Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	particular_a	visible_a	3,187	5	9.2342	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39282	Vindiciæ catholicæ, or, The rights of particular churches rescued and asserted against that meer (but dangerous) notion of one catholick, visible, governing church ... wherein by Scripture, reason, antiquity, and later writers, first, the novelty, peril, scandal, and untruth of this tenet are cleerly demonstrated, secondly, all the arguments for it, produced by the Rev. Apollonius, M. Hudson, M. Noyes, the London ministers, and others, are examined and dissolved ... / by John Ellis, Jun.	Ellis, John, 1606?-1681.	1647 (1647)	Wing E593; ESTC R18753	75,919	94

yet actually instituted Officers neither of this or the whole Church which appears vers 4. 8. Tarry ye saith he in Jerusalem till you have received power from on high But it was indeed that first Church from whence all Churches were to be produced and the Apostles especially and the rest of these members were those who were severally or joyntly to plant those Churches for some members of this Church did plant other Churches and not the Apostles onely as is expressed chap 8. as one man that is father by generation of many Families neither is an universal man nor doth ever represent them neither is he the Governour alwaies of them but for a certain time onely 2. If it were the Representative of the universal Church because the Apostles the universal Officers were there yet it was their priviledge as was shewed above to be the universal Officers and that severally so that though the Churches were one body under one number of Officers then yet they having no successors in the latitude of their power the Church now becomes many else you may as well conclude that all the world must still be one under one sort of Governours because it was so in the time of Adam and Noah 3. This act declares very small power in the Apostles or universal Church for they could not make an universal Officer whereas every particular Church can make its particular Officers and this shews there was then no Catholick government properly such but that was reserved to Christ alone 4. If it conclude it argues that the Catholick Church is formally to chuse its Catholick Officers for so they did and to come together for that purpose 5. It puts the brethren into great liberty and priviledge for they choose and the Apostles onely put them upon the work and prayed over it But to avoid this else-where labour is used to prove that here were onely the Apostles or Elders in this election quid non mortalia pectora cogis Regni sacra fames The second Argument there is that the businesse of the universal Church was transacted scil. the election of an Apostle Answ. Adam did represent all mankinde and transacted the affairs and businesse of the universal Catholick world both before and after his fall so likewise Noah and his family after the flood Gen. 8. doth it therefore follow that the whole world should be but one Kingdom or Corporation It is usual for Kingdoms to send out Colonies into forraigne parts and to give them power to become Common-wealths of themselves without dependence unlesse voluntary upon that Kingdom from whence they had their Original as New-England So fathers of Families yeild their sons an entire governement in their owne families without necessarily engageing them to the families of their brethren further then mutuall love and relations shall require But before the Colonies be sent out the Nation from whence they arise doth represent and transact the businesse both of themselves and of all those Colonies and the father of the Families both represents and transacts the businesse of the Families that spring from him yet are both the one and other afterward without any absolute and necessary dependence either upon the one or other So in the matter of Christs Church The Church of Jerusalem was as it were the mother to the rest The Apostles c. spiritual fathers who represented and transacted the affairs of all Churches that should flow from that but so that when such Churches came to be planted they shewed by their practise that the Apostles had instated them in entyre power without any necessary dependence on other Churches whether single or combined as is evident out of the first and second chapters of the Revelation noted before and other places 3. The third particular is of little moment for the brethren that are called Galileans vers. 11. were so by countrey but now were by habitation and dwelling in all probability of Hierusalem And howsoever the thing is not much material seeing there was then no other Church or societie of Christians visible but that at Hierusalem Besides the former answers take off this also And thus the first scripture viz. from Act. 1. is answered The second followes out of Act. 15. 22. Where that Assembly of Apostles Elders and Brethren which by ordinary power prescribed Ecclesiasticall Cannons and decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles and by authority imposed them on them this Assembly is called the Church but to doe so could not bee in the power of any Provinciall or Nationall Assembly much lesse of a Congregationall but it is the Act of the Catholique Church which therefore this Assembly represented Answ 1. The former answers touching the prerogative of the Apostles and of the mother Church are equally applyable to this also 2. It is not called The Church indefinitely but with reference to THAT PLACE scil. of Hierusalem as by the context appeares for vers. 22. 'T is said It seems good to the Church to send chosen men of their OWN company but the whole Assembly as constituted of the Church of Hierusalem and the messengers of Antioch c. is not called the Church 3. It was not then the representative of the Catholick Church as it was in the first chapter there beeing now other Churches planted which were not there by their messengers Neither was the Colledge of the Apostles there the standing and supreme Court of the Catholick Church to which all Churches were to appeale and to whose judgement they were to stand but every one of the Apostles in the Churches they planted For Paul as he went not up to Hierusalem himselfe at first as was noted above and therefore could not teach the Churches any such duty of necessity binding them so neither did he now either himselfe or others therefore go up from Antioch to Hierusalem as if he had not plenary and full power to have determined the controversie but for satisfaction of the Brethren who either were told by those that came from Hierusalem as it seems by what the Apostles wrote in their letter vers. 24. to whom we gave no such commandement implying that those persons had given out that they had such command from the Apostles or else they desired the mind of the other Apostles also for further confirmation Therefore doth Paul goe up Also in divers of his Epistles hee joynes Timothy Sylvanus and Sosthenes c. with himself yea and all the Brethren Gal. 1. 1. as here the Apostles joyned the Elders and Brethren yet these examples doe not argue that the Apostle or the Apostles had not absolute power of themselves to have determined the controversie 4. It is denyed that this Assembly did act by an ordinary power for if the Apostles presence made not the Assembly extraordinary then was it but an ordinary and particular Church or two or three partcular Churches at the most there being many other Churches then planted who had no Elders there

Scripture he brings to signifie the whole company of the * Elect are the same in sense with those which he brings to signifie one * Visible Vniversal body and so are they expounded as I have done by the best interpreters even those he makes use of His first place is Eph. 5. 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it c. This saith he is to be understood of the Elect. So also saith Beza but Beza parallels and make the same in sense with it 1 Cor. 12. 12. 27. Eph. 1. 22. and Eph. 4. 15. 16. as is to be seen in his larger notes on M. Hudsons second place cited for this Church of the Elect viz. Coloss. 1. 18. which place * Calvin understands of the Church as it is governed by Christ So that these places if they be to be understood of the mystical body of Christ and not of a Visible Vniversal Body then so are the other in the judgement of those Interpreters Besides * Calvin on that place whereon M. Hudson and the rest build their greatest strength 1 Cor. 12. 12. 27. doth evidently make the Body and Corporation whereof beleevers are members to be a spiritual and mystical one and doth so distinguish it from the society and corporation they have as a politick or a civil body of a Towne or City 2. This Authors definition doth not reach the subject of his question but contains what is of all hands confessed it is this The Vniversal Visible Church is the whole company of Visible Beleevers throughout the World Thirdly He brings the description of the Church visible out of several Authors none of which not Austins nor Calvins nor Bullingers nor Kekermans nor Zuinglius his nor Gerards nor Byfields who all take Vniversal in the sense now described and not as M. Hudson but one or two speak to the question viz. Apollonius and perhaps P. Ramus the former of which was pre-ingaged and touching the latter I referre the Reader to M. Beza's judgement of him and that as it seems with reference to this opinion Predixi quod in caeteris disciplinis-ausus esset mox etiam in Theologia tentaturum Quid non ille ante mortem molitus est ut in dogmatibus quibusdam in tota Ecclesiastica Disciplinâ Gallicas Ecclesias inter se COMMITTERET Vtinam ipsius scripta periissent quandoquidem haec est mundi INSANIA Bezae Epist. ad Vrsinum in Organ Aristot 4. He acknowledges among other Authors * Ames to be against him and yet in the very * next page cites him as for him 5. Yet those words of this Author which he cites speak nothing for him if compared with the Authors meaning they are We acknowledge a Catholick Visible Church in respect of its external and accidental forme in its parts or members both severally and joyntly Which is no more but this that Christians as they are single men and as they are combined into particular Churches are visible But M. Hudson might have known or remembred that M. Ames doth expresly and in terminis reject an universal Visible Church in M. Hudsons sense his words elsewhere are The Church since Christs coming is not one CATHOLIQVE so as that all the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world should be united in one and the same bond for outward relation and depend upon one and the same Visible Pastor or Assembly of Pastors or Presbyterie marke it but there are so many Churches as there are particular Congregations For although the Church mystical as it is in its members is distinguished into its subject and adjuncts as the English Church the French the Belgick as we use to call the sea by the name of the coast it beats upon as the Brittish the Belgick the Baltick sea although it be one and the same sea yet notwithstanding instituted Churches are several distinct species or kindes or single bodies partaking of the same common Nature as severall springs several schools several families although perhaps many of them or all may be called one Church in respect of some affection which they all have in commune Like as many Families of one and the same noble and eminent Family are called by one name as the house of Nassau or the house of Austria which comprehends the Emperour and King of Spain who yet have no dependence in point of Government one on another Now wee know who taxes some-body for this fault of citeing Authors for them who are known to be in the main against them 6. His explication of his question both confutes his opinion and also contradicteth plainly what he speaks of it For he saith That the Church Catholicke visible is one whole body all whose parts or particular Churches are alike and of the same Nature And avouches for this purpose the authority of Ames who indeed saith so Now in a body all whose parts are of like nature and quality as so many drops of water or stones in a heap each part hath the same vertue and power that the whole and all the parts together the whole Sea or whole heape of Stones have no other kinde of Vertue or power then one drop or one stone Or to make it cleer by another similitude severall Kingdomes in the world and severall Corporations in a Kingdom and severall families in Corporation if they bee all but members alike of the same Kingdome and not of a higher body whereof when they are met they may be members as Kingdomes of an Empire Corporations of a Parliament Families of a Corporation They should have no more nor greater power when met then when assunder As a multitude of single men that are not of a Corporation though they bee met yet have they not the more power then each one simply for their meeting their meeting addes no power unlesse they meet as members of a body superiour to them when severall 2. This explication contradicteth expresly what he adds in the same place pag. 21. and which is his opinion that hee would establish viz. That the Church Visible Catholique is an Organicall Ministeriall Governing body that is not such a body as is the element of water or ayre every part whereof is of the same nature vertue and power in it selfe considered but such a body as a man hath which is distinguished by severall members some principall some lesse principall some governing as head eyes some acting as hands fee● some governed as the body by the head eyes c. And such a body as all Corporations are Now this contradicts plainly the former both opinion and expression for if the Church be a similar body and all Congregations alike and the whole nothing differing in nature or constitution or power from the parts then the Catholick Vniversall visible Church is no more the Governing Church then a particular As the whole sea is no more Water then one drop nor all men if they be

yet under the command of the Parliament and Lawes Martiall published by them So Christ from the Father by the Spirit is the governour of all Churches which Churches have no necessary dependence further then that of mutuall love spirit and law one on another His 5th and last Objection is The Catholicke Church may bee by persecutions c. reduced to one Congregation His answer is It may be so but that in that one Congregation there remaines all the Essence and Priviledges of the Catholicke Church Visible though it be but one single Congregation at present yea that it hath then more properly the notion of the Catholicke Church then of a particular one yea though but of one family as it was in Noah's family in the Arke But we see what straights this Large conceipt of the universall visible Church doth drive into for this implyes what was denyed before namely That the Church Catholick is a species or lower kinde and the particular Churches the severalls of it for else confounds Vniversall and particular together making an universall thing reducible to a particular and this extendible to an universal 2. How could it bee Vniversall but as containing the Essence seeing in respect of its visible and present being it is particular In which sence every Single man is a Catholique and Vniversal creature because he containes in him the same Essence and nature that is in all men and Adam should have been so in a special manner as being the first 3. A particular thing doth not therefore become an Vniversall one because it is first in its kinde and others that are produced from it particulars Vniversalitie is a notion though founded in Nature not an existing thing to which any order of actual being can be attributed 4. If the first in each kinde have all the priviledges of that kind whilest it remaines alone it shall bee a looser when it hath company if it then part with them unlesse it hath somewhat as good in Lieu which here appears not but the contrary 5. It no way followes that because from one many of the same kinde may spring that therefore either this first suppose a Family must have government over them all or they over it or over one another whether joyntly or severally unlesse they so agree or there be an institution of one superiour to them all Now how should it appeare there hath been or ought to bee any such grant here seeing there is no such record in scripture and besides hath beene the occasion of the rise of Papacy as Mr Noyes acknowledges And thus much of the things to bee noted before his Arguments 2. Now the Arguments themselves follow to bee answered they are of two sorts 1. Certain places of scripture 2. One argument from reason But seeing the former almost all runne upon the word CHVRCH set downe indefinitely they have been replyed to before His argument is If particular Churches be visible then there is an universall visible Church for every particular or part belongs to some generall and whole and such as the particulars are such the Generall if those be visible then this also Answ. More ●are should have beene taken then to use so lax à medium in so weighty an Argument as Mr. ● in the Licence acknowledgeth this to be But to the matter There is great difference betweene Natural and betweene Metaphysicall and ●ivill or Politicke bodies For in a Naturall body all whose parts and members are actually and naturally joyned and united together the whole is visible because the parts are visible● but in a metaphysicall body or totum or whole that is in Generalls that are by the reason of man drawne from particulars the case is farre otherwise the particulars are visible the Generall or universall invisible Peter Iames and Iohn are visible but manhood or mans nature animal rationale which is the Vniversall agreeing to them all is not visible It is not to bee seene with the eye So also in Civil bodies or Corporations though the severall men may be seene yet the Corporation if great an Empire Kingdome and large Cittie cannot be seene in it selfe but in the parts unlesse by way of representation as in Parliament Common-Councell c. But 2 The whole is visible because the parts are so It is untrue even in the smallest bodies but where the parts are actually united and joyned together not where they are thousands of miles asunder such a body as a body cannot bee seene with the eye but it may be conceived to be one in the minde by vertue of some agreement or other betwixt the members of it or of its union in some Visible head but it is visible onely in respect of the severall parts of it Now in this sence none denies the universall Church to be visible that is that all Christians who are one in respect of their Religion they professe are visible in the severall places where they dwell But this is to prevaricate and to prove that which is not in question So that this reason is not so much as probable if it bee taken in the former sence much lesse any necessary concluding argument and least of all a demonstration which was promised by the Authour And in the other sence it is besides the Questio● And thus much for Mr Hu●son's first Question viz. ●ha● there is a Catholique visible Church His 2d is That this Church is the first subject of Ecclesiastique Power But because the proofs are much from the same places of Scripture which are answered above and the reasoning wholly on the same foundation viz. that ●ivers things are spoken of the Church which cannot agree to a particular Church as particular which also was replyed to before I shall not after too large a discourse already adde any more here nor shall I need for if I have acquitted my selfe in the former discourse in opposition to the notion of one universall visible Church or Corporation I neede not contend whether it be the first subject of Church power for it having no actuall being and existence at all it cannot be the subject of any power or act as non entis nulla sunt attributa so non existentis nullae sunt operationes onely the Reader may observe that the root of all the mistake in the former this authour and the rest about these questions is ●ither the not distinguishing the Nature and Essence of the Church in which respect it hath the names and things they urge given to it from the relations of Vniversall and particular which are notions and accidentall to it and confounding the Essence and existence the nature and the actuall being of the Church together applying that to the particular being as Particular which is spoken of them being particular but in respect of the common essence and nature not as particular Or 2. Not differencing betwixt the mystical● and visible state of it

much being said in the former respect which they apply to the latter The third Defendant or rather Assaylant is the Reverend Assembly of Divines Their Assertion is The whole Church is but one made up of the Collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the World by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ in the unity thereof Their first Argument implyed is this From this union there ariseth unto every one such a relation unto and dependence upon the Catholique Church as parts have to the whole and are to doe all Christian duties as parts conjoyned unto the vvhole and members of the same that must be single Common vvealth and Corporation Answ. Such is the advantage of Truth that the greatest abilities grow weak when they dash against it 'T is sensible in this Argument and Authors of it For it doth not at all follow that every company of men that in some respect have an union together and in that respect may be conceived as one whole Brotherhood or Fellowship should herefore be one common-wealth or corporation For as was said before the brethren or families of the same first Parent suppose of the house of Essex Manchester or Fairfax have an union of blood together and in that respect are called the House in the singular number not the Houses of such a Family from which union there ariseth to every one of that House such a relation unto and dependence upon the House or Family in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all such brotherly duties as parts conjoyned to the whole yet doth it not hence follow that all these persons and their Families which possibly may be many are therefore one corporation The same might more evidently be illustrated by the whole race of mankinde who are one in nature one in parent one in office general the government of the world and worship of God one in the common laws of Nature one in the principal Governour God is the King of all the Earth c. And from this union there ariseth unto every man such a relation unto and dependence upon the catholick world or mankinde in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all humane duties as parts conjoyned to the whole of mankinde Hence the Philosopher when rebuked for giving an Almes to a needy but naughty fellow replyed I give it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to the man but to mankinde yet how will would the Honourable Assembly of Parliament take this consequence from the Reverend Assembly of Divines If therefore they should conclude that all the men in the world are but one common-wealth and corporation for then as the former assertion of the onenesse of the Visible Church hath made them Schismaticks in the Church and such also as have sworn to be so In like manner this inference would represent them seditious in the world in the same degree and with them all particular Churches Kings and Kingdoms likewise Object But they say That the union of the Church is neerer and the relation closer and obligation strickter betwixt the members of the Church then betwixt the persons of men because it is spiritual and heavenly To which is answered 1. That the relation and union seems to be equally neer and close in their several kindes Men as Men are as much and have as neer an union and are as much engaged one to another Christians as Christians and Churches as Churches though the relation of Christians is more Noble and excellent and the motives stronger As beasts are as much one in their kind as men though the nature of man be more excellent 2. But be the relation of Christians yet closer yet that is in Spirit Faith mystical Vnion c. not outward and visible further then to carry on the invisible according to the Institution of Christ But neither this nor the former is by this notion countenanced but the contrary as hath been evidenced There may be a Society in Faith as there was in many parts and persons where there was no onenesse in Government Job was not alone in the World some other Church God then had and so he was one in the faith and profession and kinde of Church Administration with them but not united in one body of ou●ward government The place alledged for strengthning this Argument viz. Eph. 4. 3 to 14 hath been ansvvered above and implies no more but an essential or mystical union which necessarily implyeth an outward one in all duties in respect of the substance onely not the subject of them but prudentially and occasionally Such an union integrally per modum suppositi subjecti and by way of onenesse in a visible way of joynt government as shall be expedient for edification which ordinarily is best promoted within such a society as may at least upon occasion meet together in one place or howsoever live together in some neernesse at least Which is the more evident because the largest Churches mentioned in Scripture did so as the Jewish Church all whose Males met thrice a year at one place and whose whole Territorie or Land was but small scarce the fourth part of England and therefore might the better be one entire Congregation or Church but had they lived some at one end of the World some at the other as Christians do there is no likelyhood they should have been one Church Integral and as the Christians in Jerusalem and in other cities at the first plantation of the Gospel The second Argument All the Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the vvhole Church Answ. All the Magistrates and Officers of the World are given to the whole world for the governing of it but not to the world conjunctim and as one single Common-wealth or Corporation made up of several corporations and Common-wealths but divisim in respect of the several corporations and Common-wealths The places alledged for proof 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. are answered above whither we refer the Reader The third Argument is drawn from the third fourth and fifth supposition page 48 When the Church was no more then could meet in one place the Officers governed them as one undivided body respectively But their number increasing so as they could not meet altogether they divided into severall Companies which are in scripture called Churches to some one of which every beleever is bound to joyne himselfe But these severall Churches should not act or worke as if they were Independent Corporations but onely as parts of Christs body and are all to regard the common good of the whole Eph. 4. 1. c. and for that end are as much bound if it may be to associate into Presbyteries c. as particular men and families into Churches there being as much need of the one as of the other and so as many men or families make but

TO EACH BELEEVER THEN TO THE WHOLE CHVRCH which I desire may be observed Again He makes the authoritie of a general Councel to depend on that promise When two or three are gathered in my name c. And then saith That this as well agreeth to any particular company of Christians as to a generall Councel 2. It doth not appear to me in those chapters that hee ownes general Councells on any such grounds nor do I see how he can by what he saith on Eph. 4. 11. above cited 3. If these Councells he there approves did excommunicate c. yet he doth not mention his approbation of them in those things and wee may apprehend he might count such actions among those particulars of their failings which he there enumerates 2. After his Argument he makes the objection M. Hudson had done viz. The whole Church hath no visible head Ergo It is no one Visible Corporation or body He replies to this 1. Particular Churches are visible Churches though destitute of Officers But I Reply should they be so if they had not one common bond of particular laws administred by one person or one visible Society of Officers 2. They may all meet as one visible body the universal Church then must either meet so or else have some visible officers universal over the whole Secondly he saith Christ is supposed the Visible Head in some respect Answ. But that is not the question but what visible existent head there is on earth by whom it may appear one Visible bodie As we saw before out of Calvin on Ephes. 4. 11. 2. How can we contain Christ visible properly 3. He saith The Church is one so as to act ordinarily as one divisim dividedly and yet by reason of the mutual consent in all Churches one act of power done in one Church is by authority of the universal Church and reaches to all Churches as excommunication out of one is excommunication out of all But 1. There was never any Society or Corporation that acted as one dividedly and in parts unlesse it did first act as one joyntly together and in a body wherein power was given to such divided bodies to act so unlesse it were upon some sudden and extraordinary accident that required immediate action before the body could convene 2. Every Society though it may act in parts as a Kingdome in severall Corporations and a Corporation in severall Wards or Halls and Companies yet hath it withall one common ordinary and standing officer or officers visible to governe in chiefe to whom all maine causes are referred c. But 3. That the particular Church that acteth in the right of the universall Church by reason of mutuall consent in all Churches is not proved by that medium for mutuall consent may be voluntary and accidentall and so a figure onely whereas hee is to prove that all Churches are necessarily essentially by way of institution and for ever to be one body whether they consent or consent not But a particular Church acteth first In the right of Christ who is the first subject of Church power Matth. 28. 28. Secondly it acteth in the right of a Church that is of a Societie that hath embraced the faith of Christ which as a Church indefinitely and essentially is the next subject of Church power because we see such power committed to every Church so we heard even now Calvin to expound that promise Matth. 18. when tvvo or three are gathered c. which I finde also the forepraised Author to have said before me whom at the writing of this above I had not seene in the particular 4. That he that is excommunicated out of one Church if duely is excluded out of all is not because the whole Church is one visible body but because all the particular Churches agree in nature and essence of Doctrine Worship and Government so that he that is unfit to be a member of one is so of all because they all require the same essentiall conditions as he that is cut off by the hand of Justice for violation of the Lawes of nature in one Common wealth is cut out of all yet it doth not follow that all men are one Common wealth Or as hee that is out-lawed in one Corporation justly is outlawed in all Congregations virtually and upon the matter though not directly and formally till hee be so declared by them if those Corporations go all by the same lawes for substance and government though it doth not follow that these severall corporations are therefore one or under one generall body which as I take it is the case betwixt England and Scotland where by reason of union under one King though the governments remaine distinct yet one that is borne in either Kingdome is not an Alien but a Free-borne Denizon of both and so by consequence as I apprehend for I may be mistaken in a Law notion and I bring it but for illustration hee that is out-lawed in one Kingdome cannot remaine under the protection of the Lawes of the other and yet the bodies are distinct in power and government though not divided wholy but in some respect So in the Church In the third and last place he comes to authorities But here either he cites those who are nothing for him or when they dispute the point professedly are expressly against him as his first Author Chamier who though he say that if not every Pastor yet all of them are set over the whole Church yet when he argueth the point he explaineth himselfe to mean all distributively every one in his charge as all the Ma●ors and Sheriffes governe the whole Kingdome but not joyntly but severally for hee denyeth such an one visible universall Church as Mr Hudson acknowledged and as we saw before The 2. Are other moderne Divines whom Mr Noyes would have not to consist with themselves whilest they deny an universall visible Church and yet grants Judiciall Power to Synods But it hath beene shewed before that this may be granted though the other be denyed c. The 3. Are the Fathers who he saith so predicated an universall visible Church they laid the foundation for an universall Bishop If so then let this Author take heed he lay not a foundation to raise him out of the grave againe in his Image as I have heard a Reverend Elder of New England called an universal visible Church in respect of the Papacy and to bury the liberties of all the Christian Churches in his grave The 4. Author is Polanus who saith the things of God are administered Synodali {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the determination of the Synod but are confirmed Regia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the Kings authoritie Wee allow the Power of determining with Calvin above cited according to the word of God to Synods and are well content and thankfull that Kings will become Nursing Fathers to the Church

that Whatsoever they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. and this be given immediatly to a particular society of Christians then the assertion is good but so it is in that Chapter When two or three are gathered in my Name I am in the midst and so as that what they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. As by the coherence may be gathered Object But this is meant of the Jewish Church Answ. 1. If so the former Argument takes place But 2. It is not * likely for where is the Jewish Consistory called the Church it is called by Christ Matth. 5. the lower Assembly a Councel the greater Sanhedrin a Iudgement but not a Church 2. He had chap. 16. spoken of his Church and it is like had explained himself more fully about it for all could not be written as Iohn informes us chap. 21. ult. 3. In the former chapter Matth. 18. 18. he giveth the greatest Ecclesiastick Power to a Congregation of Christians Whatsoever ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. it is added immediately upon his precept of telling the Church as the reason of it and to corroborate it he assures them in the same place that what they should aske in his Name should be done and to strengthen that he promiseth that when they were gathered together he would be in the middest of them By all which it appears that he speaks of a particular Christian Church and which is to be noted without any mention of appeal to a higher Judicatory if right should not be done there 3. The first execution of the greatest act of entire power was by admonition and command of the Apostle himself but not by his power exercised in a particular Church without appeal to or consulting of the universal Church which they might have done according to this opinion the Apostles then being surviving viz. delivering one over to Sathan the Apostle saith when ye of Corinth are gathered and my Spirit consent and approbation or the holy Ghost acting in you and me by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ not which he hath committed to me but which is among you for besides that Paul according to this opinion being but one of the Catholick Ministers could not orderly have excommunicated this man without consulting with or by authority of the rest of the Apostles Representatives of the universal Church if the Catholick Church be the first subject of Church power It is certain that Ecclesiastical Power i●herent in any cannot be delegated or transmitted over to another but of transmitting Apostolical power we read not 4. If entire power were first committed to particular men then not to the Catholique Church and so it was not the first subject of Church power and so not one visible governing Church but entire power was committed to the Apostles severally and to all joyntly as hath been hitherto confessed by all Ergo c. Object But the Apostles represented the Catholick Church Answ. 1. Not in all the power they received for they might do that which all the Churches cannot as constitute Articles of Faith c. 2. They represented the Church not as united but as multiplyed for Paul had as much power as any and yet he was not personally united to them as appears Gal. 1. 17. 3. Howsoever they had no successors in Apostolick power as neither had Moses in his At the first planting of a Church more power is to be used then afterward is needfull as our Brethren of Scotland alleadge both for their having at the first and for not reteining Generall Visitors still 5. If the first reproofe from Christs own mouth for the englect of exercise of Church power was directed to particular Churches alone by themselves and not to the combination of them though neere one the other much lesse to the universall Church then particular Churches had entire Independent Ecclesiasticall power as single Churches and not as parts of one visible Catholicke but the former is true from the second and third chapters of the Revelation where Christs reproofs are directed to the particular Churches and not to the Presbytery over all or to the Catholicke Church though some of these Churches were but 8. or 10. miles one from the other and the furthest but two hundred being all in the lesser Asia and this after Christianity had been about 70. years in the world so that they had time to have combined or united into an Vniversall or at least into a Nationall or Provinciall societie or Classis if it had been so taught them by the Churchfounders Christ and his Apostles 2. Sort of Arg. From the matter or members of this universall Governing Church laying for ground what was noted before viz. That every subject or agent that hath reall and actuall properties and effects must some time or other have existence and being as one if one Naturall then so if one Civil then must they be as one body gathered into one place as the Jewish nation as we said before Corporations in their Halls Kingdomes in their Parliaments This being undenyable though Mr Hudson deny it against all experience and reason because It is sufficient saith he that they are under one King and governed by the same Laws but how should they be so if they never met at least by their Deputies formally or virtually to yeeld to such a government not as was proved before any cleare institution left by Christ for such incorporation The 1. Argument is That which never had an actuall being and existence in the world that neither is nor is the subject of Church povver much lesse the first but this Church Catholick as such never had a being because it was never together gathered into one place neither in its members nor in its Deputies and therefore can bee one not actually or really in it self but by * imagination onely and conceit Either in regard of the same onenesse of kinde and nature that is betwixt Churches or of relation they have to one head and in order to and dependance on one rule or law the word of God As several Armies to use M. Hudsons similitude gathered by Commission from one Generall in severall parts of a Kingdome or of an Empire or of the world and never yet brought together nor intended so to be but to abide under their severall particular commanders one perhaps in England another in India might be called one Army in Regard of one Commission and one chief General Yet such a similitude will not here so properly serve because the Onenesse of the Church is denyed by our brethren to be such as is of an Army where all are under the command of one the whole Church and its Officers are by them said to govern all particulars Object But Mr Hudson saith 1. That it is sufficient that the Church Catholick have existence and a

safety may be the more so here 5. How are we slidden from one Integral entire body flowing from one Church at Jerusalem c. to a body made up of voluntary Associations The Kingdom of England is one entyre Common-wealth or body corporate of it selfe intrinsecally politically the Vnited Provinces are one by aggregations and voluntary Association But these two Reipublicks do greatly differ now the Church general is asserted by the Reverend Assembly to be one Common-wealth and Body corporate to whom as one yea and as first before all particular Churches The Officers Ordinances and Governement of the Church is concredited and committed Of like incompossibility is what is there added for illustration sake viz. That this joyneing is such as proceeds Ex charitate ex debito mutuae societatis colendae as is betweene Friends and Equalls Non ex debito inferioris conditionis ad praestandum obsequium As betwixt Masters and servants For what is this but Verba dare rem auferre The Honourable Houses of Parliament and Assembly of Divines Kingdome and Churches of England take their liberty now to reforme the State and Church as they judge agreeable to Law Reason and Religion This opinion by consequence makes this Kingdome but a Depending Member of the Vniversall Monarchy of the World and doth expresly affirme the Church or Churches in this Nation to act but as such in respect of the Vniversal Church Whence it inevitably and evidently follows that they ought to be in actuall association with all the rest of the Nations and Churches of the World these being an hundred times more in number have power at pleasure to over-vote them and to governe them and yet must the Parliament Assembly the Nation and Churches of this Kingdome even when actually so overborne perhaps against their minde and wills fancie and coneit themselves as free and enjoying as much liberty as now they do May wee not ascend by a predicamentall Ladder Classibus Vniversalium Kek. must it bee by a Transcendent even to Reason it self Another confirmation of this third Argument is taken from the Light of Nature which requires say these Reverend Gentlemen that the meanes for the edification of Particular Christians should be as applyable to whole companies of them unlesse Gods word hath some where forbidden it To which I return 1. That this Light of Nature should not be too much urged for it will plead hard for Episcopacie and a Pope {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will bussle shrewdly here 2. That the method of the Light of Nature is to follow the Scriptures in matters of Christian Religion and not to move in them where the Scriptures stand still and are silent hence I note in the ranging of the Arguments of the Ministers of London in their divine right of the Presbyterie that they place the light of Nature first which though they do as intending it for the lowest step yet it is not justifiable to make it any at all in the things of Christ but where it hath some precedent hint from Scripture 3. The light of Nature I have shown before doth make a difference betwixt the necessity of associating of particular persons and of Common-wealths such as the Church is said to be and differenceth also the associations of the one and the other making the former a necessary onenesse and singlenesse of Corporation and Government but the other meerly an arbitrary and temporary friendship 4. The Scripture hath more to forbid all Churches to associate into one body Vniversal Politick then it hath that particular Churches should be entire body Politicks or Corporations of themselves seeing there is often expresse mention of particular visible governing Churches but none expresly of an universal one 5. I retort the way of reasoning the light of Nature teaches there is not the same reason betwixt particular persons and Common-wealths in this particular and therefore not to bee made all one unlesse the Scripture had commanded it The last particular which may seem to be though not brought here by them for that end a confirmation of this Tenet is by occasion alledged in page 61. from the parallel of the Church of Christ with the Church of the Iews to whom the whole Tribe of Levi was given as their Ministry 1. As to one body together when in the Wildernesse 2. To them as one body fixed and dispersed in Canaan This is replyed to before I repeat now That these being and living together in one small Territory and meeting all the Males three times a yeer in one place Jerusalem at one meeting house the Temple doth not argue the Church scattered throughout the World to be therefore one no more then because one Kingdom may be one Common-wealth and have Officers in common therefore all Kingdoms must be one 2. Besides this instance engages all the Churches to meet at some one place to have one chief Governour besides the Elders in common with such other inconveniences as are usually urged against this parallel We have done with the Arguments one passage or two I shall animadvert upon and with due respect take my leave Whilest they endeavour to maintain That it is not left free but is a duty of every Congregation to associate with others They say All are enjoyned to be of some Congregation but when they joyn to this rather then to that the mutual consent between them and the Congregation with whom they joyn is that which immediately gives them that special relation one to another c. From which I note That here is implyed a liberty in particular Christians to joyn to such Churches as they shall see cause If this be so how is it that the violation of Parochial limits is so insisted on though oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification c. and those who keep not unto their Parishes presented and persecuted and those ministers that admit Christians of other Parishes resented as the destroyers of particular Congregations and such who novo inaudito exemplo gather Churches out of Churches Now it will not salve to say 1. That at the first constitution of Parishes there was such voluntary consent seeing 1. Which Parishes did so doth not appear And secondly In many 't is evident they were cast into parishes by those who were lords of those Mannors 3. Neither is it rationally probable that the whole Nation to one man did voluntarily receive the Gospel it self seeing fraud and force neither of which are voluntary motives were the tooles of Popery under which the conversion National was made 4. And though at first the union of such might be convenient yet afterward it may become an hinderance Yet am not I for the drawing of any Godly Able and faithful ministers people from him who is for the substance of Reformation though with many defects in lesser things Nor 2. will it be sufficient to say that when they choose to dwell in such parishes that then they consent to be

uncialibus literis in Capital Letters We pursue not saith the Ancient our opponents with reproches and contumelies as the most do sheltring the weaknesse of their Reasons and Arguments with revileing speeches not unlike the fish SEPIA which * they say casts out a black inkie matter whereby she avoids the fisher But that we make war for Christ we evidence by this Argument that we contend after the MANNER OF CHRIST who is meek and peaceable and bare our infirmities Now from the precedent Tractate when I have inferred a Corollary or two and breathed out a Word of love into our Brethr●ns eares and bosomes I have done As to the former 1. If there be one Visible Vniversal Governing Church ●hen the now endeavoured Presbyterie consisting of the Presbyteries of the whole World as one entire body and claiming so by Divine Right as on the ground of one Catholick Visible Governing Church hath no foundation in Scripture and so is in that respect * Ens Fictum A DIVINE NOTHING 2. There is no Visible Church or Corporation Ecclesiasticall properly so called and as the immediate Receptacle of Church-power but a particular Church i. e. the Church of one place though not as particular but as a Church indefinitely essentially and absolutely considered 3. Then there are no universal GOVERNING Officers at large that being ordained in one Church are Governours every where no more then a Major of one Corporation is so in another or that a Ruling Elder or Deacon of one Church hath the same power in another though perhaps in combination with the former Whence it will follow First That no Minister can do an act properly of Power Ministerial out of the Church whereof he is an Officer that is formally valid i. e. as from him being an Officer 2. That the Ordinances administred by ministers either of no Congregation or out of their owne are void formally and uneffectual 3. That Churches destitute of Ministers must remain without Ordinances c. The three first main inferences I acknowledge to be consequent to the foregoing discourse But to the conclusions drawn from them I must speak something 1. Some distinguish betwixt power purely Ministerial and properly Governing because we finde the Apostles did preach and baptise whilest Christ was on earth and before they were endued with power from on high to administer discipline and government and they say Ministerial power is of larger extent and Governing power restrained to a political body or Corporation 2. Others say that by vertue of the communion of Churches all officers are common amongst them quoadusum non quoad dominium to use though not to owne as theirs But secondly to avoid dispute I shall omit these and what else might be replyed more exactly and adhere at present to another answer viz. Factum valet fieri non debuit That the Vulgar Axiome holds here Things that are in themselves right i. e in the Essential causes matter and forme good and according to institution though not proceeding by standing rule in some externalls as in the outward efficient or minister or circumstantial manner of doing are not therefore void formally For instance first in natural things Those creatures that are begotten both by generation of their Dammes and also by putrefaction and heat of the Sun as divers creeping things are though the latter differ in the outward instrumental cause yet are they as true in their kinde as the former so the Serpent the Lice the Froggs c. that Moses made before Pharaoh and the Wine that Christ made at the Banquet were as true in their kinde as those wrought by ordinarie causes So secondly in spiritualls Zipporahs circumcising her child though M. Mead gives another Interpretation of it The Circumcision administred by the Idolatrous Priests Jehojadahs and afterward the Maccabees administration of Ecclesiastick and Civil power to wit The Kingdom and Priesthood together was valid The high Priests in the time of Christ had no orderly power as being not the persons designed by God for that office as not being of Aarons line nor coming in by a lawful way c. yet their Acts were valid and Christ present at them 3. To the third particular I say 1. This is no greater inconvenience then that a Corporation must be without many those acts which onely Officers may doe whilest they are destitute of them 2. There would bee ordinarily Ministers enough and a succession of them in every Church if the Congregations or Parishes were divided and limited by Scripture and reason that is according to the number of Christians and conveniency of Habitation And not according as the bounds of Lordships accidentally fell or superstition prompted to get Offerings or merit Pardon or Wealth and pride suggested when some grown rich would not sit so low as before which are the common originalls of the multitudes of Parishes especially in Cities and great Townes Thus of the Corrollaries 2. In the next place for our brethren the Assertors of the opposed Tenet As a Bishop must be apt to teach so hee must bee willing to heare also for he must not bee self-willed nor soone angry with those that p●t him in remembrance On these footings and the evidence of the truth now pleaded I take liberty with due respect unto the Persons and places of them with whom I deale to advance a step or two neerer to them and speak in os ipsum as the saying is mouth to mouth There is a general and sad complaint and that not without cause of Novelty variety and danger of opinions I shall not injure ye Brethren if I put you in minde that the opinion in your sense at least is ●ew Light and cannot but increase the differences and disputes exceedingly especially when men shall be engaged to subscribe it as an Article of Faith or else be secluded from emploiment in the Church of God which occasioned so many controversies about Liturgie Episcopacie Ceremony c. formerly That it is like also to prove of the greatest danger to the Churches and their Reformations even your owne was shewed above Now how incongruous is it that those persons who have with so much zeal inveighed against others for like things should have the beam of that in their owne eye And how imprudent would it seem to be if men of repute for wisdom and piety should be so far transported either with distaste to any party or fear of danger to their owne as to admit a forraigner with intent to evert their adversary and secure themselves who will prey on both Now if ye will needs maintain a litigious Title can ye not live on the inheritance of your Fathers Presbyterie hath stood without this proppe and it is not safe to remove a building from its old foundation this NEW peece put to the old garment is like to make the RENT it proved so in the late Church-government