of Christ and members in particular is meant ye are of the body of Christ or part of the body of Christ not the whole for Christ hath but one body in the same respect and ye are particular members thereof They bring diverse arguments against an universall visible Church Argu. 1. Their first argument is because every part is incompleat not having the power of a whole in it but every particular Church rightly constituted hath in it the power of a whole Church therefore it is not a part Ans It is true every part hath not the extensive power of the whole it hath the compleatness of a part and no more Every civil Corporation is called a body politick and it is compleat according to the constitution of it but this hinders it not from being a member of a greater body politick viz. the Kingdom or Common-wealth whereto it belongeth So every particular Congregation hath the compleatness of a particular Church in it but still as it is a part of the whole Church which is the political Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth It is an integral or whole in reference to its particular members but in reference to the rest of the Church it is but a member Argu. 2. Again they say that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all the parts collectively considered They are constituting that is constituted Ans So I may say of all the visible believers in the world they may in consideration be distinguished from the whole and all the members of the body from the whole becaus they constitute it but they being all the constituent members joined in an unity make up the whole constituted Church or body and therefore that argument was no better then a fallacy For I can say the same of all the members of a Congregation both publick and private they are distinct from the whole for they are constituent and that is constituted but as they are united they are one constituted Congregation so are all the visible private Christians and Ministers united one universal visible Church In consideration indeed they may be distinct yet by political conjunction in the political Kingdom of Christ they are one whole Again they say there is no universal meeting to worship God Argu. 3. therefore there is no universal Church So neither is there ever a meeting of all the subjects of a Kingdom or Common-wealth to do homage or service to their Sovereign but they all obey him divisim in their places Answer or some smaller conventions and yet they are a whole Kingdom or Common-wealth nevertheless Object But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used either in a civil or sacred sense but propter conventum and coetus est à coëundo Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth a calling out and not a calling together And in a sacred sense it signifieth a people called either out of the world as the invisible Church is or from Idols as the visible Church is The members thereof are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons called out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjugata and they relate to and argue one another The particular Congregation is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strictest sense in reference to their meeting together then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Scotish word Kirk and our English word Church comes properly signifieth the Lord's people And this notion betideth people not primarily because they are of this or that Congregation but because they are of the Kingdom of Christ and have given their hand to the Lord. And the word coetus and congregatio more properly respects them that as they meet together in an Assembly Heathens may coïre come together even into a sacred Assembly but because they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called from their Idols to Christ they are not part of the Church though they be parts of the Assembly Argu. 4. Again they say there are no distinct officeâ—s appointed for such a distinct Church therefore there is no such Church Answ Though there are no distinct officers of the universal Church besides the officers of particular Churches or ordinary Ministers of the Word yet every Minister hath an indefinite office which stands in relation to his imployment which he may put forth any where in the whole Church as occasion serveth and he hath a call thereto which is equivalent to a generall office Every Minister of the Word hath power in actu primo to dispense the Word and Sacraments to pray and bless the people in any sacred convention though the members of that Assembly be not members of any one particular Congregation and though the Minister himself be not fixed to or set actually over any particular Congregation And that meeting shal be a sacred convention not only in respect of the Ordinances or Minister but in respect of the members of it because they are all the Lord's people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper primary sense and he the Lord's Ambassador designed to that imployment The body of the whole Church being so great and consisting of persons of several Countries and languages and under several civil governours haply at variance between themselves it was not convenient nor scarce possible to have any constant ordinary actual officers of the whole but that is salved by their habitual power of office which may be drawn forth any where into act as occasion serveth Argu. 5. Again they say there is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church but that is particular Mat. 18.17 which place say they if it meaneth the Congregation it excludeth all other if it meaneth any other it excludes the Congregation Answ I shall let M. Parker answer this argument who saith in Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 355. though he held particular Congregations the prime Churches in reference to Synods yet grounds the more general or greater Assemblies for discipline upon this text per gradationem per sequeiam ratiocinandi per consequentiam as I noted in my vind 163. And this appears by the gradation in the text from one to two or three and from two or three to the Church and if the Church cannot end it as sometimes they cannot then by the like manner of reasoning it is to be referred to a greater number of Elders convened For doubtless Christ did not mean by Church the body of the Church but the Elders for the body of the people never had any right of judicature among the Jews nor in the Christian Churches though I suppose some of our brethren would infer so from this text And it is very probable that our Lord Christ speaking to the people of the Jews spake to them in their own dialect of Courts then set up where there
were appeals from the three Judges to 23 and from the 23 to the Sanedrin or seventy one Elders For Christ had not then instituted any Christian Congregations or jurisdictions and if Christ had spoken of what was not in being as the people he spake to could have no relief thereby so they could not understand him Now if primarily he meant the three Judges or Rulers of the Synagogue yet that did not exclude the 23 and if he meant primarily the 23 that did not exclude the Sanedrin so in Christian jurisdictions which for the general nature were to be like the Jewish though not in every particular circumstance the bringing a cause to a Congregationall Eldership excludes not the Classis nor the Classis a Provincial Synod Though the Jewish politie was not long after to be pulled down and the Christian to succeed yet it was not then pulled down but stood jure divino though many of the persons in those offices were corrupt and the people as yet were bound by Gods law to make use of them and be determined by them Our Lord Christ sends the cleansed Lepers to the Priests to offer for them though they were generally wicked And in his sermon Mat. 5.22 he clearly alludes to their present judicatures Afterward the same Authours except against the definition of the office of the Ministry set down by the Province of London in their Jus Divinum c. Because they make it a relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry But whether you call it right or power or authority given them by commission or what general nature or notion can be put upon it it is certain it was in relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry as they well clear it up That was the subject wherein they had power by their office or sunction to deal and be exercised in To them was committed the word of reconciliation And therefore the Ministeriall office is set out in Scripture thereby Luk. 1.2 Act. 6.4 2 Cor. 3.6 1 Thes 3.2 as I noted more at large in vind 233. And though there must needs be an object viz. persons to whom they are to administer the Word yet that object in their commission is not set down in Scripture to be particular Congregations only but go teach all Nations and baptize them c. and lo I am with you always to the end of the World Mat 28.19 20. And go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature Mar. 16.15 And so likewise administer the other Otdinances to them when you have made them capable of them And the Argument which those Brethren insist upon from relaeta is of no force for though as they are particular Ministers of such a flock indeed that particular relation ceaseth if the flock ceaseth c. but the generall relation to the whole remaineth so that there is a correlate object still as long as there are any believers that stand in need of edifying by their office or any meer visible believers or their children or servants that stand in need of instruction exhortation reproofe or internall conversion c. And if all those should cease yet they shall find objects for their Ministry as long as there be any reasonable creatures under heaven as M. Norton in his answer to Apollon pag. 81. wel observeth where he saith that when they preach to heathens it is a ministerial act in regard of the dispenser and administrer Habent Ministri potestatem Ministerialem non Ecclesiasticam erga universum mundum erga omnem creaturam And therefore he pleadeth that the Ministers have Ministerial power in modo debito erga omnem Ecclesiam Or else saith he the heathens should be in better case then the neighbour Churches if it were Ministerial preaching to them and not to neighbour Churches He saith no duty of Ministerial acts of office in other Churches is to be denied p. 82. so it be regulated When Paul and Barnabas were called forth by the holy Ghost Act. 13. and sent out with fasting and praier and imposition of hands to go to the heathen was it a Ministerial work which they performed or a Chariâ—ative If a Ministerial work of their office then not onely the particular Congregation or the universal Church but the very heathens are the object of the Ministerial office as it is an office The Scripture speaking so indefinitely of the office of the Ministers under the name of Ministry makes it appear that their office related to the imployment or subject thereof not only to a few persons in Congregational Covenant or particular mutual union with them See Act. 20.24 and 21.19 Rom. 12.7 2 Cor. 5.18 Eph. 4.12 1 Tim. 1.12 And hath not the Minister the same subject and object that the Ministry hath seeing the Ministry is committed to him If a Minister of the Church in England should baptize a converted Jew Turk or heathen he doth not do it as a Minister of a particular Congregation or of the Church in England but as an indefinite Officer of Christ to whom he hath committed that employment and so the office reacheth that forreigner not as a member of the Church in England for so he never was and haply never will be but as a new subject added to Christ's visible Kingdom Secondly I shal shew that the universal Church is an integral and not Church in genere But before I enter upon this Chapter which hath been opposed in print by M. Stone a reverend Minister in New-England it will be requisite for me to premise somthing in general and then answer his particular Objections against the several arguments as they lie in order It was mine unhappiness to fall into the hands of two reverend Divines whose principles of Logick and especially concerning Genus were different from each other and so while I proved the universal Church to be no genus according to the principles and express grants of the former in his Vindiciae Catholicae which I cited who was an Aristotelian the other understanding genus in another sense being a Ramist opposeth my arguments denying the Aristotelian principles which the former went upon and granted whereas it was sufficient for one to prove the universal Church not to be a genus by his own principles whom I answered So it fareth with me as I have seen it with a Country man in a crowd who being stricken a box on one ear and turning himself to see who struck him and to defend himself on that hand was stricken by another on the other ear and so was fain to turn again to defend himself on that side also M. Ellis took genus to be a logical or metaphysical abstract non-existing notion as he acknowledges in print and upon his own grant I dealt with him M. Stone taketh genus to be an existing being appearing and shewing his face in every individual whether wee see it or no and thereupon disputes against my arguments otherwise then
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
combination because the particular Congregations must exist before they can be combined and aggregated I now declare that the first matter of the universall Church are particular visible bleleevers that are drawn into the generall Covenant and these are secondarily combined into particular combinations and so the combinations of Congregations in the universall Church is not the first combination but a secondary and in the distribution or analysis of the Church-Catholick they are accounted members of the distribution but in the genesis or constitution the particular members are first constitutive I shall also be willing that the eighth way whereby the whole Church may be accounted the prime Church namely cognitione sive noscibilitate perfecta mentioned vind 218. 219. and 253 may be left out because it is more proper to a genericall nature then an integrall and so may be said of the Church as it is a kind of society differing from others rather then as it is an integral consisting of members for there the members are first considered And to M. Stones objection against what I said vin p. 219 and 220 that the priority of the Church-Catholick in respect of the particular is like the priority of a Kingdome to the parts of it or of a Corporation to the parts of it which said I is not meant in a mathematicall or techtonicall consideration I answer once again that the members of the universal Church which are the particular visible believers are as it is an integral in consideration before the whole because the whole is made up of them as a kingdom of all the members of the kingdom and all the towns in it are made up of the members of the kingdom and so are all particular Congregations of the members of the universal Church and in the distribution of the whole into parts there the whole is considered first and then is distributed not onely into particular members but into combined members dwelling in severall Countries or less secondary combinations and so even those secondary combinations may be said to make up that whole for of such parts as the whole is distributed into of such it is also constituted But the particular Congregations are made up onely of such as are members of the whole Church and they are entred into that body before they are considered as members of the petty several societies And for the unity and priority of the Catholick Church M. Cotton upon Cant. 6.9 p. 191. hath this passage The Church is one i. e. at unity or brotherly love one with another as one body though scattered into many places as England Scotland Germany c. in all Christendom Some Churches are more chast mild and unspotted then others even of the same Country and yet such are but few and though few yet at entire unity as one body The onely one of her mother the choicest one of her that bare her In the Hebrew phrase saith he the whole is the mother the parts are the members The true Catholick Church of Christ is the mother of all the reformed daughters and these daughter-Churches that are most chast and mild and undefiled they are best esteemed and best beloved of the mother Catholick Church Whence we note that there is a Church-Catholick and that particular Churches are the daughters of that Church and these daughters are parts and members of that one body and therefore not species and this must consist of the same nature that the members do which constitute it and so be visible else I know not what sense to make of M. Cottons words It seemeth very strange to me that whereas the Scripture speaketh so much of the Kingdom of Christ the Kingdom of God the Kingdom of his dear Son and Christ's everlasting Kingdom and of the amplitude thereof from sea to sea and from the flood to the worlds end that all this should be nothing else but a Kingdom in genere or a general Kingdom in a Logical notion comprehending none but a few particular Congregations consisting of 7. 10. 20. 40. or 60. persons therein united in an explicite Congregational Covenant and no universal or large integral Kingdom whereof they are but members or parcels As if a King should be famous for a large and glorious Kingdom and when all coms to all it is nothing but a few little Islands that stand independent at a distance one from another and have no other union together but that they are all ruled by the same King and are as so many petty kingdoms under him having nothing to do one with another but only to live in love and peace together I conceive this is a very great eclipsing of the glory of Christ in his Kingly office and honour I should listen after the interpretation that our brethren give of Act. 8.3 and Gal. 1.13 of Saul's persecuting the Church and Act. 2.47 of the adding of people to the Church and 1 Cor. 12.28 of God's setting Officers in the Church to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the Scripture did not so abundantly speak of the unity and amplitude of the Church and bonds whereby all of that sort are bound together in an Integral But for my part I cannot see how it is possible for a man to enter compleatly into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or kind but he must withal enter into that Integral and that this Integral must receive not only several Congregations but even whole Christian Nations and even single persons converted though they should not bee joined in any particular Congregations I should have added many other things but that I would not exceed the bounds of a Postscript and the Press stayeth for this The Lord guide us into all truth FINIS
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
of their own souls and the good of others I intend not to carp but shall give as candid an interpretation as may be of their words I suppose by Saints they mean visible Saints Saints by dedication and consecration and not absolutely of Saints by regeneration for as they have no certain rules to judge thereof in others so also they can never be sure they are in a true Church but will still be scrupulous in their communion and cannot dispense or communicate in faith but doubtingly They are also very tender in expressing the form or as some will have it the Cement of this particular society and therefore have left out the word Covenant either explicite or implicite and so I hope they intend to let in parochial Congregations into the definition though not independent for there is such a mutual union among them For mutual worship I suppose they mean joining in publick worship and not as we speak of mutuall duties between man and wife to be performed to each others but worship performed by them jointly to God But I marvell that this definition mentions not any relation of this particular Church to some officer or officers to whom they should subject themselves and by whom they should be taught edified and governed and who should be Gods mouth to them and their mouth to God I am loth to be too bold or peremtory in guessing at their meaning but haply it is because they intend to put the keys of discipline into the body of this Congregation which can exercise them without officers or because they can set up un-ordained private members to preach and pray among them and so make up their mutual worship also without an officer or Ambassadour of Christ to whom is committed the word of reconciliation for indeed that is the scope of their book though they do acknowledge that there ought to be such officers or haply they feared to be unchurched again by the death of such an officer if they had put him into their definition They say also that the end of this mutual union is for the edification of their own souls but that must imply them all truly converted but I mervail that they make no provision in their definition for the education instruction and conversion of children born members of their Congregation and servants of their members seeing by Gods appointment and the usage in Old and New Testament the parent or master brings his whole family into covenant aswel as himself and a part of the Ministers office is to go to the lost sheep of the house Israel to convert unconverted persons as well as edifie converted They say nothing also of their mutual inspection and watching over one another for which this way is so highly cryed up above others haply it is because their members dwel so far remote in so many parishes that they see it is impossible to do it They grant an universal company of Saints in a reformed sense comprehending every individual Saint-member thereof whether formed into fellowship or unformed but as Saints not as Churches of Saints I acknowledge it is true the particular visible believers are the matter of the universal Church whether formed into Congregations or no for that is but a secondary accidental relation that betideth them and enters not into the essence of their Christianity It is true their particular membership of this or that Congregation coms by their union with it but were they not members and subjects of Christs political visible Kingdom before any such union and initiated into it by one of his officers yet not as a particular officer of a Congregation for none are baptized into a Congregation but as by an indefinite officer of the universal visible Church of Christ And an indefinite officer in relation to his imployment and general object is equivalent to a general and that is the prime relation of a Minister and that to a particular Congregation is secondary as it consists of a parcel of the universal Church over whom he takes especial actual constant care and charge They say the World is universal of which all creatures are a part yet did a man stand where he might see all Countries and all crearures he should see but a particular world really particular but intellectually universal Answer If by particular world they mean in relation to a general world it is not true for one particular cannot make up an universal and there was never any world but this one But if by particular they mean an individual integral world it is true and that is it which I contend for in this Vindication that the universal or Oecumenical Church cannot put on the notion of a Church in genere but of a great individual integral and so both the world and universal Church are whether a man stands where he can see them or no they are integraliter universale as Ames calls the universal Church It is true that they say did a man stand where he might see all the Corporations and all particular civil societies of men he might acknowledge the general nature of Corporations existing in either of them or the integral nature rather and from them all abstract a general nature and yet deny an universal Corporation consisting of them as parts thereof But this comes to pass because the several Corporations or polities are constituted by several Charters granted from several sovereigns under several laws But the universal Church hath but one Charter from one sovereign under the same systeme of laws and the officers indefinite officers in reference to their imploiment to which they are called by Christ and may exercise the same towards any of the subjects of that whole Ecclesiastical body as they have opportunity and a call which the officers of the several civil Corporations cannot do They answer that text 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. which is usually brought to prove an universal visible Church by paralleling it with what is said ver 18. God hath set the members every one in the body And if that will not conclude a Catholick body neither will the former conclude a Catholick Church I answer the difference between them is great for the several bodies though they may have a general consideration and notion put upon them or abstracted from them rather of body in genere yet are they not united together into one individual body by any external bond they are not integrally one but only generically or specifically one But the universal Church is united into one body by a visible external bond yea bonds of the same Sovereign the same Laws the same Covenant the same Initiation and enrowlment and the same indefinite Officers over it And this is the primary consideration that coms upon it before any particular distinctions into Congregations which consist of parcells of that great body And therefore that which the Apostle saith ver 27. ye are the body
give essence to the particulars or this body in genere give essence to the individuals Surely not by generation except by generation in genere also but because the entire nature existing in an individual vine Church body giveth essence to it so that it will follow that the entire Integral existing nature comprehended under these kindes gives essence to the individuals and not those natures in general consideration or in genere And therefore either Ramus hath not given us a right definition of genus as some better Logicians then I conceive or else he giveth a definition only of an existing integral nature of a genus which is onely an Integral of or under such a genus and so hath passed by the topick of a thing in genere or general consideration in abstracto But then I argue that if that which is genus comprehends the species and individuals which contain members may in that respect be said to comprehend members and Officers then the genus and integrum are all one for the genus hath members yea principal members even Officers as well as integrum saith he But here M. Stone helpeth himself with a distinction and saith this is not as considered under the nature of a genus but because the species specialissima contains members as it is an integrum And I desire to make use of the same distinction also and say that the Officers are not Officers of it as it is a genus or as it is considered in genere but as it is an integrum under such a genus And so let me strengthen all my former Arguments against which he hath so much excepted by his own distinction and say that the existence of the whole Church the having membra extra membra the having existing accidents the being majus minus the being mutable fluxile the being measured by time and place the admission nutrition edification and ejection of members and the doing actions and operations betide to the whole Church not as considered under the notion of a genus or Church in genere but because it is an individuum and so an integrum under such a genus The same existing thing being considered in several respects may be a cause an effect a subject an adjunct a consent any a dissentany an integrum and a genus in M. Stone 's sense in actu exercito but it cannot be that thing in genere The whole universal Church in reference to society or polity in general is a species or individual but in reference to its members both private and publick it is an integrum But before he leaves this Argument he adds a suppliment to make his answer full pag. 36. viz. That there are no habituall Officers in the Church all Officers in the Church are actual habitual Officers are non ens possibile quod non est sed potest esse I answer that they are all actual Officers and might if they were able and had a call officiate in any part of the Church and do actually serve the whole Church by admitting members into it and watching over a company of the members of it in their own places and administring Word and Seals in many Congregations yea Counties and somtimes many Nations but exert not the exercise of their power to the extent of the whole Church actually in every part of their office So Justices of the Peace for the County do not ordinarily execute their Office in every Town of the County and yet have power by their Commission if they could do it and had a call thereto But as watch-men in particular wards do safe-guard the whole City as well as their particular wards though they stand not in every part of the City and are called the City watch-men so do Christs Ministers serve the whole Church in their particular places though they cannot reside or act in every place of the whole Church but could do it in regard of the extent of their office and commission if they had ability of body and minde a cal or opportunity I mean not by habitual power that which is never drawn into act but the power in one officer is not drawn into act in every part of the Church nor in every part of the exercise of his office And the lett is not any want of power by their office but want of ability in themselvs and of call and opportunity in the severall places And so they divide that full execution of their office among the officers and spiritual watch-men of this City of God and some take care of some places and members of the whole Church and others of other actually for order and covenience sake and their better edification And whereas I had said in my seventh argument vind p. 84. l. 8. That the whole Church is an integrall because it hath actions and operations of its own for a thing considered in genere is not capable thereof To this M. Stone answers that a genus is capable of actions and operations of its own because operatio sequitur esse omne ens agit A genus hath properties and qualities and therefore can act where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there can be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the end of all being p. 21. 22. It is true saith he the Church-Catholick hath actions and operations of its own and that it exists and acts its individualls yet his properties are his own and so likewise are his operations p. 36. I answer that these actions and operations are properly the operations of the integrall under that genus Now because all the integralls of that kind have those operations therefore they are attributed in notion to that genus and said to belong thereto but that thing in genere opperates not but in the individualls or integrals under it But the whole Church may as I there proved act in one and the same individuall act as a City or Kingdome may do therefore it is one integrall A genus or generall may act as it may be said to have members which are the instruments of actions but as himself confesseth that though the members be in the genus or comprehended under the genus yet they respect it not as a genus but as an integrall so I say the operations are the operations of such an integral of such a kind and not of the genus as a general The generall in abstracto worketh not any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except notionall but the integralls work them And whereas I proved in my eight argument vind 86. l. 8. that the whole Church is one integrall by the severall appellations given to it in Scripture as Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kingdom tabernacle house building temple army sheep-fold wheat-field c. M. Stone p. 33. saith that these and such appellations are indeed firstly and properly appellations of an integrum having analogy to totum integrale but saith he this
at a Lecture where any such child is to be baptized though they know the parents be very godly and the Minister bee godly that is to baptize them and though there bee nothing offensive in the manner of administration of Baptism but run out as if the Church were on fire over their heads Thirdly as it occasioneth the breach of many marriages that else would be suitable so it many times causeth great breaches after marriages between man and wife even to the antichristianizing or at least to the unchurching one of another and causeth jarrs and alienation of affections and vain janglings and disputes and unchristian heats and animosities instead of sweet Christian love unity and communion and mutual edification Fourthly it exceedingly hinders family-duties that they can neither join so cordially together in praier having such sinister thoughts one of another nor yet in Catechizing of their families nor calling over the Word publickly taught or calling children and servants to an account for what they have heard publickly because one runs to one Town to the publick Ordinances and another to another and one draws some of the family one way and the other another Fiftly it is used as a means to enthral the members that are entred into it so that though they marry out of that Town or remove their dwellings out by necessity or for convenience and dwell never so far distant from them yet must they remain members of that Congregation and may not join with any other Church without their leave and dismission which they will not give except that Church with which they would join be constituted or instituted as the new phrase is by an explicite Covenant as sad experience hath proved nay are not permitted to join with a Congregation though never so eminent for godliness and reformation no not though the person acknowledgeth not only the Minister to be godly and eminent but also the instrument under God of the work of grace in him formerly Yea it is accounted no less then spiritual adultery to depart from them after they are thus joined without their dismission which they will not give except to a new instituted Church of the same kind If it be such a snare it is good for single persons to keep out of that bond untill they see how and where God will dispose of them by marriage and for married persons to get as long leases of their farmes as they can and keep their yoke-fellows as long as they can for if they dye they lay a great bar in their own way against a second marriage except to one of their own Church or one of like constitution I do not conceive that God ever bound any man or woman to such inconveniences onely they must not marry but in the Lord saith the Apostle nor yet do our brethren in New-England put any such yoke upon the Disciples necks as far as I understand neither do I think a brother or sister is in bondage in such a case but this use or rather abuse is made of this Covenant by some in our Country It is a harsh censure which M. Sam. Mather a young man as I hear hath given against such as are not of his judgement in this point in his preface before M. Stones Book As if the dreadful revenges of God either for personal pollutions or for sinfull complyance with former devices or wayes of men in the things of his house or for secret contempt of the simplicity and power of the Gospel are gone forth in penal blindness and other blasting strokes upon the souls of some in these times As if this were the very pattern shewed in the Mount and the very fashion and form of the house shewed to the Prophet Ezekiel Ezek. 43.10.11 as is there intimated But we pray you is it a pattern revealed in the Word of God or by inspiration onely If it be set down in the Word of God we beseech you be pleased to shew it unto us and point us to the texts of Scripture that hold it forth we hope some of us desire to fear and serve God in truth as well as among you How many worthy Martyrs Ministers and eminent Christians have dyed for the faith and in the faith and gone to heaven before either M. Mather or this Covenant were born were they all strucken with the dreadfull revenges of God in penal blindness and blasting strokes I believe our brethren will not say so And if this Church-Covenant hath no better effects elsewhere then it hath in these parts as I shewed before truly it were better it never had been devised or were made Nehushtan M. Stone calls the Universal Church Totum genericum existens as M. Hooker did also in his book of which I said vind 40 that it is nothing else but integrum similare But I do acknowledg that though totum genericum existens may be integrum similare yet is not always so It is so when all of that kind that existeth is bound together in one copula or bond As if all the Sand in the world were on one heap or all the Gold in the world were of one lump they were integralls Or if there be such a bird as the Phoenix it is totum genericum existens and yet it is an integrall But if there be no such bond then it is not an integral yet they are not that thing in genere nor the genus of all that kind But the universall visible Church though it be totum genericum existens i. e. all of that kind of society or body that existeth yet it is an integral because it is bound together by an externall visible bond yea bonds as hath been shewed before that Covenant with God in Christ the seal of Baptisme which makes them of that kind compleatly makes them also of that integral eâ formali ratione and they cannot be of that kind except they enter in as members of that integrall I acknowledg also that the instance of the nature of a flock not reserved in one sheep or of a Corporation reserved in one man mentioned vind p. 79 which M. Stone puts me twice in mind of was misplaced and misapplied there for the flock is not the genus of sheep nor the Corporation of the men in it but both flock and Corporation are each of them integrals and so is the whole Church M. Stone also findes fault that I said vind p. 78 that that which existeth in the individuall is ipsa causa materialis individui If he like not that expression let him take the former mentioned but three lines before it it is pars essentialis individui for it goeth to the constitution of the essence of it but it is not the genus of the integral or that thing in genere And whereas I said vind p. 216. that I do not mean that the universall Church is first in regard of constitution of the whole politicall Kingdome of Christ by aggregation and