Plato non est homo in genere c. Put many sticks together and you may make a faggot or cart-load of them but not make wood in genere yea put all the wood in the world together and you may make a great heap and integral of them but you cannot make wood in genere but by mental abstraction and that a man may do from a little as well as a great deal Genus is another thing then all the individuals gathered together Genus is not by conjunction apposition or aggregation but by abstraction Peter or Paul may say this is my entity my substance my body mine animal my humanity as well as my Petriety or my Pauliety It is true a man may abstract and as it were cut out a genus or general nature out of the individuals and consider that alone because there is a foundation for it and a potentiality so a workman when he seeth a piece of Timber may conceive in his mind that if such and such parts were hewen and plained or carved away there would be an Image of the Virgin Mary or a crucifix c. yet no man wil say that there are any such existing Images there for then it were fit to be burnt So the Chimist saith that Sal Sulphur and Mercury are in every thing and boasteth that he can extract hony out of album graekum but they are not formally there but may possibly be extracted by the dissolution of those things so by mental dissolution or abstraction a man may fetch a genus or general out of individuals but it is not formally in them It cānot be denyed but the object of the understanding precedeth the act of it but it never findeth it existing but it is contracted by an individual and to draw forth the general nature the understanding pareth off the contracting differences by abstraction precision or denudation Apprehenduntur universalia non apprehensis ullis particularium differentiis Fonsec Metaphys But I conceive that there is a great difference between animal genus and animal in genere between an existing genus and that thing considered in genere The individual animal existeth but animal in genere existeth not but in the understanding There is existence in every thing but where dwells existence in genere Concretes exist but where do abstracts exist I will not contend whether universals be entia realia or entia rationis because there is a foundation for them in ente reali but they are not formally one but by abstraction Indeed in reference to other genus's a genus is capable of numerical unity Ens is one genus and substance is one genus c. but in reference to particulars existing under them you cannot say there is one genus in Socrates and another in Plato for numerical unity in the strictest sense is proper to individuals as integrals But I will not contend with M. Stone about these notions of existing or extracted genus's I shall leave it to younger heads which have been more lately versed in those studies But if you take genus for the existing physical political mathematical or artificial genus's as M. Stone doth then it is impossible to deny any thing in the world to be a genus for it is of one kinde or other And by that notion every integral is nothing else but a cluster of genus's bound together by the last individual form and so we may make every thing not onely a genus but a heap of genus's and so a man hath more genus's in him then he hath limbs sences and faculties For there is Ens substance body vivens and animal besides humanity and then every limb and sense and faculty have limb and sense and faculty kinde in it There is head kinde and foot kinde and arm kinde and leg kinde c. and after his constitution he is dressed up with nothing but genus's from head to foot And by the like reasoning every thing should be as full of genus's as ever it can hold M. Stone could not think that I did deny this sort of genus to be in the universal Church for I clearly expressed so much Vind. p. 82. Indeed if you consider this society or religion it is a distinct kinde in regard of the Authour laws qualifications of members but in reference to its members it is an integral If this be all that is meant by totum genericum existens it may passe without any dammage to this question So the several companies in London are distinct from other companies yet in reference to their own members they are integrals and in reference to the whole City they are parts i. e. members But all this dispute on which side soever it be cast hurts not my question at all though it may seem to strike at this Chapter of arguments which were taken from grounds which were granted by him against whom I then argued we both by genus meant a thing in genere or general consideration and to that sense I framed my arguments and then comes M. Stone and disputes from an existing genus in actu exercito that hath neither the genus nor form of a genus in it and he strikes at my aguments by that which is not ad idem If M. Ellis's genus and M. Stones were put into a syllogism there would be four terms for they are not the same and had I argued with M. Ellis from an existing integral genus he would have thought me wilde And therefore this is but a logomachy about the word genus one takes it in one sense and the other in another I clearly layd down my meaning in the explication of the question for chap 1. sect 3. I gave different senses of Catholick or general First the Orthodox Churches were called catholick Churches Secondly the Patriarchs Vicar general was called catholick Thirdly Catholick is taken for a logical second notion abstracted by the minde comprehending diverse different species under it in which sense M. Ellis took it Fourthly it is taken in the same sense that we use to take Oecumenical and I took the latter sense and therefore put Oecumenical into the terms of the question and said there that in the question in my sense the Church-catholick existing on earth at the same time is compared with particular Churches existing at the same time also pag. 11. 12. And in denying this Catholick Church to be a genus I took genus in the third sense as M. Ellis did And I shall a little more plainly set it down now The question is Whether the whole company of visible believers in the whole world which is the one visible Kingdom of Christ on earth and is usually called the Catholick or universal Church being considered in respect of the particular visible believers in the particular Nations Towns or Congregations be the genus of them or a great integral whereof they are but members Here was the hinge of the question handled in this chapter And the thing that made the
one brick-house and a hundred thousand 〈◊〉 â—ake one tiled roof and a thousand pieces of timber make one timber-house and many individual men be in one family one town one army one Kingdom or Common-wealth So may many individual visible believers be in one Congregation and many Congregations of them bee in one Classis and many Classis in one Province and many Provinces be in one Nation And all the Christian Nations in the world be one universal visible Church and that be an integral When the first gospel-Gospel-Church which might be called general or Catholick in contradistinction to the National Church of the Jews and because then the partition wal between Jew and Gentile was broken down and the coÌ„mission issued forth for teaching all Nations and baptizing them grew too big to meet in one place for all Ordinances it divided it self into many less Assemblies called though improperly and at second hand Churches yet then this division was of an integral into its members not of a genus or general into its species I acknowledge the matter of the visible Church militant universal or visible Kingdom of Christ on earth to be the particular visible believers and the external form thereof to be their joint submitting unto Christ's regiment and laws under his Officers where they dwell but this whole Church when it comes to bee divided it is considered according to the places where those members dwell either in England Scotland Ireland or New-England c and so receive particular denomination from those places but this division is of an integral into its members as the parts respect the whole and of adjuncts into their subject places if they be considered in reference to the places wherein they are contained Look at the Church in genesi saith M. Cawdrey vindic vindiciarum 72. and the single members are the causes thereof as an integral but look on it in analysi in the distribution of it into Congregations and so it giveth essence unto them and they are parcells of that greater integral Though in the constitution of an integral the parts are before the whole as the essential causes thereof yet in the distribution the whole is before the parts Cawd p. 82. And whereas I had proved that the universal 〈◊〉 is not a genus or Church in genere because it doth exist or hath an individual existence of its own which a thing in genere hath not vind p. 79. l. 8. To this argument M. Stone answers by affirming that genus doth exist But when he comes to prove it he proves only that the integral nature of the genus doth exist in the individuals and leaves us from them to abstract the genus which is an universal but proves not that the universal doth exist any where but in the mind of man or Angel Now as it doth exist in the several individuals it is contracted and is an integral and must be loosed from his contraction by abstraction before it can be a logical genus or that thing considered in genere This is as if he should say as it is an integeal it is a genus which he confesseth differs very much There is that which may be abstracted but it doth not exist as abstracted but as contracted So I may in my minde consider a prisoner that is bound with many chains without his chains and so a free-man but I dare not say he existeth a free-man I can abstract a man from his riches learning piety nobility that is endued with them but I cannot say he existeth so Where a thing in genere or general notion or general consideration doth exist but in the understanding I as yet know not Moreover as such a nature doth exist in individuals it is manifold but as I have abstracted it it is but one As it doth exist in individuals each differ from other as M. Stone acknowledgeth ne ratione and by his own Logick all those individuals are opposites and so dissentanies now dissentaneum est quod à re dissentit but one is not a dissentanie much less an opposite to itself Now genus is one because it is totum quod habet partes Therefore you must divest it of existency before you can consider it as a genus or general or thing in genere And to apply it to the whole Church in reference to the members of it the whole Church hath an existence of its own as an integral being individuum as Ames confesseth but as M. Stone 's genus hath no existence but in the species The existence of the whole Church resulteth from the conjoined existence of the members but the existence of a genus is abstracted from the species The whole Oecumenical visible Church hath no species or individual Churches under it whereof it 's the genus but is made up of individual visible believers and then divided into several pieces or parcell which we call particular Congregations Like a piece of ice divided or marked out into many little pieces the great piece of ice is not the genus of them but the integral and they are the members Though the whole Ocean were frozen it would make but a great integral and the several parcels thereof members But it would not be the genus of those parcells for ice in genere is the genus A pail of water is not the genus of the several drops that are in it but is an integral and they are members but water in genere is the genus A heap of sand though there were no more sand in the world but that is not the genus of the particular sands in it but sand in genere So the universal Church is not the genus of particular believers but believer in genere nor of the particular Congregations but Congregation in genere And whereas I had said in my second Argument vind p. 79. l. 30. that Quod habet partes extra partes est totum integrale M. Stone denies it to be a true definition I answer I had it out of Burgersdicius p. 47. and I conceive he defines it so in opposition to that which he calls totum essentiale quod constat ex materiâ formâ for there the parts do mutuo se pervadere loco situ non differunt as the soul and body in man but the parts of an integral quâ integral do differ in both But to make the Argument past his exceptions I shall change onely one word and in that change only express Burgersd his meaning more clearly Quod habet membra extra membra est totum integrale sed ecclesia universalis visibilis habet c. Ergo. The universal Church hath its members one distinct and several beside and without each other whether you consider them to be particular believers which are the prime members or Congregations c. which are secondary And whereas I had said in my third Argument that the whole Church is made up of the visible believers in particular Congregations and of
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
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