Plato non est homo in genere c. Put many sticks together and you may make a faggot or cart-load of them but not make wood in genere yea put all the wood in the world together and you may make a great heap and integral of them but you cannot make wood in genere but by mental abstraction and that a man may do from a little as well as a great deal Genus is another thing then all the individuals gathered together Genus is not by conjunction apposition or aggregation but by abstraction Peter or Paul may say this is my entity my substance my body mine animal my humanity as well as my Petriety or my Pauliety It is true a man may abstract and as it were cut out a genus or general nature out of the individuals and consider that alone because there is a foundation for it and a potentiality so a workman when he seeth a piece of Timber may conceive in his mind that if such and such parts were hewen and plained or carved away there would be an Image of the Virgin Mary or a crucifix c. yet no man wil say that there are any such existing Images there for then it were fit to be burnt So the Chimist saith that Sal Sulphur and Mercury are in every thing and boasteth that he can extract hony out of album graekum but they are not formally there but may possibly be extracted by the dissolution of those things so by mental dissolution or abstraction a man may fetch a genus or general out of individuals but it is not formally in them It cānot be denyed but the object of the understanding precedeth the act of it but it never findeth it existing but it is contracted by an individual and to draw forth the general nature the understanding pareth off the contracting differences by abstraction precision or denudation Apprehenduntur universalia non apprehensis ullis particularium differentiis Fonsec Metaphys But I conceive that there is a great difference between animal genus and animal in genere between an existing genus and that thing considered in genere The individual animal existeth but animal in genere existeth not but in the understanding There is existence in every thing but where dwells existence in genere Concretes exist but where do abstracts exist I will not contend whether universals be entia realia or entia rationis because there is a foundation for them in ente reali but they are not formally one but by abstraction Indeed in reference to other genus's a genus is capable of numerical unity Ens is one genus and substance is one genus c. but in reference to particulars existing under them you cannot say there is one genus in Socrates and another in Plato for numerical unity in the strictest sense is proper to individuals as integrals But I will not contend with M. Stone about these notions of existing or extracted genus's I shall leave it to younger heads which have been more lately versed in those studies But if you take genus for the existing physical political mathematical or artificial genus's as M. Stone doth then it is impossible to deny any thing in the world to be a genus for it is of one kinde or other And by that notion every integral is nothing else but a cluster of genus's bound together by the last individual form and so we may make every thing not onely a genus but a heap of genus's and so a man hath more genus's in him then he hath limbs sences and faculties For there is Ens substance body vivens and animal besides humanity and then every limb and sense and faculty have limb and sense and faculty kinde in it There is head kinde and foot kinde and arm kinde and leg kinde c. and after his constitution he is dressed up with nothing but genus's from head to foot And by the like reasoning every thing should be as full of genus's as ever it can hold M. Stone could not think that I did deny this sort of genus to be in the universal Church for I clearly expressed so much Vind. p. 82. Indeed if you consider this society or religion it is a distinct kinde in regard of the Authour laws qualifications of members but in reference to its members it is an integral If this be all that is meant by totum genericum existens it may passe without any dammage to this question So the several companies in London are distinct from other companies yet in reference to their own members they are integrals and in reference to the whole City they are parts i. e. members But all this dispute on which side soever it be cast hurts not my question at all though it may seem to strike at this Chapter of arguments which were taken from grounds which were granted by him against whom I then argued we both by genus meant a thing in genere or general consideration and to that sense I framed my arguments and then comes M. Stone and disputes from an existing genus in actu exercito that hath neither the genus nor form of a genus in it and he strikes at my aguments by that which is not ad idem If M. Ellis's genus and M. Stones were put into a syllogism there would be four terms for they are not the same and had I argued with M. Ellis from an existing integral genus he would have thought me wilde And therefore this is but a logomachy about the word genus one takes it in one sense and the other in another I clearly layd down my meaning in the explication of the question for chap 1. sect 3. I gave different senses of Catholick or general First the Orthodox Churches were called catholick Churches Secondly the Patriarchs Vicar general was called catholick Thirdly Catholick is taken for a logical second notion abstracted by the minde comprehending diverse different species under it in which sense M. Ellis took it Fourthly it is taken in the same sense that we use to take Oecumenical and I took the latter sense and therefore put Oecumenical into the terms of the question and said there that in the question in my sense the Church-catholick existing on earth at the same time is compared with particular Churches existing at the same time also pag. 11. 12. And in denying this Catholick Church to be a genus I took genus in the third sense as M. Ellis did And I shall a little more plainly set it down now The question is Whether the whole company of visible believers in the whole world which is the one visible Kingdom of Christ on earth and is usually called the Catholick or universal Church being considered in respect of the particular visible believers in the particular Nations Towns or Congregations be the genus of them or a great integral whereof they are but members Here was the hinge of the question handled in this chapter And the thing that made the
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
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
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