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
such as are not fixed members in any particular Congregation vind p. 80. l. 17. M. Stone answereth That individual Christians which are not members of any particular Congregation are not formally political Church-members Now if by political Church-members he means actual members of this or that particular Congregation it is true but they are political members of the Church-Catholick visible for they have taken Christ to be their King and his laws to rule them they are enrowled by baptisme and attend on Christs Ordinances and subject themselves to his Ministers where they become though some occasion may not suffer them to be fixed in a particular Congregation They are political members of Christs visible Kingdom primarily by being members of the Church-Catholick the membership in particular Congregations is secondary and but accidental to the former He saith they are members materialiter non formaliter because they are not confederate But I answer they are confederate i. e. in Covenant with Christ the head and King of the Church and confederate with the members in the general Covenant into which they are entred and any other Covenant or confederation to constitute a political Church-member I finde none in Scripture neither scrip nor scrawl And I conceive all Congregational confederations and Congregations to be but accidental to the universal Church by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of the whole-Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical Ordinances orderly the meeting in several places should cease The woman of Canaan which M. Stone instanceth in by being a visible Saint and believer though she was not formaâ—ly thereby a member of the Jewish Church as he saith yet was she a member of the Evangelical Church and that compleatly if she were baptized if not baptized then but incompleatly and materialites The place which is brought by M. Stone to prove the Apostles to be fixed members of the particular Church in Jerusalem Act. 1.2.3.13.14 proves it not but onely that they abode in Jerusalem untill the coming down of the holy Ghost at Pentecost to inable them to discharge their Apostleships but then they travelled over the world and joined in Ordinances with the Churches which they converted as Officers administring both word and seals and were no more fixed members of the Church of Jerusalem then of any other Church where they became They were never dwellers at Jerusalem but men of Galilee only stayd a while at Jerusalem upon occasion And whereas I sayd in my fourth Argument that the Church universal is not genus or Church in genere becaus it hath accidents and adjuncts existing in it as its own vind p. 80. l. 28. M. Stone affirmeth that a genus is capable of inherent accidents as its own p. 35. and more largely p. 21. with a wonder at me for that opinion But I must cleave to mine opinion as I meant it for all that he hath sayd against it For I have proved that we must divest the integral of the genus from its existence before it can be a genus or thing in genere and divesting it of existence we must necessarily divest its adjuncts from existence also Now as animal in a man furnished with all his adjuncts and accidents doth exist it is integrum animal it is not animal in genere It is true we abstract the proper accidents with the nature and say they belong to that nature primarily as visibility to humane nature but visibility existeth only in on integral man No man ever heard homo in genere laugh And in a Logical abstract sense I granted vind p. 106. as much as M. Stone contends for but if homo in genere doth not exist visibility in genere doth not exist neither But the Oecumenical Church is not Church in genere neither doth M. Stone think it is Church in genere and yet p. 35. he doth grant a Church in genere and saith that the particular Churches are species of it Now should Church in genere and Oecumenical or Catholick or Synholick Church as M. Stone calls it p. 40. in which sense I took it and it is usually taken be brought into a Syllogism together there would be four terms Again whereas I said in the prosecution of this fourth Argument that the universal Church cannot be a genus or Church in genere because it is capable of being major and minor of greater or less extent vind p. 81. l. 11. To this M. Stone answers that a genus is capable of being majus and minus in actu exercito Mankind is capable of increase virtue shal increase at the calling of the Jews and sin may increase because the particular virtues and vices may increase I answer the question is not about genus in actu exercito for that properly is not genus but an Integral under that genus And there is no more put into the definition of man then animal rationale now there are hundred Millions of men in the world then there was when there was but one man so there is no more put into the definition of Church in genere now it consisteth of Millions of visible believers then there was when it had far fewer members the Integral is inlarged indeed but not Church in genere Though a Giant be major homo yet he is not magis homo and though a dwarf be minor homo yet he is not minùs homo So for virtue and vice there is nothing more put into the definition by the increase of them and therefore they have no other definition then they had at the lowest ebb now the definition explicates the essence of the thing The habits of virtue and vice may grow stronger but gradus non variant speciem they may be in more subjects but that varies not the species neither So that genus being unum consistit in indivisibili take away either animal or rationale and you spoil the definition of man and so you can add nothing to the essence of it more then is in it unless you put a further perfecting distinguishing essential form and so make a new species below man The majority or minority of a thing respects the members and so is ascribed to it as an integral either continuous magnitude as in man or brute or discreet as in species by the multiplication of members and this is the case of the whole Church it may grow greater or less as the members are multiplyed or decreased Also whereas I said in the prosecution of the fourth Argument that the whole Church is not a genus or Church in genere becaus it is mutable and fluxile which are accidents of an Integral only vind p. 81. l. 24. M. Stone answers this Argument by affirming that genus may bee mutable Totum genus plantarum brutorum is mutable and fluxile I answer that the Integrals under each of those generals is mutable and fluxile but still the genus of
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
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
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