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
they were chief men if not rulers which were of Abrahams posterity by Keturah and of Esau's stock heathens uncircumcised The very name of Elihu sheweth the contrary which signifieth my God is Jehovah So that it is more then probable that there were religious persons and Countries after Abrahams time beside the Jews if not before them as M. Baxter hath well observed in his treatise upon Infants Baptism and these no doubdt were circumcised It 's true Religion did not very long continue among them as among the Jews but God would not have cast off them if they had not forsaken him I grant that the seal of admission is to be given to none but such as are in covenant with God But what covenant The generall divine covenant or the particular humane covenant Surely into the generall covenant with God The many thousands bapttzed by John and Christs disciples and the three thousand in Acts â— were indeed in covenant with the national Church of the Jews before baptism because the Church was then Nationall but by this new signs they were admitted into the Evangelicall Church by a new and Catholick seal to which their former standing gave them no right And though as M. Stone saith Obsignation with the initial seal of Baptism implyeth confederation and admission into the Church yet it implyeth not confederation with this or that or any particular Church or admission into it Though Saul was baptized by Ananias at Damascus yet was it not as confederate either with the Church at Jerusalem or Damascus whereof he had been a bitter persecutor but as a Convert to Jesus Christ And though haply Cornelius Acts 10. might be confederate with the Jewish Church being a Proselite yet we know of no such confederation of his kinsmen and near friends mentioned vers 24 who were Gentiles and yet were all baptized Neither do I think there was any implicite covenant to bind the Jewish Church together or the Proselites to the Jewish Church besides the divine general covenant with God and yet for ought I know it had been as requisite for the members of every Synagogue as for particular Congregations now seeing they were lyable to censures there With what particular Church were the Samaritans and Simon Magus confederate Act. 8.12 who were a little before bewitched by Simons sorceries yet upon Philips preaching unto them and their conversion unto Christ they were baptized both men and women the witch and the bewitched Surely Samaria was not confederate with Jerusalem they did not love one another so well neither was there any instituted Church as the new phrase is as yet in Samaria neither was it a Congregationall Church but the whole City with one accord neither were there any particular officers set over them then neither could they enter into a particular Church covenant as it is called untill they were baptized the generall covenant must precede the particular and therefore were in no capacity to choose any officers over them and yet they were baptized and therefore baptism is no priviledge of a particular politicall Church-member but of the general And with what Church was the Jaylour as Philippi and his rude family in covenant Act. 16.33 who was a ruffianly heathen Yet being converted at midnight was baptized the same hour of the night without asking leave of the Church there if there were any And for this particular covenant though M. Stone saith p. 37. that it is a covenant not only between man man but also between God man But quojure where is the institution of it or any hint of it in Scripture It may be a promise before God but not between God them but between the people among themselvs between the people their Minister The first and general covenant is between God and man and is of divine institution but the second and particular is but humane and prudentiall and therefore cannot divolve any such priviledg upon people unless the Lord had instituted it to that end The universal Church is the whole politicall visible kingdom of Christ on earth and the visible beleevers are the matter thereof and these believers are converted or at least initiated into it by Christs officers not under the notion of particular officers but as Christs Ministers and Ambassadours to whom is committed the word of reconciliation and are bound by their generall covenant to believe what God hath revealed and obey what God hath commanded As a Denison of England is bound to obey the Lawes of England by being a subject thereof and then these subjects are placed in several towns under particular civill officers but no particular covenant is required of them to make them severall villages which for ought I know is as requisite as a particular Church covenant And those towns consist of English subjects but they are not bound to the laws because members of those towns but because subjects to the soveraign power of the whole nation So Christians are bound to perform obedience to Christ in all their relations and places as subjects to Christ and not by a particular covenant except Christ had instituted any such as between man and wife and there they are bound by both M. Stone bringeth two Aenigmaticall places to prove this covenant to be between God and man Zech. 11.7.10.14 Of beauty bands And Isa 62.5 As a bride-groom rejoyceth over his bride so shall thy God rejoice over thee and as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall thy sons marry thee But I can find no evidence or hint in either of these places for a Congregationall Covenant No nor in all the instances that are usually given viz Gods Covenant with Abraham but we know that was the generall covenant between God and man and not Congregationall And the covenants made in the days of Asa Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah Nehemiah are nothing to the purpose for they were not Congregationall but renewalls of their National Covenant with God and they were the Church of God before they renewed this covenant and not constituted by the renewall of it Neither doth Act. 9.26 which is alledged some prove it It is said indeed that when Saul was come to Jerusalem he assayed to joyn himself to the disciples but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple But this joyning him to the disciples was to have comunion and society with them and not to be a particular Church member there It is not said he assayed to join himself to the Church as a member but to the disciples much lesse is any particular covenant mentioned there But as if one that was known to be an Apparitour or Pursevant or Persecutour in the Bishops days should assay to join himself with private Christians in converse or some private meeting they would be afraid of him so was that case But before that journey to Jerusalem ver 15. it was shewed them and by Christ to Ananias that he was a chosen
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
AN Addition or Postscript TO THE VINDICATION OF THE ESSENCE and UNITY OE THE Church-Catholick visible And the Priority thereof in regard of Particular CHURCHES In answer to the Objections made against it both by Mr Stone and some others By SAMUEL HUDSON Minister of the Gospel at Capell in Suff. Ecclesiam teneo tritico paleâ plenam emendo quos possum tolero quos emendare non possum fugio paleam ne hoc sim non aream ne nihil sim Aug. Ep. 48. contra Don. LONDON Printed by J. B. for Andrew Kembe and are to be sold at his shop neer S. Margarets hill in Southwark and by Edward Brewster at the Crane in Paul's Church-yard and Thomas Basset under Dunstanes Church Fleetstreet 1658. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Christian Reader THis second impression of the Vindication of the Essence and Vnity of the Church-Catholick visible c. came to the birth altogether without my knowledge of the Stationer or his intention and without his knowledge of me and mine intention and it was so far passed in the Press before I knew of it that there was no recalling of it I had another Copy of it almost ready for the Press wherein I had given answer to M. Stone and some other opponents in their proper places in the Book Also I had obliterated the name of my antient friend M. Ellis who had written in opposition to my first Thesis upon this question and had left out all personall reflections upon him to which I was in a manner necessitated in my former impression to vindicate my self and therefore I must crave his indulgence for this impression the coming out whereâ—â— so as it is being wholly against my minde The Book having met with some opposition and that in Print from some reverend brethren I thought not fit to let this impression of it pass into the world without taking notice of what was objected against it and therefore am constrained to play an after-game and to add these few sheets as a Postscript thereunto I have not as yet met with any thing in print which should cause me to alter my judgment about the main subject of the Book and yet I dare not say but some passages in it may be carped at and are liable to exceptions against for I am but a frail man and see but in part and so am subject to erre as well as others yet am willing to be reclaimed in whatsoever I mistake at any time and would not willingly bee mis-led much less mis-lead others The subject is something knotty and difficult and not apt to be understood by every Reader and therefore let him that readeth consider it well that so he may understand and not pass a censure rashly upon it before he understands it That the Lord would guide thee and me into all truth is the prayer of Christs worthless servant SAMUEL HUDSON THE VINDICATION OF THE Essence and Unity OF THE Church-Catholick visible c. SInce the first publishing of the same which was 1649. hath met with various entertainment amongst men according to the various judgments of the readers thereof as Books of polemical subjects such as this is use to do From some it obtained acceptation and approbation from others it met with improbation and opposition Two things especially have been opposed therein First the being of an universal visible Church which is the subject of the second and third Chapters of this Vindication and the former Chapter proving it by Scripture the latter by arguments and reasons Secondly the integrality of the universal visible Church handled in the fourth Chapter is opposed The essence or being of it is opposed lately in print by some Ministers in Norfolk and Suffolk in their answer to Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici set forth by the Provinciall Assembly in London and to Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici set forth by M. John Collings of Norwich But because this was not the main scope of their book only they lighted upon it in their Epistle Dedicatory I shall leave them to their proper opponents and only answer to what they say in their Epistle concerning this subject The integrality of the universall visible Church hath been opposed by M. Stone a reverend Minister and teacher to the Church of Christ at Hartford in New-England and my antient acquaintance And this was in a tractate called A Congregational Church is a Catholick Church which came forth in print 1652. To whom I never intended to return an answer in any particular Treatise partly because I saw his book was only a logical Lecture and of so abstruse and sublime a subject that as it was little taken notice of so it was less understood by any but those schollars that were versed in those studies and so must mine answer have been also And partly because he only or cheifly opposed the arguments which I set down in my fourth Chapter and dealt not with the whole book or the main scope of my Vindication or question and therein also opposed only those arguments which I brought against M. Ellis which were taken from principles and grounds which I knew M. Ellis granted which was warrant sufficient for to me use them though M. Stone granted them not And in them also M. Stone mistook my meaning for by my denying the universal Church to be a genus I did not deny it to an existing genus or genus in actu exercito which M. Stone argued for for I knew though it were an integral it must be of one kinde or other but I denyed that it could put on the notion or consideration of a Church in genere So that my question about the integrality of the universal Church was no whit impaired by his arguments though they had all been granted only those arguments taken necessarily from principles granted by M. Ellis might have been invalidated thereby And partly becaus I saw that M. Stone did implicitely grant what I contended for which was that the universal Church is not the genus of particular Congregations in that he assigneth another genus to them in the frontispice of his book and upon the top of every page in his book and that is Congregation in genere But I intended that if ever this vindication should again com to the Press I would have explained my meaning more fully and that I meant by genus Church in genere and not the integral nature of the genus that existeth in individuals and so to have inserted an answer to M. Stone in that my fourth Chapter which now I am prevented in by this surreptitious coming forth of this second Edition without my knowledge and therefore I have added this Postscript I first therefore shall clear that there is a Church-Catholick visible Some of our brethren which have lately written tell us that a particular Church is a particular company of Saints in mutuall union for mutuall worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and the edification
of Christ and members in particular is meant ye are of the body of Christ or part of the body of Christ not the whole for Christ hath but one body in the same respect and ye are particular members thereof They bring diverse arguments against an universall visible Church Argu. 1. Their first argument is because every part is incompleat not having the power of a whole in it but every particular Church rightly constituted hath in it the power of a whole Church therefore it is not a part Ans It is true every part hath not the extensive power of the whole it hath the compleatness of a part and no more Every civil Corporation is called a body politick and it is compleat according to the constitution of it but this hinders it not from being a member of a greater body politick viz. the Kingdom or Common-wealth whereto it belongeth So every particular Congregation hath the compleatness of a particular Church in it but still as it is a part of the whole Church which is the political Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth It is an integral or whole in reference to its particular members but in reference to the rest of the Church it is but a member Argu. 2. Again they say that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all the parts collectively considered They are constituting that is constituted Ans So I may say of all the visible believers in the world they may in consideration be distinguished from the whole and all the members of the body from the whole becaus they constitute it but they being all the constituent members joined in an unity make up the whole constituted Church or body and therefore that argument was no better then a fallacy For I can say the same of all the members of a Congregation both publick and private they are distinct from the whole for they are constituent and that is constituted but as they are united they are one constituted Congregation so are all the visible private Christians and Ministers united one universal visible Church In consideration indeed they may be distinct yet by political conjunction in the political Kingdom of Christ they are one whole Again they say there is no universal meeting to worship God Argu. 3. therefore there is no universal Church So neither is there ever a meeting of all the subjects of a Kingdom or Common-wealth to do homage or service to their Sovereign but they all obey him divisim in their places Answer or some smaller conventions and yet they are a whole Kingdom or Common-wealth nevertheless Object But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used either in a civil or sacred sense but propter conventum and coetus est à coëundo Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth a calling out and not a calling together And in a sacred sense it signifieth a people called either out of the world as the invisible Church is or from Idols as the visible Church is The members thereof are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons called out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjugata and they relate to and argue one another The particular Congregation is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strictest sense in reference to their meeting together then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Scotish word Kirk and our English word Church comes properly signifieth the Lord's people And this notion betideth people not primarily because they are of this or that Congregation but because they are of the Kingdom of Christ and have given their hand to the Lord. And the word coetus and congregatio more properly respects them that as they meet together in an Assembly Heathens may coïre come together even into a sacred Assembly but because they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called from their Idols to Christ they are not part of the Church though they be parts of the Assembly Argu. 4. Again they say there are no distinct officeâ—s appointed for such a distinct Church therefore there is no such Church Answ Though there are no distinct officers of the universal Church besides the officers of particular Churches or ordinary Ministers of the Word yet every Minister hath an indefinite office which stands in relation to his imployment which he may put forth any where in the whole Church as occasion serveth and he hath a call thereto which is equivalent to a generall office Every Minister of the Word hath power in actu primo to dispense the Word and Sacraments to pray and bless the people in any sacred convention though the members of that Assembly be not members of any one particular Congregation and though the Minister himself be not fixed to or set actually over any particular Congregation And that meeting shal be a sacred convention not only in respect of the Ordinances or Minister but in respect of the members of it because they are all the Lord's people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper primary sense and he the Lord's Ambassador designed to that imployment The body of the whole Church being so great and consisting of persons of several Countries and languages and under several civil governours haply at variance between themselves it was not convenient nor scarce possible to have any constant ordinary actual officers of the whole but that is salved by their habitual power of office which may be drawn forth any where into act as occasion serveth Argu. 5. Again they say there is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church but that is particular Mat. 18.17 which place say they if it meaneth the Congregation it excludeth all other if it meaneth any other it excludes the Congregation Answ I shall let M. Parker answer this argument who saith in Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 355. though he held particular Congregations the prime Churches in reference to Synods yet grounds the more general or greater Assemblies for discipline upon this text per gradationem per sequeiam ratiocinandi per consequentiam as I noted in my vind 163. And this appears by the gradation in the text from one to two or three and from two or three to the Church and if the Church cannot end it as sometimes they cannot then by the like manner of reasoning it is to be referred to a greater number of Elders convened For doubtless Christ did not mean by Church the body of the Church but the Elders for the body of the people never had any right of judicature among the Jews nor in the Christian Churches though I suppose some of our brethren would infer so from this text And it is very probable that our Lord Christ speaking to the people of the Jews spake to them in their own dialect of Courts then set up where there
one brick-house and a hundred thousand 〈◊〉 â—ake one tiled roof and a thousand pieces of timber make one timber-house and many individual men be in one family one town one army one Kingdom or Common-wealth So may many individual visible believers be in one Congregation and many Congregations of them bee in one Classis and many Classis in one Province and many Provinces be in one Nation And all the Christian Nations in the world be one universal visible Church and that be an integral When the first Gospel-Church which might be called general or Catholick in contradistinction to the National Church of the Jews and because then the partition wal between Jew and Gentile was broken down and the coÌ„mission issued forth for teaching all Nations and baptizing them grew too big to meet in one place for all Ordinances it divided it self into many less Assemblies called though improperly and at second hand Churches yet then this division was of an integral into its members not of a genus or general into its species I acknowledge the matter of the visible Church militant universal or visible Kingdom of Christ on earth to be the particular visible believers and the external form thereof to be their joint submitting unto Christ's regiment and laws under his Officers where they dwell but this whole Church when it comes to bee divided it is considered according to the places where those members dwell either in England Scotland Ireland or New-England c and so receive particular denomination from those places but this division is of an integral into its members as the parts respect the whole and of adjuncts into their subject places if they be considered in reference to the places wherein they are contained Look at the Church in genesi saith M. Cawdrey vindic vindiciarum 72. and the single members are the causes thereof as an integral but look on it in analysi in the distribution of it into Congregations and so it giveth essence unto them and they are parcells of that greater integral Though in the constitution of an integral the parts are before the whole as the essential causes thereof yet in the distribution the whole is before the parts Cawd p. 82. And whereas I had proved that the universal 〈◊〉 is not a genus or Church in genere because it doth exist or hath an individual existence of its own which a thing in genere hath not vind p. 79. l. 8. To this argument M. Stone answers by affirming that genus doth exist But when he comes to prove it he proves only that the integral nature of the genus doth exist in the individuals and leaves us from them to abstract the genus which is an universal but proves not that the universal doth exist any where but in the mind of man or Angel Now as it doth exist in the several individuals it is contracted and is an integral and must be loosed from his contraction by abstraction before it can be a logical genus or that thing considered in genere This is as if he should say as it is an integeal it is a genus which he confesseth differs very much There is that which may be abstracted but it doth not exist as abstracted but as contracted So I may in my minde consider a prisoner that is bound with many chains without his chains and so a free-man but I dare not say he existeth a free-man I can abstract a man from his riches learning piety nobility that is endued with them but I cannot say he existeth so Where a thing in genere or general notion or general consideration doth exist but in the understanding I as yet know not Moreover as such a nature doth exist in individuals it is manifold but as I have abstracted it it is but one As it doth exist in individuals each differ from other as M. Stone acknowledgeth ne ratione and by his own Logick all those individuals are opposites and so dissentanies now dissentaneum est quod à re dissentit but one is not a dissentanie much less an opposite to itself Now genus is one because it is totum quod habet partes Therefore you must divest it of existency before you can consider it as a genus or general or thing in genere And to apply it to the whole Church in reference to the members of it the whole Church hath an existence of its own as an integral being individuum as Ames confesseth but as M. Stone 's genus hath no existence but in the species The existence of the whole Church resulteth from the conjoined existence of the members but the existence of a genus is abstracted from the species The whole Oecumenical visible Church hath no species or individual Churches under it whereof it 's the genus but is made up of individual visible believers and then divided into several pieces or parcell which we call particular Congregations Like a piece of ice divided or marked out into many little pieces the great piece of ice is not the genus of them but the integral and they are the members Though the whole Ocean were frozen it would make but a great integral and the several parcels thereof members But it would not be the genus of those parcells for ice in genere is the genus A pail of water is not the genus of the several drops that are in it but is an integral and they are members but water in genere is the genus A heap of sand though there were no more sand in the world but that is not the genus of the particular sands in it but sand in genere So the universal Church is not the genus of particular believers but believer in genere nor of the particular Congregations but Congregation in genere And whereas I had said in my second Argument vind p. 79. l. 30. that Quod habet partes extra partes est totum integrale M. Stone denies it to be a true definition I answer I had it out of Burgersdicius p. 47. and I conceive he defines it so in opposition to that which he calls totum essentiale quod constat ex materiâ formâ for there the parts do mutuo se pervadere loco situ non differunt as the soul and body in man but the parts of an integral quâ integral do differ in both But to make the Argument past his exceptions I shall change onely one word and in that change only express Burgersd his meaning more clearly Quod habet membra extra membra est totum integrale sed ecclesia universalis visibilis habet c. Ergo. The universal Church hath its members one distinct and several beside and without each other whether you consider them to be particular believers which are the prime members or Congregations c. which are secondary And whereas I had said in my third Argument that the whole Church is made up of the visible believers in particular Congregations and of
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