Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	catholic_a	church_n	visible_a	3,379	5	9.5057	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

The 5. and last are the Professors of Leyden who say that in the Synod is the top of Authoritie the unitie of the whole Church the establishment of order But they speake of particular Synods in particular Churches And do not subvert what was shewed out of them above In fine he acknowledgeth that the PAPISTS would build their Babell on THIS foundation which I thinke they well may or some-what like it and so I remit this Author to the Reverend Elders of New England who are much more able to deale with him and of some of whom hee will heare about this Argument I suppose very shortly The 5. and last that to my view have appeared in defence of this notion are the London Ministers Before I come to their arguments I shall after the example of a Reverend member of the Assembly do right to some of both sides Principal men there are in those waies and even of the Assembly it selfe whose judgements and practise have not beene truely represented by the Ministers in their Collation of the opinion of the Presbyterians and the Independents I will instance onely in one present question The Independents are said to hold no other Visible Church of Christ but only a single Congregation meeting together in one place to partake of all Ordinances But this is not their opinion That it is essentially required to the very being of a visible Church that it meet in one place they hold it de benè esse for conveniency not absolutely necessary now it is not ingenuous to fasten upon a way or man generally that which some such as wil be in any profession particular and perhaps weak or passionate men may hold 2. These brethren observe not that themselves are in the whole fault of that which the Independents owne in this charge scil. making no other a visible Church then a single Congregation for if the Brethrens opinion bee true the Catholique Visible Church is made but one single Congregation or Corporation though too bigge to meet together but in their Deputies For if it have the same visible Lawes under the same visible order of Officers and these Officers one visible societie or Colledge over each and over the whole then is it as much one particular and single Corporation as Stepny or Cripple-gate Now on the contrary for that opinion that is opposed to this and said to be the judgement of the Presbyterians viz. that there is one General visible Church of Christ on earth whereof all particular Churches and single Congregations are but as similar parts of the whole There is not onely no one Presbyterian could hitherto be shewed to be of that judgement till the sitting of this Assembly in favour of whom Apolonius wrote but also divers above evidenced to be against it and acknowledged so by the Authors of this opinion Plain dealing is the best policie But to their arguments 1. They urge the forenamed place 1 Cor. 12. and say the Apostle speaks of one Generall Church because he saith Church not Churches 2. Because he speaks of it in such a latitude as to comprehend all gifts of the spirit all members all officers ordinary and extraordinary which cannot agree to a particular Church Answ. 1. Wee have shewed that the Church taken essentially is one though Integrally and in respect of its existence and particular government it is as manifold as there are particular Churches Now to the Church in the former sence are those things given all men in essence and nature are one to man in this respects is given Governours and Government arts and gifts c. must all therefore be one Common wealth 2. Or else which I rather adhered to the Church is taken in that place mystically for the whole society or family in heaven and earth as was then evidenced 3. All these Officers and gifts were given to the Church of Corinth immediately though not solely and onely The light of the Sun is given immediately to that particular place on which it shines with all the brightnesse and influence of it but not solely 4. In this superintendency over the whole Church whether severally or joyntly the Scripture hath instituted no Successors to the Apostles 5. By Apostles might be meant the chief Officers of Corinth A second place and wherein they handle this subject more expresly is part 2. chap. 8. where their first Argument is drawne onely from those places that name the Church indefinitely as on this Rock will I build my Church He hath set some in the Church Apostles c. And their second taken from such places as compare all visible Professors to one Organical body which are some of the same places they used in the first Argument as 1 Cor. 12. We being many are one body so Rom. 12. 4. Ephes. 4. 11. Answ. 1. These have been replyed to above 2. They do not make the whole Visible Catholick Church one Organical but one Similar body in our Brethrens first assertion But Organical and Similar are opposite as was shewed in answer to M. Hudson whom in this inconsistencie opinion and expression they have either followed or he some of them 3. Next they endeavour to prove that the word Ministry Ordinances and particularly Baptisme are given to the generall visible Church the method Mr Hudson used Moses mother was his Nurse also whence it will follow that there is a Generall Visible or Catholique Church Therefore I shall take this for a third head of Arguments and Answer to it 1. The word Ministery Ordinances c. all of them are given immediately to every particular Church where they are and where there may be use of them though not solely and the first two places quoted speak immediately of the Church of Ephesus and the third immediately of the Church of Corinth the fourth of the Church at Rome 2. They are given to the Church as one Essentiall or Mysticall body But no way concludes they must bee one Visibly no more then the gifts of Reason Arts Speech the Government of Emperours Kings Princes the order of Inferior and superiour members given by God to mankinde doth prove that therefore all men are one Visible General Corporation or Common-wealth or Integral Organical Similar bodie consisting of parts as a similar body altogether alike and as an organical body of parts heterogene and nothing alike which even a plain Reader will perceive to be as uncouth Logick as Divinity CHAP. VI The Conclusion 1. Corrollaryes 2. A word to the Authors of this Opinion ANd thus by the assistance of God an answer hath been given though 't is like they will not so be answered to these Brethren And therein I hope I have spoken as the oracles of God both for truth and sobernesse Sure I am I have endeavoured though perhaps not without some failing to observe that of the Father Worthy saith one to be written on the chairs of all Divines and Disputants

never for there never was yet any universal meeting of the Catholick Church nor its officers though some Councells have been called Generall because of the number of Bishops unitie of places from whence they have come and the Emperours latitude of Dominion that called them 3. From hence would follow that very many particular Churches would be in peril to be greatly damaged seeing in appeals they must be adjudged by those that are many thousand miles distant from them and could not have perfect * cognizance of the cause nor in case they wanted information for their guidance in judgement could by reason of distance have it in time 4. Great would be the vexation charges travel c. that would arise from such a Court as whereunto Appeals were to come and yet such there must be if the whole Church be but one Corporation 3. A third and fourth prejudice and probable exception against this opinion is T is Papal and Anti-Protestant 1. Papal not indeed in regard of the height of it as it refers the root and head of this universallity unto Rome onely but in regard of the opinion it self An universal visible Church a mayne ground of the former M. Hudson and so M. Noyes indeed would avoid this prejudice also but with Labour in Vain He saith he stateth not the question as the Papists do because they take Visible for Glorious Catholick for Romane and subject it to the Pope For 1. whatsoever the Papists add to the question yet the substance and substratum of it is the same In vain should they fix the seat of it at Rome and subject it to the Pope if it might not be in it self one Corporation and Republique 2. Again they do not take visible for glorious but for that which is obvious to the sense though they make Glorious an adjunct thereunto 3. They so fix the seat of the Church at Rome and subject it to the Pope severall of the most eminent of them as that it is onely in the absence of a general Councel which they make above the Pope as being the Church Catholick Representative as is shewed else-where But to return Bellarmine de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 11. haveing related the opinion of the Protestants and propounded the Romish in opposition thereunto viz. There is a visible Catholick Church He proves it by the same places that the Authors of this opinion do to wit Mat. 16. Vpon this Rock I will build my Church and Chap. 18. Tell the Church which though in that place he bring to prove it Visible yet it implies to make it universal also for both these joyntly Catholick Visible he was to prove in opposition to the Protestants for as they say this could not be meant of a particular Church So hee that it cannot be meant of an invisible And he defines it to be one visible Church or Congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same faith and participation of the same sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors and especially of that onely Vicar of Christ on earth the Pontiffe or Bishop of Rome In the definition it is to be noted that hee makes all beleevers but one single Corporation or Congregation though divided in places under one single Governent under one visible head the Pope of Rome In all but the last clause which is not Essential to the thing though it be to those persons the definition agrees to the minde of the authours of the opinion here impugned And 2. It is Anti-Protestant being opposed generally by them Calvine disputing against the Papists about the unitie and visibilitie of the Church saith as was noted before The onenesse of the Church consisteth in the onenesse of faith And for the visibilitie he saith It is not necessary for the preserving of this unitie that we should see the Church with our eyes Chamier in his Answer to Hardings Argument against Jewell Art 4. Sect. 17. urging that Every multitude in it selfe one did stand in need of one Governour by whom it might be managed but the Church visible is in it self one saith The Church as it is Catholicke or Vniversall is not one in it selfe because it is one generall or universall gathered and aggregated of many particular Churches as if one should say the kingdome or a Kingdome not this or that Kingdome but Kingdome in generall the parts whereof are all particular Kingdomes the French Spanish English For SO the word CHVRCH being taken it is compounded mark not constituted of infinite particular Churches the Romane Constantinopolitane c. Now that which is one in that sence it is manifest that it needs no one governour for not as to every Kingdom there is a King so to all Kingdomes there is one King that that which is called Kingdome in Generall may have a being and therefore not in the Church neither as it is understood to be one collected of many particular Churches Is it necessary that one should be president He evidently both denyeth and excellently refuteth this Catholick union by this very thing because the Church is Catholicke therefore not really one but notionally only as all the Kingdomes in the world are one in the nature and notion of Kingdomes but not one corporation or one Government And so before him Bishop Jewell in answer to the same Papist proving the minor or second part of the former argument viz. That the Church is one visible Congregation or societie because as our brethren do there is one faith and Baptisme one calling so one Church as Saint Paul saith ye all are one body and members one of another and in our Creede wee all professe to beleeve one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church saith that whereas Mr Harding had proved the major also out of Aristotles 12. booke of his Metaphysicks out of Homer Never did Aristotle or Homer dreame of this NEW FANCY that one King should rule over the whole world And by consequence or that the whole world was but one Kingdome and so he implyeth it to be as ridiculous that all Churches should bee but one governing Church and hee addeth what is considerable in this Argument wherein reason is followed rather then scripture His reason were better if either Peter or Paul or any Catholick Father had used it and then citeth Austin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 28. who saith To attribute much to discourse of reason in understanding scripture haec consuetudo periculosa est this custome is dangerous per scripturas enim divinas multo tutius ambulatur It is far safer following of the Scripture So that Bishop Jewell conceiveth this against both scripture and Antiquitie Mr Rutherford also due right of Presbytery pag. 231. titleing the page thus How our Church hath been visible makes it out only by this That in all Ages there have been some who have held the same points with us in the main Implying the visibility

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

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

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

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