Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	church_n	invisible_a	4,247	5	10.9779	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

taken as single men have no more or higher authority then one man nor all families then one family nor all Corporations then one Corporation Wee see that 't is not one sort of men onely that are obnoxious to contradictions both verball and reall Besides the Author he seem● to follo● viz. Apollonius enterprets that place Eph. 4. 16. The whole body fitly joyned together to be meant of an Organicall Ministeriall body differing in members which Mr Hudson expounds to be meant of a Similar and body whose parts are all alike Wee see here also that even persons of this opinion cannot agree among themselves shall wee therefore say they know not what they would have seeing one would have one thing another another We must then reach out the same ingenuity unto others differing in like manner that we stand in need of our selves About his answers to the objections he brings against his opinion we may note severall things as first in his answer to the 1. Objection he saith That the dwelling in one Towne where there is a Church and being member of another Church is a kinde of dis-churching that Church which is in the Tovvne where he dwells But the answer is ready according to his opinion for they remaine still of the same integrall body if the whole Church bee but one visible Congregation and so we see what way by this opinion is made to the scattering of particular Churches seeing men may remove though not in dwelling yet in relation at pleasure without danger of Schisme for they remaine still of the same single though larger bodie as a man may dwell in one Corporation and be a member of another yet he still abides a member of one and the same single Kingdome His 2d Objection is That if all particular Churches bee all one Church they must all meet some times His answer is 1. No It is sufficient that it have the same King Lavves Spirit c. But was there ever in the world such a Kingdome or Corporation that the members of it do not meet sometimes if it be not a meere visible Monarchy as under Popery If it have any liberty left to the subjects they must meet sometimes at least by their Deputies as the Kingdome of England in Parliament the Empire of Germanie in the states of the Empire c. His 2d answer is That the Church Catholicke visible hath met in Generall Councells as a ministeriall Church and mark it is now ministeriall and heterogeneall which was before similar and homogeneall but this is replyed to above where was shewed 1. That the most primitive Churches did not so act 2. That the whole Church did not meet in them 3. That they either acted as a similar body acts in the name of those and within the Churches that sent them each for their owne and all for all those whose Deputies they were for ought we have learnt yet or else that they acted much by Regall power as by Constantines in the Councell of Nice and others by other Emperours and they acted also in late Councels by Episcopall Archiepiscopall and Patriarchal power and not as a similar body 4. If those were the Catholick Church visible representative How dare any particular Churches at most but if national abrogate and sweare against the Ordinances and government established by the Catholicke Church Let him minde this Againe he saith The power of a general Councel or of the Catholick visible Church is but EXTENSIVE and the power of particular Churches INTENSIVE but 1. This overthrowes his tenet for then the Catholicke Church hath no more power in it selfe and properly but meerely by accident then a particular Church And 2. This plucks up his second Tenet viz. That this Catholick Church is the first Church to whom power is given for if its power be extensive onely and not inward It cannot be the first subject of power The 3d. Object Hee moves against himselfe is A visible Catholicke Church must have a visible Catholicke head His 1. answer is That it is sufficient that Christ is the head though in heaven But this is altogether an unsufficient answer For Christ is the Head invisible and thence our divines affirme his body the Church to be mysticall also and invisible taken properly 2. He saith that The Church in regard of the head the government of it is absolutely Monarchicall but in regard of the Officers it is Aristocraticall But this answers not the objection for be it Monarchicall or Aristocraticall yet if the body bee one visible Corporation then must the Governours of it bee one visible either person or company of men usually or at sometimes ordinarily meeting together or at least to be considered as one body or Colledge of men by whom this body is joyntly and together and not asunder to be governed And this is the force of Calvins reason on Eph. 4. 11. though applyed to the Papacy For if wee must bee one visible corporation there must bee one visible governour either person or society which the Apostle omitting in that place where it was necessary to have been mentioned it if it had beene an ordinance cannot saith he be excused His 4th Objection is That if the Catholicke Church bee one visible body it must have a visible existence and being as it is universall and Catholicke but universalls have no beeing of their owne but they exist and have their being onely in particular as Mankinde in generall hath no being a part by it selfe from single men but hath its being in them onely His Answer is That all gathered aggregated or collected bodies do exist and have their beings so As a heape of stones hath its being only in the particular stones the water in particular drops particular Churches consist of particular families and families of particular persons and an Army in the severall Brigades which yet are one though they should never meet But this reply amounts not to an answer For no collected body that is made up of severall things hath its being in these things severally considered and apart but as united altogether it is not a heape of stones if one lye at Yorke some at London others in France Spaine c. So a Church is not a Church or one companie as the families are severall but as met together in one Assembly and so an Army Brigades may be sent out of it but if that part were never united to the Army by 1000. miles nor intended to be and if they be not governed either by one visible head or by one visible Councell of Warre no man will say they are one Army especially if one be in England and the other in America Do wee not say The Parliament hath had severall Armies under severall distinct commanders in cheife who had no dependence one on another as it was a good while after the Earle of Essex had his Comission and

of one visible Catholick Church and might both consist together in a particular one So that as neither Episcopacie nor Presbyterie absolutely considered are engaged to owne the opposed Tenet so neither doth that Truth I plead for constrain me to oppose either if within the forementioned limits My aim is the plucking up of that root from whence sprang the exorbitancy of both and what was worse then either And as I am not obliged to oppose so I would not be interpreted to plead for the one or other My businesse is to deal with the subject of Church government and that onely in its exrent and limits Now for a call to this service though it challenge the most exercised abilities and that other more able hands have undertaken it which I heard not of till these papers were almost in the Presse yet one of the * Authors I reply unto having done me the favour to invite me to a disputation about the Argument and afterward farther obliging me by sending one of the printed books to me for which I am his debtor with desire that if I excepted against any thing in it I ●ould send my thoughts in w●iting to him privately I conceived my self particula●ly engaged to deal in this argument and that not privately but publickly because what I was to speak to was published first CHAP. II. The State of the question THat we may know what we speake and vvhereof vve affirme as the Apostle phraseth it the true state of the controversie is to be expounded the mistake whereof is the rise of much of the dispute about this question For the clearer proceeding wherein four or five Termes are to bee explained First the word CHVRCH Secondly the Onenesse or unitie of it Thirdly The Vniversalitie Fourthly The Visibility Fifthly that which is included in the other the povver of it Concerning the first The word CHVRCH is taken as in other acceptations so 1. Mystically and Essentially for a company of tho●e that have owned the doctrine * of Christ 2. Politically as such a company are cast into one Society Corporation Republique or Body politique And this againe is considered either Totally as comprehending those in heaven also Ephes. 3. 15. the vvhole family in heaven and earth or partially for those on earth onely and this either generally for all as some would understand the word though we cannot give an instance of this signification in Scripture or particularly for those who live together in One place and are associated into one body called a Particular Church as the Church of Rome Jerusalem c. The next Terme is Onenesse or Vnitie which is 1. Essentiall and in Nature such as is that of all particular things in their generall heads all men as they partake of the common nature and essence of man rationalitie which is one are in that respect called one Nation or Man●inde in the singular 2. There in an accidentall unitie when the agreement is in that which is not of the essence and nature but adventitious to the things as time place appurtunances c. as some Spanjards some French some English may be one company as by occasion they are met in one place or as kingdomes and States at generall diets or by mutuall leagues become one accidentally by such unions 3. An Integrall or Bodily onenesse as I may so speake when many particulars are joyned together as one whole and this is 1. of a similer or Homogeneall body whereof all the parts are of the same nature with the whole and one with another such as is the onenesse of drops of water in the Sea and sands on the Shore or ● of a dissimilar and hetrogeneall one when the parts differ from the whole and among themselves and this is double 1. Physicall and Naturall as ●hen all the parts and members make but one individuall substance as the head feet trunke c. are all one naturall body 2. Politicall or by way of morall corporation and Republique when many single ones are bound up in one sociall relation as divers persons into one family severall families into one corporation many corporations into one Common wealth and this union againe is twofold 1. Misticall when things are one in some hidden relation that is not visible to the sence as all families descending from some First house such are all the sonnes of Adam and of Abraham all professours of the same faculty be they never so farre asunder 2. Visible and outward when the union of all parts is obvious and evident to the eye and sence as the union of the members in the bodie of man or members of a society when they are met and act visibly together as the City of London in Common Councell the Kingdome of England in Parliament 4. There is a Collective or aggregative onenesse which differs from the former in that this is only by collection or gathering as an heap of stones is one by being gathered together into one place but in a body whether naturall or politique there is required moreover a mutuall incorporation and inward dependance on one another c. Thus of the second terme The third is Vniversall or Catholick It is taken 1. Properly for that common nature in which particular things agree as common to them all Rationall creature in the general is the universall nature in respect of all particular men And in this sence universality is only a notion framed in the minde of man and collected from observation of severall particulars but hath no reall actuall being in time and place 2. Improperly for that which though it be a single thing either naturall or by way of relation is yet in regard of the wide spreading of its parts called universall catholicke and Generall as we say the Kingdome of England in generall or universall doth this or that though it be but one single Kingdome c. and in this sence that which is called universall may have an actual being and existence The Fourth Terme is visibilitie It is an accident or addition to the nature of things as they are perceiveable to the eye or in a large acceptation by any other sence the subject whereof is alwaies a corporal or bodily thing representing it selfe as one unto the sence The last Terme included though not expressed is Church power It is first Doctrinall vix Teaching Discussive Determinative and concluding in points of controversie by the Word 2. Active and this is either General and common and answers to that power that all men by vertue of the onenesse of Nature and onenesse of the Law of nature have in order each to other As 1. to take care of and do good to one another to protect each other from violence c. 2. Properly Rective and Iuridical and this is either 1. Extraordinary in some unusuall cases as every man hath power of life and death in

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

Integralls and Accidents Hence I answer 1. That it is utterly à non sequitur and inconsequent to say because this Scripture and other like speak of the Church as of one in mysterie in nature and in essence that therefore it s one in Number or one Visible single body that because the Church is somevvay one therefore Integrally and by way of single Corporation Visible Now the Apostle speaks of the Church as one in Mysterie and Nature not Visibly and in Number appears from Verse 13. Where he saith Ye are all baptized into one body and been made to drink into one Spirit Now compare this with its parallel Eph. 4. 4. 5. Where the Apostle saith There is but one baptisme one faith and so makes the onenesse of the body to consist in these uniting the members to one Christ by one spirit to one God In which place two things are observable First That as he saith the Church is one so he saith Baptisme is one and Faith is one Shall we therefore say that there is but one single Baptisme or one single Faith visibly and integrally one in the VVorld Surely any man would answer that the former are said to be one mystically invisibly and in respect of their kinde and Nature because all true faith is of the same kinde and so all true Baptisme but are as many several faiths in Number and Baptismes as there are several beleevers and baptised persons Secondly That the onenesse of the Church essentially consists in the onenesse for kinde of Faith Hope Baptisme as also in the onenesse of its head its spirit and its God which doth indeed make it one mystical body but it doth not conclude them to be one Visibly Outwardly and Externally because some of these things wherein they are one are invisible others not on earth as the faith the hope spirit are invisible God and Christ are not on earth visibly and therefore the onenesse here mentioned makes not one visible corporation on earth and as one to be considered and to act VVe willingly grant that this union Mystical doth imply an union Visible also as much as may stand with the Institution of Christ and the edification of the Church But neither Christs institution nor the edification of the Church implies but opposes such an Vniversal Visible Vnited Corporation as we saw before But of this more in our Answer to his second Argument Now to return As we say of the body and of Baptisme Faith Hope c. So in the like sence we grant that the Church is one hath but one VVorship and but one Government viz. For Nature and kinde in the substantialls of it or that general platforme of it Matth. 18. and what else is to be gathered from the precepts and practise of the Apostles but as the Church is not one visible policie or corporation in number so neither in the outward Government of it For this as other accidents follows the nature of its subject So then when the Apostle saith God hath set in the Church some Apostles c. the Church must be taken for one not in regard of the outward or accidentall state of it but indefinitely and in regard of its inward nature and essence that is neither as visible nor invisible nor as universal or particular for all these are outward or accidental to the Church Object 1. But he mentioneth Baptisme various gifts and members divers Ministries as Apostles c. all which are visible therefore he meaneth the Visible Church Object 2. And whereunto belong both Jewes and Gentiles yea all that are baptised to which also the Apostles Evangelists and various gifts are given therefore it is the Vniversall Church Therefore I give a second answer I grant that hee speakes of the Church whether Visible or Invisible Vniversal or particular but not of it in these respects but mystically and totally as comprehending those in heaven also and this sence I will stick unto And it appears from the scope of the place the * not attending whereof hath occasioned saith Bucer great calamities in all Ages to the Church whilest men catch at words that make for their purpose not weighing the drift of the Author in such passages The Apostles intent there is plainly this viz. to perswade the Corinthians to concord among themselves and with the beleeving Jews as seems to be implyed verse 2. and 13. and contentednesse in their gifts and to the right use of them Now for the fastening of this he laies for ground that all Christians whether Tryumphant or Militant are but one mystical body of Christ vers. 12. and then teaches them that gifts they are all from one Spirit for mutual edification and for the distinguishing of the members of one and the same body and that there might be no Schisme or rent in the body about these gifts which are bestowed for the better uniting of it that all members cannot be in the same office nor have the same gifts but yet may be of the same body whereof the Church of Corinth was a part This is all the Apostle aimes at here And so also in that other parallel place Eph. 4. 3 4 5. c. His scope is the same to exhort to unity among themselves and with the beleeving Jews whom they stood at a distance from as they from them as appears in Peters withdrawing from the Gentiles when the Jews came Gal. 2. and this is implyed Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles fellow-heirs and of the same body and verse 15. he extends it to those in heaven also The whole Family in Heaven and Earth and having named the Church vers. 10. and verse 21. he saith in this Church should be glory to God vvorld vvithout end but then he must take the Church for the whole mystical body in heaven and earth And so when afterward chap. 4. he saith there is one body and he gave some Apostles c. for the perfecting of the body he must mean the whole and not that on earth onely for the body of Christ is not one part onely but the whole which must be perfected by union of Jews and Gentiles those on earth to be added to those in heaven He takes the body entirely not for the Visible part onely Now in this Body or in this Church as chap. 3. 6. or in this Family in heaven and earth as verse 15. He hath set some Apostles some Pastors Though these have exercise of their functions onely in that part which is one earth and in that part of it on earth which is visible yet they are placed in the whole Answ. 3. Should I grant which I doe not that the Apostle is to be understood of the Church on earth yet hee speaks as well of a particular Church when he saith God hath set some in the Church as of the Generall It s evident 1. If the word Apostle which alone grounds the objection be

faithful or they agree to the Church militant in respect of its ESSENTIAL Nature which is proper to the truly faithful So then not to a Church as Vniversal or particular as Visible or invisible but as essentially a Church which a particular Church may be And the former replies also will serve unto what the other Authors urge from such like Scriptures and places as 1. M. Hudson from Act. 8. 3. Saul made havock of the Church Gal. 1. 13. I persecuted the Church 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence to the Church of God 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. That thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the Church of God Also when it is called the Kingdom of God a Barne a Draw-net a Marriage and because 1. Cor. 12. the Church is said to be one Body and one Woman Apoc. 12. one sheepfold John 10. one Dove Cant. 2. 2. All which and other places wherein the word Church is used are to be understood as hath been evidenced either of the Church in respect of the nature and essence of it as all beleevers and Churches have the same kind of Faith Doctrine c. or else as one mystical and invisible body of Christ but doth not at all insinuate much lesse prove that they are all one external and visible Corporation 3. M. Noyes who useth the same places of Scripture as the other as also Apoc. 11. 1 2 3. the Church is described as one City one new Jerusalem c. Answ. That place is taken by great Expositors to signifie such a state as is not yet in being what it will be when that shall exist is uncertain Secondly We grant it to be one City and Kingdome as a mysticall body 1. In respect of Christ the head 2. In regard that all Churches in their severall places walke by the same Laws c. i. e. as essentially agreeing together but not visibly governing as one body 4. The London Ministers part 1. pag. 3. who urge the forenamed place 1 Cor. 12. and that the Apostle maketh the whole Church but one Organical body a contradiction to their assertion Praefat. p. 11. That the Church is a similar body which overthrows their present Tenent for in a similar body all the parts together have no more internal power then single as in drops of water single Corporations as single though united in place So part 2. p. 66. where also they say that Eph. 4. 4. Christ is considered mystically not personally and if mystically not visibly Answ. First The Apostles scope and then the supposition he goes on are to be eyed The scope is to exhort to humility in great gifts to contentednesse in mean gifts and to love and edification by all gifts The supposition he grounds his Argument on is the relation wherein believers stand viz. of members of one and the same body s●il of Christ mystically considered as the Ministers speak but he neither expresseth nor implyeth the visibility of this body or the outward onenesse of it if he mean the Catholick and not the particular Church of Corinth 5. Lastly The Reverend Assembly who in the places above mentioned quote Eph. 4. 3. c. To which Answer hath been given above and may again when we come particulary to reply unto them And thus much in answer to the first Argument of Apollonius and others drawn from expressions that speake of the Church as one one body house Kingdome family sheepfold which is indeed the Achileum or Fort Royall in this Garison and which if I be not greatly overseene hath been by the former weapons out of Christs Armory absolutely taken and demolished The second Argument followes which is There is certaine Societie and Ecclesiasticall communion by divine institution and therefore a certain universall body for there is a certain internall fellowship and obligation to mutuall offices Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. which doth require an externall and outward Society and Commuion Ecclesiasticall in exhorting reproving comforting edifying one another and that fellowship which the members of a particular Church retain among themselves in a due proportion Churches Provinciall and Nationall ought to keep by which communion Ecclesiasticall all Nationall Churches do grow up to one Vniversall Ecclesiasticall body Ans. This reason no way concludes the intended proposition I willingly grant there is a mutuall fellowship and spirituall communion which also requires an outward communion in many respects and particularly in those named by this Author viz. exhortation reproof c. And indeed this was all the combination that was in the most Primitive Churches and such inward and outward communion there is to bee betwixt all good men friends brethren nations c. But this argues not that therefore they must be one body in point of Government Neighbour Nations are to retain this inward communion and outward so farre as may make for mutuall good and there may bee a society or league betwixt them as betwixt Solomon and the King of Aegypt betwixt Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre So men of the same trade and profession in regard of the same art have an internall communion together and this requires some outward communion also as occasion serves but it no way concludes that therefore they must needs be one body or Corporation Suppose some dwell at London some at Yorke some in England and some in France 2. It is also granted that the same Vnion that the members of a Church have one with another the same have the severall Churches among themselves IN A DVE PROPORTION which are the words of the Author but this proportion is not IDENTITIE or samenesse of Relation that is it is not so neer a relation nor gives that power that the former relation doth As the same relation that the members of a Family have one unto another the same in a due proportion have particular families one to another but no man will say that what the members of a family especially some of them may doe one to another the same may a Corpoporation of Families do among themselves there is some neernesse but not altogether the same And this also is sufficient for the second Argument I shall meet with it again anon in the first Argument of the Reverend Assembly The Third There were certaine meetings in the New Testament which did represent the whole Church and wherein the businesse of the whole Church was transacted to wit the calling of an Apostle which was a part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and there were the Pastors of the universal Church for they were sent unto all the world Matth. 21. 19. and therewere the brethren out of Galilee and Jerusalem Answ. 1. I deny with the Protestant Divines against the Papists that there is any Representative Church properly so called or that this was one it was onely at present a Particular Congregation whereof the Apostles were members though principall ones but not

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

of such a Congregation for we know men do that on civil and oft-times necessitated grounds as most convenient for lively-hood when yet they are altogether unsatisfied either in the Minister or Congregation A 2. passage is p. 62. the several Congregations chuse or accept their particular Officers and all the Congregation united choose or accept their common Presbyterie yet page 58. 't is said their office is conferred on them by the Church either then the common Presbyterie is the Church when they choose the Elders for the several Congregations for they do but accept of them on the matter or else it was not a plain declaration of their mindes when they said the Church chooses or else this is inconsistent with the other The 4th Assertor is Mr Noyes whose tenet is That the Church of Christ on earth is one integral body visible and hath power to act in Synods and Councels unto the end of the world His 1. Argument is The Apostle were members 2. Officers of the Catholicke not any particular Church These are replyed to above 3. They admitted members into the Catholicke Church as the Eunuch and Cornelius the Jaylor c. Answ. These persons were admitted into the Church or company of those who professe Christ and were made visible members of that societie and corporation which is invisible as the Sacraments are said to be visible signes of invisible Grace The Church Catholique is visible in respect of its severall members and societies or Churches but not in respect of its whole being as one Corporation Society and Corporation properly so called differ All men are one society but not one Corporation so in the Church Now according to nature of the society are the priviledges common society hath certain common rights proper societies have peculiar ones Now the Church in generall is a society to all the members of which there belong certain common rights and priviledges as Spirituall food the word Sacraments the right of government in the generall c. but this implies not that it should be properly one Corporation no more then it concludeth because mankinde is a society and every one that is born is already by his birth admitted a member of humane societie and so into all the rights of men as they are men as to have right to food clothes protection and government in the generall that therefore all the men in the world are one Corporation or Kingdome 2. They were admitted by baptisme immediately and directly into Christ and his mysticall body but into the visible company onely by accident If there had beene but one beleever on earth Baptisme had had its use and end Argum. 4. Christ is one visible head c. by vertue of his Lawes Ordinances Providences walking in the midst of the Church and of two or three gathered together as the King of Engl. is visibly King of Sco●l though residing at London in Engl. therefore the King being one the Church his Kingdom is one too Answ. Hee cites in the margent Beza saying that The Church is not a common wealth nor an Aristocracy but a Kingdome and if so surely Christ is the absolute monarch of it But that argues the Church to bee one in respect of Christ onely his spirit and lawes but not at all in respect of its visible Government by it selfe unlesse it be proved that Christ hath instituted on earth one visible single person or society of men to governe as one company together the whole Church on earth 2. A King though absent from one place yet is visible somewhere in his Kingdomes but Christ not personally visibly now 3. A king of more kingdomes then one though they be one as they meet in his person and in some respects and have some common priviledges yet may their governments be distinct as England and Scotland 4. As Christ is one so God is one and as the Church is Christs Kingdome so is the world Gods Kingdome his Law of nature one his providence governing one but is it therefore but one outward Kingdome Arg. 5. The Church of the Jews was a Type of the Christian Church the great Sanhedrin figured the Apostles and generall Councells they were many tribes but one Church Arg. 6. Rev. 11. 1. 2. 3. the universal Church is represented by one city the new Iernsalem and called the Church Mat. 16. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. Answ. The Jewish Church was a Type but not in all things for then must wee have one visible high Priest one Temple must meet altogether there c. but as these ended in Christ so that national Church till it be called the second time 2. That Church was but one single intire Congregation there they met all of them thrice a year before the Lord and the Tabernacle called the Tabernacle of the Congregation 4. The Church and Common-wealth were one body as such which I think Mr Noyes will not judge to hold in all nations 2. To that of one Jerusalem I say that it is questionable whether those places speak of the Church as it shall be before the comming of Christ or after 3. Whether they speak of the state of it before the calling of the Jews or after the latter is affirmed by several expositors and they urge the word Ierusalem it shall be the State of the Jews But 4. Howsoever figurative and symbolical places are not argumentative alone 5. The Church is no mystical Ierusalem though not visible neither doth that vision argue it to be visible no more then the Holy Ghost his appearing in the shape of a Dove conclude that the Holy spirit is visible Argum. 7. The mysticall union of Brotherhood makes one mysticall body Ergo the visible union one visible body Answ. It beggs the Question For 't is denyed that there is such a visible Onenesse as is the mysticall the mystical union Catholick is reall the visible notionall only So all men have a mysticall union of nature yet not in outward government nor would it be convenient they should Argum. 8. All naturall grounds of fellowship in particular Churches in respect of ordinary execution bespeaks fellowship in one Catholick Church in respect of lesse ordinary Brotherly union Christian profession the celebration of the name of Christ who is glorified more eminently in the great assembly all these are prevalent The notion of a relation doth cherish affection pride and independency are inseparable Answ. 1. Does all relations of persons one to another and obligations of mutuall duties in regard of those relations argue that they must be one Corporation and one Government The twelve children of Iacob if God had seene it good might have beene so many severall Churches and kingdomes and yet have preserved unitie and done their duties of their relation of Brotherhood The twelve Apostles were independent in power one from another see Gal. 7. chap. 2. yet were in relation one to another and did performe all mutuall offices for