Can One Be Catholic Without Being Particular?

Here's a great statement from Samuel Hudson (from p. 251 of his A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholick Visible [1658)]) on how to think about those who are members of the catholic church but cannot, through various circumstances, be connected to any particular congregation:

As all the subjects of the Kingdom of England are an integral in reference to the King and Laws, though they should for a time want inferiour Officers, and though they bee not in particular combinations, and so are destitute of the particular priviledges, and have no particular Officers to dispense God's Ordinances to them constantly, yet have they right by reason and Scripture rules to all the Ordinances of God, as well as baptism, and they covenant to submit to all God's Ordinances, even those of discipline, and are habitually under the habitual power of the Ministers office, and are capable of censures, as hath been shewed before: onely they want the opportunity of enjoying them constantly by particular Officers of their own.  The right of an English man to the priviledges of the Laws, doth not arise by beeing actually under such and such particular officers in a corporation, &c. but by beeing members of the Kingdom.  So is the right of visible beleevers to Church-priviledges, by being Christs visible subjects.

While I'm at it, here are a couple more quotations from Hudson on the same theme from his
Essence and Unity of the Church Catholic Visible (found in the Anthology of Presbyterian and Reformed Literature, vol. 5, ed. by Chris Coldwell [Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1992]):

Yea, suppose a man should be a traveller [sic], merchant or factor [commissioned agent], and settled in no particular congregation, yet being a Christian he is a member of the catholic church. Yea and if he broach any errors, or live inordinately, he shall be accountable to the church wherein he for the present resides, or such crimes are committed, and he is liable to their censure, as being a member of the catholic church . . . Now prohibition is a censure. They are not to be left to the magistrate only, but to the church trial, for those crimes come not always under the cognizance of the civil magistrates, and if they do, he may be a heathen and will not regard an heretic, nor can judge of him. And if every kingdom will try murder, or treason, or any other soul crime committed in the same, though by a stranger, or alien, because the crimes are against their laws, and sovereign, though their laws pertain not to the country where the foreigner was born, and dwells, then much more shall every church try those members of the catholic church residing among them for their crimes, seeing they have all the same sovereign head, the same laws, and are all one body. (P. 35)

Yea, I conceive that there may be many belonging to the catholic church, that belong to no particular congregation, whose conversion has been by accidental occasion, as by reading, or discourse, or haply [perchance] hearing a disputation, or sermon, and yet their habitation, or imprisonment, slavery, banishment, travel, or other occasions may not suffer them to join themselves to any particular congregation, yet are visible Christians yielding professed subjection to the gospel in their lives and conversations. And are, by being of the catholic church, fit to be members of any congregation, but are actually none. . . . Suppose a man by transplanting into America, suffering shipwreck, should swim to some unknown land, and there living among the natives. Is that man without? Is he not [holy] hagios? Of what congregation was the Eunuch, that was baptized by Philip? And yet we doubt not to say, he was a Christian, and one of the church members; but it must be the catholic church. (P. 38)

Of course, we all have a duty, whenever possible, to be members of a particular congregation under the oversight of particular local elders, but it doesn't follow from this that those who cannot be in such a situation are not part of the visible church, for the visible church is not just particular but catholic.  That's the point Hudson is getting at, and it is a great comfort to those of us who are in the sort of situation he describes (hopefully temporarily!).

For more, see here and here.

Some Implications of the Unity of the Catholic Church according to Samuel Hudson

In his book, A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholick Visible (1658), pp. 254-258, Scottish Presbyterian minister Samuel Hudson puts forward some conclusions that he believes follow from the biblical doctrine of the unity of the Catholic visible church.  He has argued for these conclusions throughout the entire book and states them here at the end in outline form.  So here they are (adjusted a bit in format to fit more nicely in this blog):

CONCERNING THE CHURCHES IN GENERALL

1. That there is a Church-Catholick.

2. That the Church-Catholick is but one.

3. That the Church-Catholick is visible.

4. That though the Church-Catholick be alwayes transient and in flux by addition and subtraction of the members thereof, yet it shall never cease to be visible.

5. That if the Church-Catholick be contracted into narrow limits, yet the remaining part thereof conserves both the nature and priviledges of the Church-Catholick, and puts on the notion thereof, more properly then of a particular Church: as a City burnt down or wasted into a few streets, reserves the Charter and Priviledges of the whole; and that which was accounted but a part of it before, now puts on the notion of the whole.

6. That the Church-Catholick is mixt of good and bad, as well as particular Congregations are.

7. That the Church-Catholick may be considered either as Entitive or Organical.

8. That the Church-Catholick is one habitual, organical body, or Integral.

9. That the keys of Discipline are Catholick as well as of Doctrine.

10. That the Church-Catholick is one similar body: if considered as Entitive, the members are similar parts of it, if as organical, the particular Churches are similar parts of it.

11. The Promises, Priviledges, and Ordinances of worship and discipline, belong primarily to the Church-Catholick.

12. That the Church-Catholick is constituted by one Covenant, Charter, and Systeme of Divine Laws.

13. That the Priviledges and Ordinances of the Church arise not from the Nature of it, but from the covenant, denotation, and institution of Christ.

14. That the Church-Catholick is the prime Church.

15. That the Church-Catholick visible is of greater dignity then the particular Churches.

16. That the Church-Catholick visible is more august, and of more large authority then the particular: though the authority differs not in kind.

17. That the Church-Catholick is of greater perfection then the particular Churches.

18. That the Church-Catholick visible is ministerially an instrument to convey the Nature, Priviledges, and Ordinances of the Church to such as are added thereunto.

19. That the whole Church-Catholick is the primary and adequate object (sue genere) of Christ's Offices, and the particular Churches, but as parts thereof, Job. 3:16.

20. That the Notes and Signs of the true Church belong first to the Church-Catholick visible, and therefore are distinctive to that onely.

21. That the Church-Catholick visible hath an existence, accidents, and operations of its own, as it is Catholick.

22. That the Church-Catholick visible hath an head or governour over it, and but one head, even Jesus Christ, who is very Man as well as God.

23. That though Christ be the onely supreme head and ruler of his Church, yet hath it immediate rulers over it under Christ.

24. That the unity of the Church-Catholick requireth not a meeting of the whole body together at any time.

CONCERNING PARTICULAR CHURCHES

1.That the particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church-Catholick Entitive.

2. That the particular Churches organized, and all visible beleevers make up the Church-Catholick Organicall by aggregation, and the particulars are inferiour thereunto.

3. That the particular divisions of the Church-Catholick visible for convenient enjoyment of public, Ordinances, have the name (Church) and the Priviledges and Ordinances (as far as they are capable of them) secondarily in consideration.

4. That the particular Churches being similar parts of the whole Church, having no essential, specifical differences, are to be distinguished by accidentall differences and circumstances, as their limits of place, &c., though they be heterogeneal to them.

5. Many Congregations may be in the same community of discipline, and be ruled by their Elders in common by coordination, and so be called one church, National, Provincial, or Presbyterial.

6. If the particular Churches claim power of dispensing all the Ordinances of Christ, by virtue of the generall Charter, Covenant and donation, they being parts of the Church, then much more may the whole Church-Catholick, for which they were primarily intended and made.

7. The greater the parts of the Church-Catholick be, and the more united by combination and coordination, the stronger they be, and the smaller the divisions be, the weaker.

8. The divisions of the Church-Catholick into small parcells, to stand alone by themselves without coordination, is dangerous.

9. Yet necessity in regard of distance of place, &c., may cause a particular Church to be Independent, and stand alone in regard of actual, external consociation or combination.

10. The necessity of an explicit Covenant, as the essential form whereby the particular Church is constituted, implyeth a denial of all other Churches to be true, that are not so constitued, because they must want the essential form.

11. The ordinary and constant operations of the Officers of the Church in dispensation of Christ's Ordinances are in the particular Churches primarily.

12. Any particular Congregation may fall, apostatize, or be dissolved and cease, but should the Church-Catholick be reduced into so narrow limits, and the being thereof be reserved therein, and it sustain the notion of the Church-Catholick, God would not suffer it in such a case to fail or cease, for then the whole must cease also.

CONCERNING THE PUBLICK OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH

1. Every Minister is an Officer of the Church-Catholick visible, and that relation is primary to him, yet the particular relation hee stands in to a particular Congregation, giveth him a more immediate especial call, and charge to administer the Ordinances of God constantly to them.

2. Any single Minister by vertue of his office hath power ministerially to admit a member into the Church-Catholick visible, if hee bee fit.

3. Although the election of a Minister to a particular Congregation bee an act of liberty in the people, yet his mission is from Christ primarily and ministerially by the Presbytery.

4. He doth not administer the Ordinances of God in the name of the Congregation as their servant, but as the servant of Christ.  As a Mayor in a Corporation though chosen by the people, yet executeth his Office in the King's name.

5. If hee administreth any Ordinances out of his own Congregation, hee doth it not as a gifted brother, but by vertue of his office, 2 Cor. 5.20.  And the like may bee said of their dispensation of Ordinances to members of other Congregations that come to their Congregations.

6. Although the particular flock over which a Minister was set be dissolved, yet hee ceaseth not to bee a Minister, because the Church to which hee bare first relation is not dissolved, which is the Catholick.

7. The Elders of several particular Congregations as they may exercise the keys of their office divisim, in their several Congregations, so they may exercise them conjunctim, in combinations, if they bee called thereunto.

CONCERNING PRIVATE MEMBERS

1. Particular converts are first converted into the Church-Catholick Entitive, and secondarily conjoyned into particular consociations, for the more oppurtune enjoyment of Ordinances actually and constantly.

2. Every member of a particular Congregation is a member of the Church-Catholick Entitive, and that relation doth primarily belong unto him.

3. External profession of the true faith, and subjection to God's ordinances, is enough to make men capable of beeing a member of the Church-Catholick visible, and so also of a particular Congregation, quo ad externam formam.

4. By Baptism members are visibly and ministerially admitted into the Church-Catholick visible.

5. By excommunication rightly administered an offender is cast out of the Church-Catholick visible, as much as out of a particular Congregation.

6. Federal holiness belongs to none primarily, because born of members of a particular Congregation, but of the Church-Catholick.

7. They that are onely in the Church-Catholick visible, are not without in the Apostle's sense.

8. Children of believing parents have right to Baptism, though their parents were not members of any particular Congregation, and are debarred from their due, if denied it.

9. Every visible beleever is or ought to bee a member of the particular Church, wherein and among whom hee dwelleth.

10. The beeing in the general Covenant gives right to the Ordinances, and not any particular Covenant, neither do wee finde any mention in Scripture of any particular Covenant either urged or used as admission of members into a particular Congregation, or at the Constitution thereof.

11. The invisible members of the Church which have internal communion with Christ, are also visible members, and have external communion in external Ordinances.

12. The departure of a member from a particular Congregation, and removal to another for convenience, or by necessity, is no sin, but departing from the Church-Catholick, and ceasing to bee a member thereof, is a sin.

Before closing, I thought I'd copy a quotation that occurs on the very next page of Hudson's book, p. 259, where he describes how the principles of the independents rend the Body of Christ into pieces.  It's a good description not only of classic congregationalism but also of semi-congregationalism (or denominationalism):

Yea, there be others of our honoured and beloved brethren, whom I forbear to name among the former [he's just listed various heretical groups who rend the unity of the church in various ways]; who, though they acknowledge us as true churches, yet deny us to be one Church, and would have us rent into a thousand pieces and parcels, and these to stand as so many entire, compleat bodies, without any coordination, as so many Spouses of Christ, as so many Queens appointing their own orders and Officers, with liberty to censure both Officers and members within themselves, by the votes of the whole body; and not to be accountable unto any Churches as coordinate members, except arbitrarily.

For more, see here, here, here, here, and in general here.  I've copied other quotations from Hudson's books here and here, and in general under the label "Samuel Hudson."

Samuel Hudson and the London Ministers on the Difference between Presbyterianism and Independency

Samuel Hudson, in his book entitled A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholick Visible (1658), cites approvingly the London Ministers who authored Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (The Divine Right of Church Government), a famous work defending presbyterian church government, on the difference between presbyterianism and independency (p. 125):

[T]hey [the London Ministers] only set down the difference between the Presbyterians and Independents there [in the preface to Jus Divinum] to be in this, that the Presbyterians hold that there is one generall Church of Christ on earth, and that all particular Churches and single Congregations are but as similar parts of the whole; and the Independents (say they) hold that there is no other visible Church of Christ, but only a single Congregation, meeting in one place to partake of all Ordinances.

The distinguishing characteristic of presbyterianism (at least in contrast to independency or congregationalism) is that presbyterians hold that there is a single visible catholic church on the earth, whereas independents hold that there is not one visible church on the earth (at least in a formal sense) but that there are only particular visible churches formally independent from each other.  Our modern semi-congregationalists allow for individual congregations to clump together in denominations, but, as the denominations exist independently from each other, we still have a form of independency rather than pure presbyterianism.

For more, see here, here, and here.

Some Quotations on the Visibility of the Catholic Church and the Authority of Synods

Protestants have done a very bad job of late at communicating to themselves and to others the biblical (and historic presbyterian) idea that there is to be one formally visible catholic church in the world (as opposed to a bunch of independent congregations or denominations).  That is why those outside of the Protestant world often think that we have no concept of the catholic visible church.  I've discussed this here and here and it is also evident in a couple of quotations I have come across lately from Eastern Orthodox (I'll call them the "Greeks" for short) sources:

Most Protestants do not seem very distressed over the multiplicity of denominations because, in their minds, the Church of Christ is to be found invisibly scattered among all true believers. Technically speaking, we can say that Protestant ecclesiology does not hold the view that the Church is in any sense a visible organism.  (This is from a book entitled His Broken Body by Laurent Cleenewerck, published in 2007 by Euclid University Consortium Press [Washington, D.C.], p. 32.)

Unlike the denominationalism of the Protestant world, the various churches of Orthodoxy really do have to talk to each other and work things out. A Presbyterian and a Lutheran may each recognize each other as Christian, but they have almost no stake in each other’s internal church life. The same even holds true of someone belonging to the PCA and someone belonging to the PCUSA (both Presbyterian denominations). They don’t have to work anything out between them. A PCA church plant does not in any way infringe on the territory of the PCUSA, because they’re not the same church.

Orthodoxy may often bicker and fight (though most parishioners never see this unless they happen to be in a dysfunctional parish), but the fact that we have such bickering and fighting with each other means that we recognize in each other that we are one Church, that we have a problem and that we need to fix it. Protestants always have the option of just splitting (and once splits occur, they don’t have to bother with each other), while Roman Catholics can ultimately appeal to the Vatican, who can impose solutions that work for the Vatican but might not work for everyone else involved.  (This is from "12 Reasons Why I Became and/or Remain an Orthodox Christian," by Father Andrew Stephen Damick, from his blog "Roads from Emmaus," reason #5: "Orthodoxy really is one Church.")

The problem with this is that Protestants, or at least historic Reformed Protestants, do actually have the concept of the catholic church as a visible organic body, in spite of our failure oftentimes to fully realize it and put it into practice.  (We can learn something from the Romanists and the Greeks on this point.)

Two historic Reformed writings on church government (among many others--I just happened to be reading in both of these recently) bring this point out clearly:  Samuel Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), and Samuel Hudson's A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholick Visible (1658).  These are both excellent books that I would highly recommend.  Rutherford's book is extremely long and can be tough reading.  Hudson's book is a bit shorter and somewhat easier to read, with a more refined central thesis.  Below are a few quotations from each of these.

First of all, here is a quotation from Hudson's "The Epistle Dedicatory," addressed to "the Reverend Assembly of Divines assembled at Westminster":

My principal scope in this and the former Thesis, is to prove that there is one Church-Catholick visible on earth, and that God's intention and donation of the Ordinances of worship and discipline, was first to the whole Church, and secondarily to the particular Churches, as parts thereof.  And yet I acknowledge the ordinary and constant exercise of those Ordinances is primarily in the particular Churches, and a secondary and onely occasional exercise of them in greater parts thereof; and a very rare exercise of them in the whole conjunctim upon some general extraordinary occasion, and that can be no otherwise, then by delegated commissioners from the several parts of the whole, when convenible.

Edmund Callamy wrote an "Epistle to the Reader" at the front of Hudson's book.  Here is a selection from it:

For the truth is, the position there held forth, if granted, would utterly overthrow the grounds and pillars of the Congregationall government.  For if there be a Church-Catholick visible, and this Church be not onely a Church-Entitive but a Church Organicall, and a Totum integrale having all Church-power habitually seated in the Officers of it, which they have commission from Christ to exert, and put into act upon a lawfull call.  And if particular Congregations are integrall parts and members of the Church-Catholick, as the Jewish Synagogues were of the Jewish Church.  And if the Ministry, Ordinances, and censures were given by Christ first to the Church-general visible, and secondarily to the Church particular, Then it will necessarily follow, That the particular Congregation is not the first receptacle of Church-power, And that all Church-power is not intirely and independently in a particular Congregation, which are two of the chief foundations of the Congregationall government.  I shall not at all speak to the first, but as for this last, That all Church-power is solely and independently in a particular Congregation, it seems to me not onely to be contrary to the Scriptures, but to the very light of nature, and to carry many great absurdities with it.  For,

1. It takes away all authoritative appeals, and all authoritative waies of uniting particular Churches one with another.

2. Then the Churches of Jesus Christ should have no Church-communion in discipline one with another.  They may have Christian-communion, but no Church-communion.

3. Then no Minister could preach as an Officer out of his own Congregation, but onely as a gifted brother, and as a private Christian.

4.  Then no Minister could administer the Sacraments (which is an act of office) out of his own Congregation, nor (as I conceive) give the Sacrament to a member of another Congregation.

5. Then when his particular Church is dissolved, hee ceaseth to be a Minister, and must receive a New Ordination.

6. Then a Minister baptizing a childe, baptizeth him onely into his own Congregation.  For if he be not an Officer of the Catholick Church, he cannot baptize into the Catholick Church, which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12.13.

7. Then when the Officers excommunicate a person, he should onely be excommunicated out of that particular Congregation, &c.

8. Then Christ should have as many intire bodies as particular Congregations; Christ should not onely have one Body whereof particular Congregations are part, but every Congregation should be a Body of Christ by it selfe.

9. It would make way for toleration of heresies and blasphemies, and let in as many religions as there are particular Congregations.

10. It would make the Churches of Christ stand divided one from another in respect of government, and thereby bring ruine upon one another.  Even as in a civill state, if particular Corporations should be independent from the whole in point of government, it would quickly bring destruction upon the whole.

For the removing of these and such like absurdities, This learned learned and judicious Author [speaking of Samuel Hudson] in the Book fore-mentioned laid down a quite contrary Thesis.  That there is a Catholick visible, organicall Church, to which Ordinances and censures are firstly given by Jesus Christ.  And that every Minister is seated by God in this Catholick visible Church, and hath a virtuall and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called.  Indeed he is not an actuall Minister of the Church-Catholick, nor hath actually the charge of the whole Church as the Apostles had, but habitually onely by reason of the indefinitenesse of his office.  He hath power in actu primo by virtue of his office, though not in actu secundo sive exercito, hee hath jus ad rem every where, but not in re any where, without a call.  He is a Minister of Jesus Christ, and thereby hath right and power to perform the acts belonging to his office, but for the execution of it, there is required a call thereunto.

A couple more quotes from Hudson:

The division of the Church-Catholick into particular Congregations, seemeth to me to bee no further of divine institution, then as it fitly serveth for order and edification, by cohabitation, for injoyment of God's Ordinances together publickly (as the Jewish Church was divided by Synagogues, for their constant enjoyment of Word, praier, and discipline, which they could not constantly enjoy, as a Nationall Church, by their Nationall worship thrice in the year) and the same reason will by proportion carry it for Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall divisions, for community of a greater part of the Church.  (p. 17)

The nature of Synods is all one, whether they be Provinciall, Nationall, or Oecumenicall, and they only differ as greater or lesse, but their power in reference to their precincts, and delegation is alike.  They differ from Presbyteries called Classes, because the Provinciall is constituted only of certain delegated members from the classical Presbyteries of the same Province; the National of delegated members from the Provincial Synods; and the Oecumenical of delegated members from the National Synods; whereas the Classis is constituted of the Elders of the particular Congregations combined together.  The Classes are more frequent, constant, and ordinary in their meetings, the other more rare and extraordinary.  The power of Synods is not at all civil, but Ecclesiastical, neither is it destructive to the power of Classes, or single Congregations, but perfective and conservative.  They are not infallible, but may err as well as a Classis, or single Eldership, yet are not so subject thereto, because in the multitude of Counsellours there is safety, and they consist of more choice able men, and not so liable to personal prejudice against the accused, nor likely to be swaied by fear, or favour, or sinister respects.  Their power is not meerly consultatory and suasive, but authoritative, and to be submitted unto by those for whom their delegation is, so farr as their acts are according to the Word of God. (pp. 158-159)

And here's a quote from Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries:

Synods are necessary for the well-being of the Church, and still are in the visible Church in more, or lesse degrees, for the authority of Synods consisting of six onely, differeth not in nature and essence, from a generall councell of the whole Catholicke visible Church.  Magis et minus non variant speciem.  And therefore if Synods be warranted by the word of God, (as no question they are) there is no neede to prove by particular places of the word, the lawfulnesse of every one of these, a sessionall meeting of the Eldership of a single Congregation. 2. A Presbytery, or meeting of Elders, or Pastors & Doctors of more Congregations. 3. A Provinciall Synod of the Presbyteries of a whole province. 4. The Nationall Assembly, or meeting of the Elders of the whole Nation. 5. The generall and Oecumenick Councell of Pastors, Doctors, and Elders of the whole Catholick Church visible, for all these differ not in essence, but degrees, and what word of God, as Matt. 18.16,17, proveth the lawfulnesse of one, is for the lawfulnesse of all the five sorts of Synods. (pp. 331-332 [second batch of page numbers])

These selections show, in contrast to modern popular opinion, that the historic Reformed faith does indeed hold to the concept of a formally visible, organic catholic church.  Church authority does not reside only in the elders (the session) of individual congregations but is collegial in nature, so that church authority can (and should) be exercised not only in congregational sessions, but in presbyteries and higher synods (including provincial, national, and ecumenical synods).  The formal catholic unity of the church and the collegiality of church power imply the impermissibility of both congregationalism and denominationalism (the idea that de jure ecclesiastical legitimacy and authority can reside in multiple, independent denominations or clumps of congregations).

For more, see here and here, and in general here.

UPDATE 6/4/14:  In his earlier work on the nature and unity of the church, Essence and Unity of the Church Catholic Visible, found in the Anthology of Presbyterian and Reformed Literature, vol. 5, ed. by Chris Coldwell (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1992), Samuel Hudson quotes approvingly a description of the visible church from Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard:

We have established the fact that the Church is a certain universal extended object, spread out through the orb, described to us in holy Scripture, which by means of a certain visible administration constitutes a singular ecclesiastical organic body, in which are comprised all the individual classical, provincial and national churches entirely as its parts.

UPDATE 6/9/14:  Here is a well-articulated comment from church historian James Walker:

The visible church, in the idea of the Scottish theologians, is catholic. You have not an indefinite number of Parochial, or Congregational, or National churches, constituting, as it were, so many ecclesiastical individualities, but one great spiritual republic, of which these various organizations form a part. The visible church is not a genus, so to speak, with so many species under it. It is thus you may think of the State, but the visible church is a totum integrale, it is an empire. The churches of the various nationalities constitute the provinces of this empire; and though they are so far independent of each other, yet they are so one, that membership in one is membership in all, and separation from one is separation from all . . . This conception of the church, of which, in at least some aspects, we have practically so much lost sight, had a firm hold of the Scottish theologians of the seventeenth century.' (James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland. Edinburgh: Knox Press, [1888] 1982. Lecture iv. pp.95-6.)