedly proved by others,* 1.19 (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 visi∣ble politicall body, it hath a politicall Head, that Head also must be visible.

But 1. What necessity is there, the Head must be visible?* 1.20 seeing he con∣fesses, 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 Prin∣ces 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  p. 112.
• * 1.2

  p. 113.
• * 1.3

  Mr. Hoo∣kers Sur∣vey.
• * 1.4

  p. 113.
• * 1.5

  Mr. Hud∣son Vind.
• * 1.6

  See John 4.22, 23.
• * 1.7

  Ubi supr.
• * 1.8

  p. 114.
• * 1.9

  pag. 116.
• * 1.10

  p. 133.
• * 1.11

  pag. 117.
• * 1.12

  p. 134.
• * 1.13

  p. 136.
• * 1.14

  p. 140.
• * 1.15

  See p. 141
• * 1.16

  See p. 148
• * 1.17

  See pag. 205. § 7.
• * 1.18

  p. 146.
• * 1.19

  Mr. Huds.
• * 1.20

  p. 148.