doubt was the diversity of the use and signification of general and particular For somtime general refers to species and particulars under it and then it is called genus or that thing in genere And somtime general is taken for a large integral as when we speak of a general Court in a Corporation and a general summons a general meeting a general muster a general humiliation a general pardon our general calling a general Covenant the general judgment c. These phrases are not meant of these things in genere for they are so many individuals but in respect of the extent of the subject or object of them And you may as well make the general Covenant a genus or Covenant in genere as the generall Church to be a genus or Church in genere It is called the general Covenant not because it is Covenant in genere but because it reacheth all the members of the Church and they are entred into it and so the universal Church is called general not because it is Church in genere but because it is made up of all that are entred into that general Covenant in the whole world So that as the general Covenant is one individual Covenant so the generall or universall Church is one individual Church or society whereof particular Congregations contain but parcells of the members And somtimes particular relates to a general as a particular man a particular horse to man or horse in genere or the general nature of them and in this sense it is true Omne particulare habet suum generale But somtime it relates to an integral and signifieth a member as a particular room in a house a particular street in a Town a particular ward in a City a particular drop in a measure a particular sand in a heap a particular man in a Town or Family And so we say the particulars in a bill or sum or bundle so many and then sum up all in general so much the particular Brigades or Regiments in an Army so many and then cast up the Army in general so many Now because all the visible believers in the world both Officers and private Christians are called the generall and in that sense the universall and Catholick Church and those that live in severall Countries or Congregations are called particular Churches the question is whether general or universal as it is given to the whole Church or political Kingdom of Christ on earth signifieth a genus or Church in genere or an integral and whether the particular Churches are to be accounted species of that general or members of that integral But then coms M. Stone and neither affirms nor denieth the whole visible Church to be either a genus or general or an integral nor the particular Churches to be either species or members but starts a new hare and saith that a Congregational Church is a Catholick Church That is to say as I conceive because every particular Church is a Congregationall Church and Congregational Church may be predicated of every particular Church therefore Congregational Church is the genus of them all He dared not make the whole Church to be a genus of the particular Churches and he would not make it the integral And whereas I had proved chap. 2. that there is an universal visible Church and that it is one I expected that either it should have been denyed that there is such an universal Church or that it is one or if it be one then to have it declared whether it be one generically or one integrally and numerically but M. Stone waves them both and saith a Congregational Church is a Catholick Church and so puts a surreptitions question in the room of it Whereby he doth implicitely grant what I affirmed that the whole universal Church is not the genus of the particular Congregationall Churches but Church in genere or generall notion It is true if we refer a street or ward in a City or a Brigade or Regiment in an Army to Street Ward Brigade or Regiment in genere they are particulars under such generals but if we refer them to the City or Army whereof they are parts so they are members So if we refer particular Congregations to Congregations in genere they are particulars or if you will have it so species or individuals rather of Congregations in genere but if we refer them to the whole Church they are members thereof And it cannot be denyed but particular Congregations may yea must bear relation unto both And by the same way of reasoning that he makes a Congregational Church to be a Catholick Church a man may make a particular Church an individual Church a Church that is one numerically to be a Catholick Church for all these may be predicated of every Congregational Church and that essentially as they are such And so a man may say an individual man is a Catholick man an individual horse a catholick horse an individual house a catholick house an individual eye a catholick eye an individual foot a catholick foot because individual may be predicated of all these and that essentially as such And so we may make hic homo to be the genus of all the men in the world because it may be predicated of every man And so we may set individual and unum numero above Ens the highest genus of all because every Ens is individual and unum numero if it doth exist And so genus shall be a pretty Proteus Omnia transformat sese in miracula rerum And every man shal be an individual particular general Catholick man There is a second thing about which M. Stone bestoweth much pains in his book to invalidate this chapter and that is to prove that individua are species I am not willing to contend with him about the logomachy and the rather because though it crosseth something said in this chapter yet it invalidates not the cause at all That there is an essential predication of that which Logicians call species infima and he genus infimum upon the individuals so that it doth the office of a genus thereunto cannot be denied and therefore as it respects the individuals it is called species praedicabilis as the other as they respect the superiour genus are called species subjicibilis Burgersd For the Logicians carrying the name species no lower then abstract natures which have some universality in them though the lowest that may be and neerest individuals did not account individuals to be species for though universals may be distributed lower and lower into less universals yet are not in their opinion distributed into species singulares or into several integrals which are a totum of another opposite nature But they conceive genus to be natura universalior sub quâ alia minùs universalis continetur Keckerm and species to be natura universalis alteri universaliori subjecta and the lowest species to be that which hath obtained the lowest and utmost
totum integrale is species specialissima or every individuall Church being species specialissima is also an integrum and containeth members and the genus comprehending all his species under him it comprehendeth the individuals with all their members under it or within it self Hence those appellations which are given to an individual Church are given to the Church in general c. If a Church be a body then this or that individual is a body and all the members of it are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same body of one and the same Corporation I answer that then it wil follow that the whole Church is firstly and properly an integral of or under such a kinde viz. Society or polity because those appellations are firstly and properly meant of that and of particular Congregations but at second hand For first men are drawn into that and into Congregations as a secondary and accidental thing containing but parcels of the members of that great society or polity It is clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant in Scripture of a particular Congregation but of the whole Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles entred into the Kingdom of Christ We finde not a particular Congregation called the body of Christ for then Christ should have innumerable bodies who hath but one in the same kind and that fitly join'd together and compacted by that which every joint supplyeth Eph. 4.16 which M. Hooker as I said before calls the external political Kingdom of Christ Neither are particular Congregations called the Kingdoms of Christ for then he should have many Kingdoms in the same respect whereas the Church militant is but one consisting of many members And Christ tells us the wheat-field is the world and not particular Congregations If a King hath many Kingdoms Cities or Armies though he speaks of things that concern them all and all alike he doth not say my Kingdom City Army but Kingdoms Cities Armies If a man hath many fields houses floors netts loavs and speak of that which concerneth them all de doth not say my field house floor nett loaf but in the plural number as of many so would Christ have done if he had spoken or meant it primarily and intentionally of many Churches or Congregations but he bindes them up in the singular number because he meant but an Integral by all those tearms and the particular Congregations are but parcells thereof And differ no more then when a cart-load of wheat is put into diverse sacks whereof every one contains several parcels of the load because it could not conveniently be all put into one which though severed is accounted as and sold for one load of wheat and when it is shot out makes but one heap Or as a great common field divided by several meers or baulks or a great meadow into several acres by dools or marks and so one man cutts and tends one acre and another another but these hinder not the integrality of the whole much less do they make the whole meadow the genus and the parts of it the species so neither do the accidental and secondary differences between particular Congregations hinder the integrality of the whole Church much lesse make that the genus and them the species A ninth Argument I brought to prove the whole Church an Integral was from the severall words which the Scripture useth to expresse the union of the members of the whole Church together as added builded together fitly framed together compacted all the body by joints and bands knit together c. vind p. 87. l. 18. To this Argument M. Stone p. 36. giveth the same answer that he did to the former Argument But it is clear that the phrases are meant of the whole Church primarily and immediately and not of particular Congregations This adding joining jointing and building of the converted ones is first to the Kingdom Body and House of Christ and there is no other essential form added to them beside Christianity by being severed out partiatim by parcells into several Congregations that is a most accidental thing to them as Christians brought in by convenience and necessity Particular Congregations are but as several ridges in a wheat-field which hinder not the integrality of the whole field at all As the dwelling of several men in several Towns in a Kingdom or Common-wealth which Towns contain only some parcells of the subjects of that Kingdom or Common-wealth hinders not the integrality of the whole though they be under particular officers for civil affairs no more do the deistinction of visible Christians into several Congregations under several particular officers for Ecclesiasticall affairs hinder the integrality of the whole Church First men are subjects or denisons of the Nation or Kingdom and then have liberty according to their conveniences to live in what petty society they please So c. Though a man should have several houses in never so many Counties or Towns and at somtime or other resort to them all and dwell for a time in them yet this varies not his membership of the Kingdom or Common-wealth being meerly accidental to that relation So c. It cannot be denyed but that the several Congregations are integrals in reference to their own members and so is any village in reference to the inhabitants but in reference to the whole Church or Kingdom of Christ they are members as the villages are of a Kingdom or Common-wealth How many bodies politick and societies in a Nation are members of the greater body politick and society of that Nation so many less bodies Ecclesiastical make up the greater body Ecclesiastical in a Nation For it was foretold that the Kingdoms of this world should become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ Revel 11.15 The Ecclesiastical polities in converted Kingdoms are said to be commensurable to the civil And by the same reason all the Christians in all territories on earth make up the whole Church or whole visible Kingdom of Christ in the Christian world because it contains all the members thereof who are Christ's subjects And whereas M. Stone saith p. 37. that Baptism is a priviledg of a political member as Circumcision was a priviledg of the members of the Jewish Church Gen. 17. Those Act. 2. were admitted into the Church and then baptized Answ It is not said they that were admitted into the Church were baptized but they that gladly received his Word were baptized verse 14. so that Baptisme admitted them into their first relation and that was into the visible Church Neither can it be absolutely said that Circumcision was a priviledge of the Jewish Church for the second person Ishmael that was circumcised was not of it nor any of the other Children of Abraham by Keturah nor Esau and yet were circumcised Can wee thinke that Job and his friends so eminent for piety and who sacrificed to the true God with acceptance were uncircumcised And were all those nations among whom
vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles and Kings as well as the children of Israel And therefore might not join with the Church at Jerusalem neither as an officer or private member Neither is it mentioned to which of the Congregations in Jerusalem he assayed to join himself whereof no doubt there were great store seeing they had not great publick houses to meet in but private houses onely but it was to the Disciples or Christians there Others bring a proof for this way from Isai 42.16 I will bring the blinde by a way that they knew not I will lead them in paths that they have not known I will make darkness light before them and crooked things straight But this will not prove it but may as well serve for any way that men can fancy They may as well prove themselves blind by this text as prove a Congregational Covenant from thence Others argue that Church-relation is not a natural relation but a voluntary and therefore must be by a Covenant or mutual agreement A man say they will be my brother or kinsman whether I wil or no because it is a natural relation but it is not so in this relation I answer so a man being born within the Church will be a Church-member by federal holiness and so a brother in a spiritual sense whether I will or no being in the general Covenant O! but say they how can a woman become my wife or a man become my servant but by a voluntary Covenant Ans no more can a man or woman of age be a Christian or member of the whole Church but by being in Covenant with Christ the husband and Lord of his Church but what is this to a Congregational Covenant between member and member Do servants when they enter into a family or souldiers into a band or troop make one covenant with the master or captain and another with their fellow-servants and fellow-souldiers If haply they should covenant together to be faithful in their places and helpful one to another and this should tend to the great advantage of the master or captain and benefit of each other yet this is not that which makes them that masters servants or that captains souldiers but the covenant with the master or captain Neither doth any master or captain require any such secondary covenant between his servants or souldiers and yet it is a voluntary relation they enter into but it is voluntary in respect of the master and servant the captain and souldier not in regard of the fellow-servants and fellow-souldiers that falls in necessarily O! but it is voluntary what particular members I will join withall in a particular Congregation I may choose of what particular society I will be a member Answ so I may choose in what Town in a Kingdom I will dwel but I must take the inhabitants thereof to be my fellow-neighbours necessarily So all the Churches of Christ ever took the Christians cohabiting with them within the civil bounds to be their fellow-members of those Churches The Church of Jerusalem consisted of the Christians inhabiting in Jerusalem and so it may be said of Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. they did not pick and choose some out of one vicinity some out of another If any were heretical or scandalous they had censures to remove or amend them Now our civil bounds for Towns and Vicinities have been anciently set for civil transactions and cannot be by particular men altered but by authority and if all the inhabitants within those limits be in the visible covenant with Christ and under his seal and have publick houses or Churches as they are ordinarily but tropically called for publick worship and a maintenance appointed out of the revenues of those Towns to maintain a Minister over them and have a Minister of their own set over them to whom and his predecessors the Christians of that precinct have from generation to generation submitted in the Lord and enjoyed Gods Ordinances from them I cannot see how without breach of order and removing the ancient land-marks and introducing confusion any particular member either of that Town or Church can of their own heads alter this and pick Church-members whom they list and where they list and bring them into a particular Covenant to make a new particular Church under colour to make a pure Church I believe all the Church-members in Jerusalem Corinth Philippi c. were not really godly but many only externally and many very loose and guilty of foul faults 1 Cor 11. Tit. 1.16 2 Tim. 3.5 Phil. 3.18 19. Jude 12.13 16. Yet they did not leave them out and institute new Churches of choice members but sought to reclaim them I scarce think all the members of the Churches in New-England are really godly or so judged of their Pastors or fellow-members and yet they do not pick the good from among the rest make new Churches of them but keep the particular Churches still answerable to the civil bounds It is a bad way of cure to cut off the sound members from the diseased and unite them together in a new body It 's true the civil bounds are heterogeneal to the Church but so they were in Jerusalem Corinth Ephesus c. and yet they bounded them then and denominated them and so they do still in New-England and so the several showres are to the severall Seas yet they bound and denominate them also Indeed if Towns and Churches were to be constituted they might have other bounds and quantities allowed them and so might the Towns in New-England have for there is no precept left in the word to limit either of them but the Churches would be comprehended in those towns this is not to measure Churches by the acre as some foolishly object But we have both precept example and necessity requiring that the Churches should be in a vicinity and not scattered abroad so as the cannot conveniently meet together publickly on the Lords day or watch over one another Yea say some if Churches were rightly constituted at first we ought not to separate from them or gather Churches out of Churches but ours were not so Ans There are three things that I hear objected against our constitution of Churches First that it was not voluntary but forced by authority Answer The members were not forced from heathenisme to christianity but they became christians many generations ago voluntarily for ought I know and for reforming of them their predecessours or successours either from Popery which was a spirituall leprosy over-spreading the Church or any other superstition and reforming of them by authority and compulsion I think it is no more then the Magistrate might yea ought to do and the godly Kings and Rulers in the Old Testament did and were commended and blest for doing Indeed a man cannot regularly compell a woman to be his wife against her will nor a man compell another to be his servant or apprentice but if they have
such as are not fixed members in any particular Congregation vind p. 80. l. 17. M. Stone answereth That individual Christians which are not members of any particular Congregation are not formally political Church-members Now if by political Church-members he means actual members of this or that particular Congregation it is true but they are political members of the Church-Catholick visible for they have taken Christ to be their King and his laws to rule them they are enrowled by baptisme and attend on Christs Ordinances and subject themselves to his Ministers where they become though some occasion may not suffer them to be fixed in a particular Congregation They are political members of Christs visible Kingdom primarily by being members of the Church-Catholick the membership in particular Congregations is secondary and but accidental to the former He saith they are members materialiter non formaliter because they are not confederate But I answer they are confederate i. e. in Covenant with Christ the head and King of the Church and confederate with the members in the general Covenant into which they are entred and any other Covenant or confederation to constitute a political Church-member I finde none in Scripture neither scrip nor scrawl And I conceive all Congregational confederations and Congregations to be but accidental to the universal Church by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of the whole-Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical Ordinances orderly the meeting in several places should cease The woman of Canaan which M. Stone instanceth in by being a visible Saint and believer though she was not formaâ—ly thereby a member of the Jewish Church as he saith yet was she a member of the Evangelical Church and that compleatly if she were baptized if not baptized then but incompleatly and materialites The place which is brought by M. Stone to prove the Apostles to be fixed members of the particular Church in Jerusalem Act. 1.2.3.13.14 proves it not but onely that they abode in Jerusalem untill the coming down of the holy Ghost at Pentecost to inable them to discharge their Apostleships but then they travelled over the world and joined in Ordinances with the Churches which they converted as Officers administring both word and seals and were no more fixed members of the Church of Jerusalem then of any other Church where they became They were never dwellers at Jerusalem but men of Galilee only stayd a while at Jerusalem upon occasion And whereas I sayd in my fourth Argument that the Church universal is not genus or Church in genere becaus it hath accidents and adjuncts existing in it as its own vind p. 80. l. 28. M. Stone affirmeth that a genus is capable of inherent accidents as its own p. 35. and more largely p. 21. with a wonder at me for that opinion But I must cleave to mine opinion as I meant it for all that he hath sayd against it For I have proved that we must divest the integral of the genus from its existence before it can be a genus or thing in genere and divesting it of existence we must necessarily divest its adjuncts from existence also Now as animal in a man furnished with all his adjuncts and accidents doth exist it is integrum animal it is not animal in genere It is true we abstract the proper accidents with the nature and say they belong to that nature primarily as visibility to humane nature but visibility existeth only in on integral man No man ever heard homo in genere laugh And in a Logical abstract sense I granted vind p. 106. as much as M. Stone contends for but if homo in genere doth not exist visibility in genere doth not exist neither But the Oecumenical Church is not Church in genere neither doth M. Stone think it is Church in genere and yet p. 35. he doth grant a Church in genere and saith that the particular Churches are species of it Now should Church in genere and Oecumenical or Catholick or Synholick Church as M. Stone calls it p. 40. in which sense I took it and it is usually taken be brought into a Syllogism together there would be four terms Again whereas I said in the prosecution of this fourth Argument that the universal Church cannot be a genus or Church in genere because it is capable of being major and minor of greater or less extent vind p. 81. l. 11. To this M. Stone answers that a genus is capable of being majus and minus in actu exercito Mankind is capable of increase virtue shal increase at the calling of the Jews and sin may increase because the particular virtues and vices may increase I answer the question is not about genus in actu exercito for that properly is not genus but an Integral under that genus And there is no more put into the definition of man then animal rationale now there are hundred Millions of men in the world then there was when there was but one man so there is no more put into the definition of Church in genere now it consisteth of Millions of visible believers then there was when it had far fewer members the Integral is inlarged indeed but not Church in genere Though a Giant be major homo yet he is not magis homo and though a dwarf be minor homo yet he is not minùs homo So for virtue and vice there is nothing more put into the definition by the increase of them and therefore they have no other definition then they had at the lowest ebb now the definition explicates the essence of the thing The habits of virtue and vice may grow stronger but gradus non variant speciem they may be in more subjects but that varies not the species neither So that genus being unum consistit in indivisibili take away either animal or rationale and you spoil the definition of man and so you can add nothing to the essence of it more then is in it unless you put a further perfecting distinguishing essential form and so make a new species below man The majority or minority of a thing respects the members and so is ascribed to it as an integral either continuous magnitude as in man or brute or discreet as in species by the multiplication of members and this is the case of the whole Church it may grow greater or less as the members are multiplyed or decreased Also whereas I said in the prosecution of the fourth Argument that the whole Church is not a genus or Church in genere becaus it is mutable and fluxile which are accidents of an Integral only vind p. 81. l. 24. M. Stone answers this Argument by affirming that genus may bee mutable Totum genus plantarum brutorum is mutable and fluxile I answer that the Integrals under each of those generals is mutable and fluxile but still the genus of