AN Addition or Postscript TO THE VINDICATION OF THE ESSENCE and UNITY OE THE Church-Catholick visible And the Priority thereof in regard of Particular CHURCHES In answer to the Objections made against it both by Mr Stone and some others By SAMUEL HUDSON Minister of the Gospel at Capell in Suff. Ecclesiam teneo tritico paleâ plenam emendo quos possum tolero quos emendare non possum fugio paleam ne hoc sim non aream ne nihil sim Aug. Ep. 48. contra Don. LONDON Printed by J. B. for Andrew Kembe and are to be sold at his shop neer S. Margarets hill in Southwark and by Edward Brewster at the Crane in Paul's Church-yard and Thomas Basset under Dunstanes Church Fleetstreet 1658. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Christian Reader THis second impression of the Vindication of the Essence and Vnity of the Church-Catholick visible c. came to the birth altogether without my knowledge of the Stationer or his intention and without his knowledge of me and mine intention and it was so far passed in the Press before I knew of it that there was no recalling of it I had another Copy of it almost ready for the Press wherein I had given answer to M. Stone and some other opponents in their proper places in the Book Also I had obliterated the name of my antient friend M. Ellis who had written in opposition to my first Thesis upon this question and had left out all personall reflections upon him to which I was in a manner necessitated in my former impression to vindicate my self and therefore I must crave his indulgence for this impression the coming out whereâ—â— so as it is being wholly against my minde The Book having met with some opposition and that in Print from some reverend brethren I thought not fit to let this impression of it pass into the world without taking notice of what was objected against it and therefore am constrained to play an after-game and to add these few sheets as a Postscript thereunto I have not as yet met with any thing in print which should cause me to alter my judgment about the main subject of the Book and yet I dare not say but some passages in it may be carped at and are liable to exceptions against for I am but a frail man and see but in part and so am subject to erre as well as others yet am willing to be reclaimed in whatsoever I mistake at any time and would not willingly bee mis-led much less mis-lead others The subject is something knotty and difficult and not apt to be understood by every Reader and therefore let him that readeth consider it well that so he may understand and not pass a censure rashly upon it before he understands it That the Lord would guide thee and me into all truth is the prayer of Christs worthless servant SAMUEL HUDSON THE VINDICATION OF THE Essence and Unity OF THE Church-Catholick visible c. SInce the first publishing of the same which was 1649. hath met with various entertainment amongst men according to the various judgments of the readers thereof as Books of polemical subjects such as this is use to do From some it obtained acceptation and approbation from others it met with improbation and opposition Two things especially have been opposed therein First the being of an universal visible Church which is the subject of the second and third Chapters of this Vindication and the former Chapter proving it by Scripture the latter by arguments and reasons Secondly the integrality of the universal visible Church handled in the fourth Chapter is opposed The essence or being of it is opposed lately in print by some Ministers in Norfolk and Suffolk in their answer to Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici set forth by the Provinciall Assembly in London and to Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici set forth by M. John Collings of Norwich But because this was not the main scope of their book only they lighted upon it in their Epistle Dedicatory I shall leave them to their proper opponents and only answer to what they say in their Epistle concerning this subject The integrality of the universall visible Church hath been opposed by M. Stone a reverend Minister and teacher to the Church of Christ at Hartford in New-England and my antient acquaintance And this was in a tractate called A Congregational Church is a Catholick Church which came forth in print 1652. To whom I never intended to return an answer in any particular Treatise partly because I saw his book was only a logical Lecture and of so abstruse and sublime a subject that as it was little taken notice of so it was less understood by any but those schollars that were versed in those studies and so must mine answer have been also And partly because he only or cheifly opposed the arguments which I set down in my fourth Chapter and dealt not with the whole book or the main scope of my Vindication or question and therein also opposed only those arguments which I brought against M. Ellis which were taken from principles and grounds which I knew M. Ellis granted which was warrant sufficient for to me use them though M. Stone granted them not And in them also M. Stone mistook my meaning for by my denying the universal Church to be a genus I did not deny it to an existing genus or genus in actu exercito which M. Stone argued for for I knew though it were an integral it must be of one kinde or other but I denyed that it could put on the notion or consideration of a Church in genere So that my question about the integrality of the universal Church was no whit impaired by his arguments though they had all been granted only those arguments taken necessarily from principles granted by M. Ellis might have been invalidated thereby And partly becaus I saw that M. Stone did implicitely grant what I contended for which was that the universal Church is not the genus of particular Congregations in that he assigneth another genus to them in the frontispice of his book and upon the top of every page in his book and that is Congregation in genere But I intended that if ever this vindication should again com to the Press I would have explained my meaning more fully and that I meant by genus Church in genere and not the integral nature of the genus that existeth in individuals and so to have inserted an answer to M. Stone in that my fourth Chapter which now I am prevented in by this surreptitious coming forth of this second Edition without my knowledge and therefore I have added this Postscript I first therefore shall clear that there is a Church-Catholick visible Some of our brethren which have lately written tell us that a particular Church is a particular company of Saints in mutuall union for mutuall worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and the edification 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
totum integrale is species specialissima or every individuall Church being species specialissima is also an integrum and containeth members and the genus comprehending all his species under him it comprehendeth the individuals with all their members under it or within it self Hence those appellations which are given to an individual Church are given to the Church in general c. If a Church be a body then this or that individual is a body and all the members of it are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same body of one and the same Corporation I answer that then it wil follow that the whole Church is firstly and properly an integral of or under such a kinde viz. Society or polity because those appellations are firstly and properly meant of that and of particular Congregations but at second hand For first men are drawn into that and into Congregations as a secondary and accidental thing containing but parcels of the members of that great society or polity It is clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant in Scripture of a particular Congregation but of the whole Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles entred into the Kingdom of Christ We finde not a particular Congregation called the body of Christ for then Christ should have innumerable bodies who hath but one in the same kind and that fitly join'd together and compacted by that which every joint supplyeth Eph. 4.16 which M. Hooker as I said before calls the external political Kingdom of Christ Neither are particular Congregations called the Kingdoms of Christ for then he should have many Kingdoms in the same respect whereas the Church militant is but one consisting of many members And Christ tells us the wheat-field is the world and not particular Congregations If a King hath many Kingdoms Cities or Armies though he speaks of things that concern them all and all alike he doth not say my Kingdom City Army but Kingdoms Cities Armies If a man hath many fields houses floors netts loavs and speak of that which concerneth them all de doth not say my field house floor nett loaf but in the plural number as of many so would Christ have done if he had spoken or meant it primarily and intentionally of many Churches or Congregations but he bindes them up in the singular number because he meant but an Integral by all those tearms and the particular Congregations are but parcells thereof And differ no more then when a cart-load of wheat is put into diverse sacks whereof every one contains several parcels of the load because it could not conveniently be all put into one which though severed is accounted as and sold for one load of wheat and when it is shot out makes but one heap Or as a great common field divided by several meers or baulks or a great meadow into several acres by dools or marks and so one man cutts and tends one acre and another another but these hinder not the integrality of the whole much less do they make the whole meadow the genus and the parts of it the species so neither do the accidental and secondary differences between particular Congregations hinder the integrality of the whole Church much lesse make that the genus and them the species A ninth Argument I brought to prove the whole Church an Integral was from the severall words which the Scripture useth to expresse the union of the members of the whole Church together as added builded together fitly framed together compacted all the body by joints and bands knit together c. vind p. 87. l. 18. To this Argument M. Stone p. 36. giveth the same answer that he did to the former Argument But it is clear that the phrases are meant of the whole Church primarily and immediately and not of particular Congregations This adding joining jointing and building of the converted ones is first to the Kingdom Body and House of Christ and there is no other essential form added to them beside Christianity by being severed out partiatim by parcells into several Congregations that is a most accidental thing to them as Christians brought in by convenience and necessity Particular Congregations are but as several ridges in a wheat-field which hinder not the integrality of the whole field at all As the dwelling of several men in several Towns in a Kingdom or Common-wealth which Towns contain only some parcells of the subjects of that Kingdom or Common-wealth hinders not the integrality of the whole though they be under particular officers for civil affairs no more do the deistinction of visible Christians into several Congregations under several particular officers for Ecclesiasticall affairs hinder the integrality of the whole Church First men are subjects or denisons of the Nation or Kingdom and then have liberty according to their conveniences to live in what petty society they please So c. Though a man should have several houses in never so many Counties or Towns and at somtime or other resort to them all and dwell for a time in them yet this varies not his membership of the Kingdom or Common-wealth being meerly accidental to that relation So c. It cannot be denyed but that the several Congregations are integrals in reference to their own members and so is any village in reference to the inhabitants but in reference to the whole Church or Kingdom of Christ they are members as the villages are of a Kingdom or Common-wealth How many bodies politick and societies in a Nation are members of the greater body politick and society of that Nation so many less bodies Ecclesiastical make up the greater body Ecclesiastical in a Nation For it was foretold that the Kingdoms of this world should become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ Revel 11.15 The Ecclesiastical polities in converted Kingdoms are said to be commensurable to the civil And by the same reason all the Christians in all territories on earth make up the whole Church or whole visible Kingdom of Christ in the Christian world because it contains all the members thereof who are Christ's subjects And whereas M. Stone saith p. 37. that Baptism is a priviledg of a political member as Circumcision was a priviledg of the members of the Jewish Church Gen. 17. Those Act. 2. were admitted into the Church and then baptized Answ It is not said they that were admitted into the Church were baptized but they that gladly received his Word were baptized verse 14. so that Baptisme admitted them into their first relation and that was into the visible Church Neither can it be absolutely said that Circumcision was a priviledge of the Jewish Church for the second person Ishmael that was circumcised was not of it nor any of the other Children of Abraham by Keturah nor Esau and yet were circumcised Can wee thinke that Job and his friends so eminent for piety and who sacrificed to the true God with acceptance were uncircumcised And were all those nations among whom
they were chief men if not rulers which were of Abrahams posterity by Keturah and of Esau's stock heathens uncircumcised The very name of Elihu sheweth the contrary which signifieth my God is Jehovah So that it is more then probable that there were religious persons and Countries after Abrahams time beside the Jews if not before them as M. Baxter hath well observed in his treatise upon Infants Baptism and these no doubdt were circumcised It 's true Religion did not very long continue among them as among the Jews but God would not have cast off them if they had not forsaken him I grant that the seal of admission is to be given to none but such as are in covenant with God But what covenant The generall divine covenant or the particular humane covenant Surely into the generall covenant with God The many thousands bapttzed by John and Christs disciples and the three thousand in Acts â— were indeed in covenant with the national Church of the Jews before baptism because the Church was then Nationall but by this new signs they were admitted into the Evangelicall Church by a new and Catholick seal to which their former standing gave them no right And though as M. Stone saith Obsignation with the initial seal of Baptism implyeth confederation and admission into the Church yet it implyeth not confederation with this or that or any particular Church or admission into it Though Saul was baptized by Ananias at Damascus yet was it not as confederate either with the Church at Jerusalem or Damascus whereof he had been a bitter persecutor but as a Convert to Jesus Christ And though haply Cornelius Acts 10. might be confederate with the Jewish Church being a Proselite yet we know of no such confederation of his kinsmen and near friends mentioned vers 24 who were Gentiles and yet were all baptized Neither do I think there was any implicite covenant to bind the Jewish Church together or the Proselites to the Jewish Church besides the divine general covenant with God and yet for ought I know it had been as requisite for the members of every Synagogue as for particular Congregations now seeing they were lyable to censures there With what particular Church were the Samaritans and Simon Magus confederate Act. 8.12 who were a little before bewitched by Simons sorceries yet upon Philips preaching unto them and their conversion unto Christ they were baptized both men and women the witch and the bewitched Surely Samaria was not confederate with Jerusalem they did not love one another so well neither was there any instituted Church as the new phrase is as yet in Samaria neither was it a Congregationall Church but the whole City with one accord neither were there any particular officers set over them then neither could they enter into a particular Church covenant as it is called untill they were baptized the generall covenant must precede the particular and therefore were in no capacity to choose any officers over them and yet they were baptized and therefore baptism is no priviledge of a particular politicall Church-member but of the general And with what Church was the Jaylour as Philippi and his rude family in covenant Act. 16.33 who was a ruffianly heathen Yet being converted at midnight was baptized the same hour of the night without asking leave of the Church there if there were any And for this particular covenant though M. Stone saith p. 37. that it is a covenant not only between man man but also between God man But quojure where is the institution of it or any hint of it in Scripture It may be a promise before God but not between God them but between the people among themselvs between the people their Minister The first and general covenant is between God and man and is of divine institution but the second and particular is but humane and prudentiall and therefore cannot divolve any such priviledg upon people unless the Lord had instituted it to that end The universal Church is the whole politicall visible kingdom of Christ on earth and the visible beleevers are the matter thereof and these believers are converted or at least initiated into it by Christs officers not under the notion of particular officers but as Christs Ministers and Ambassadours to whom is committed the word of reconciliation and are bound by their generall covenant to believe what God hath revealed and obey what God hath commanded As a Denison of England is bound to obey the Lawes of England by being a subject thereof and then these subjects are placed in several towns under particular civill officers but no particular covenant is required of them to make them severall villages which for ought I know is as requisite as a particular Church covenant And those towns consist of English subjects but they are not bound to the laws because members of those towns but because subjects to the soveraign power of the whole nation So Christians are bound to perform obedience to Christ in all their relations and places as subjects to Christ and not by a particular covenant except Christ had instituted any such as between man and wife and there they are bound by both M. Stone bringeth two Aenigmaticall places to prove this covenant to be between God and man Zech. 11.7.10.14 Of beauty bands And Isa 62.5 As a bride-groom rejoyceth over his bride so shall thy God rejoice over thee and as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall thy sons marry thee But I can find no evidence or hint in either of these places for a Congregationall Covenant No nor in all the instances that are usually given viz Gods Covenant with Abraham but we know that was the generall covenant between God and man and not Congregationall And the covenants made in the days of Asa Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah Nehemiah are nothing to the purpose for they were not Congregationall but renewalls of their National Covenant with God and they were the Church of God before they renewed this covenant and not constituted by the renewall of it Neither doth Act. 9.26 which is alledged some prove it It is said indeed that when Saul was come to Jerusalem he assayed to joyn himself to the disciples but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple But this joyning him to the disciples was to have comunion and society with them and not to be a particular Church member there It is not said he assayed to join himself to the Church as a member but to the disciples much lesse is any particular covenant mentioned there But as if one that was known to be an Apparitour or Pursevant or Persecutour in the Bishops days should assay to join himself with private Christians in converse or some private meeting they would be afraid of him so was that case But before that journey to Jerusalem ver 15. it was shewed them and by Christ to Ananias that he was a chosen
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
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
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
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
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
vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles and Kings as well as the children of Israel And therefore might not join with the Church at Jerusalem neither as an officer or private member Neither is it mentioned to which of the Congregations in Jerusalem he assayed to join himself whereof no doubt there were great store seeing they had not great publick houses to meet in but private houses onely but it was to the Disciples or Christians there Others bring a proof for this way from Isai 42.16 I will bring the blinde by a way that they knew not I will lead them in paths that they have not known I will make darkness light before them and crooked things straight But this will not prove it but may as well serve for any way that men can fancy They may as well prove themselves blind by this text as prove a Congregational Covenant from thence Others argue that Church-relation is not a natural relation but a voluntary and therefore must be by a Covenant or mutual agreement A man say they will be my brother or kinsman whether I wil or no because it is a natural relation but it is not so in this relation I answer so a man being born within the Church will be a Church-member by federal holiness and so a brother in a spiritual sense whether I will or no being in the general Covenant O! but say they how can a woman become my wife or a man become my servant but by a voluntary Covenant Ans no more can a man or woman of age be a Christian or member of the whole Church but by being in Covenant with Christ the husband and Lord of his Church but what is this to a Congregational Covenant between member and member Do servants when they enter into a family or souldiers into a band or troop make one covenant with the master or captain and another with their fellow-servants and fellow-souldiers If haply they should covenant together to be faithful in their places and helpful one to another and this should tend to the great advantage of the master or captain and benefit of each other yet this is not that which makes them that masters servants or that captains souldiers but the covenant with the master or captain Neither doth any master or captain require any such secondary covenant between his servants or souldiers and yet it is a voluntary relation they enter into but it is voluntary in respect of the master and servant the captain and souldier not in regard of the fellow-servants and fellow-souldiers that falls in necessarily O! but it is voluntary what particular members I will join withall in a particular Congregation I may choose of what particular society I will be a member Answ so I may choose in what Town in a Kingdom I will dwel but I must take the inhabitants thereof to be my fellow-neighbours necessarily So all the Churches of Christ ever took the Christians cohabiting with them within the civil bounds to be their fellow-members of those Churches The Church of Jerusalem consisted of the Christians inhabiting in Jerusalem and so it may be said of Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. they did not pick and choose some out of one vicinity some out of another If any were heretical or scandalous they had censures to remove or amend them Now our civil bounds for Towns and Vicinities have been anciently set for civil transactions and cannot be by particular men altered but by authority and if all the inhabitants within those limits be in the visible covenant with Christ and under his seal and have publick houses or Churches as they are ordinarily but tropically called for publick worship and a maintenance appointed out of the revenues of those Towns to maintain a Minister over them and have a Minister of their own set over them to whom and his predecessors the Christians of that precinct have from generation to generation submitted in the Lord and enjoyed Gods Ordinances from them I cannot see how without breach of order and removing the ancient land-marks and introducing confusion any particular member either of that Town or Church can of their own heads alter this and pick Church-members whom they list and where they list and bring them into a particular Covenant to make a new particular Church under colour to make a pure Church I believe all the Church-members in Jerusalem Corinth Philippi c. were not really godly but many only externally and many very loose and guilty of foul faults 1 Cor 11. Tit. 1.16 2 Tim. 3.5 Phil. 3.18 19. Jude 12.13 16. Yet they did not leave them out and institute new Churches of choice members but sought to reclaim them I scarce think all the members of the Churches in New-England are really godly or so judged of their Pastors or fellow-members and yet they do not pick the good from among the rest make new Churches of them but keep the particular Churches still answerable to the civil bounds It is a bad way of cure to cut off the sound members from the diseased and unite them together in a new body It 's true the civil bounds are heterogeneal to the Church but so they were in Jerusalem Corinth Ephesus c. and yet they bounded them then and denominated them and so they do still in New-England and so the several showres are to the severall Seas yet they bound and denominate them also Indeed if Towns and Churches were to be constituted they might have other bounds and quantities allowed them and so might the Towns in New-England have for there is no precept left in the word to limit either of them but the Churches would be comprehended in those towns this is not to measure Churches by the acre as some foolishly object But we have both precept example and necessity requiring that the Churches should be in a vicinity and not scattered abroad so as the cannot conveniently meet together publickly on the Lords day or watch over one another Yea say some if Churches were rightly constituted at first we ought not to separate from them or gather Churches out of Churches but ours were not so Ans There are three things that I hear objected against our constitution of Churches First that it was not voluntary but forced by authority Answer The members were not forced from heathenisme to christianity but they became christians many generations ago voluntarily for ought I know and for reforming of them their predecessours or successours either from Popery which was a spirituall leprosy over-spreading the Church or any other superstition and reforming of them by authority and compulsion I think it is no more then the Magistrate might yea ought to do and the godly Kings and Rulers in the Old Testament did and were commended and blest for doing Indeed a man cannot regularly compell a woman to be his wife against her will nor a man compell another to be his servant or apprentice but if they have