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
much being said in the former respect which they apply to the latter The third Defendant or rather Assaylant is the Reverend Assembly of Divines Their Assertion is The whole Church is but one made up of the Collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the World by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ in the unity thereof Their first Argument implyed is this From this union there ariseth unto every one such a relation unto and dependence upon the Catholique Church as parts have to the whole and are to doe all Christian duties as parts conjoyned unto the vvhole and members of the same that must be single Common vvealth and Corporation Answ. Such is the advantage of Truth that the greatest abilities grow weak when they dash against it 'T is sensible in this Argument and Authors of it For it doth not at all follow that every company of men that in some respect have an union together and in that respect may be conceived as one whole Brotherhood or Fellowship should herefore be one common-wealth or corporation For as was said before the brethren or families of the same first Parent suppose of the house of Essex Manchester or Fairfax have an union of blood together and in that respect are called the House in the singular number not the Houses of such a Family from which union there ariseth to every one of that House such a relation unto and dependence upon the House or Family in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all such brotherly duties as parts conjoyned to the whole yet doth it not hence follow that all these persons and their Families which possibly may be many are therefore one corporation The same might more evidently be illustrated by the whole race of mankinde who are one in nature one in parent one in office general the government of the world and worship of God one in the common laws of Nature one in the principal Governour God is the King of all the Earth c. And from this union there ariseth unto every man such a relation unto and dependence upon the catholick world or mankinde in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all humane duties as parts conjoyned to the whole of mankinde Hence the Philosopher when rebuked for giving an Almes to a needy but naughty fellow replyed I give it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to the man but to mankinde yet how will would the Honourable Assembly of Parliament take this consequence from the Reverend Assembly of Divines If therefore they should conclude that all the men in the world are but one common-wealth and corporation for then as the former assertion of the onenesse of the Visible Church hath made them Schismaticks in the Church and such also as have sworn to be so In like manner this inference would represent them seditious in the world in the same degree and with them all particular Churches Kings and Kingdoms likewise Object But they say That the union of the Church is neerer and the relation closer and obligation strickter betwixt the members of the Church then betwixt the persons of men because it is spiritual and heavenly To which is answered 1. That the relation and union seems to be equally neer and close in their several kindes Men as Men are as much and have as neer an union and are as much engaged one to another Christians as Christians and Churches as Churches though the relation of Christians is more Noble and excellent and the motives stronger As beasts are as much one in their kind as men though the nature of man be more excellent 2. But be the relation of Christians yet closer yet that is in Spirit Faith mystical Vnion c. not outward and visible further then to carry on the invisible according to the Institution of Christ But neither this nor the former is by this notion countenanced but the contrary as hath been evidenced There may be a Society in Faith as there was in many parts and persons where there was no onenesse in Government Job was not alone in the World some other Church God then had and so he was one in the faith and profession and kinde of Church Administration with them but not united in one body of ouâ—ward government The place alledged for strengthning this Argument viz. Eph. 4. 3 to 14 hath been ansvvered above and implies no more but an essential or mystical union which necessarily implyeth an outward one in all duties in respect of the substance onely not the subject of them but prudentially and occasionally Such an union integrally per modum suppositi subjecti and by way of onenesse in a visible way of joynt government as shall be expedient for edification which ordinarily is best promoted within such a society as may at least upon occasion meet together in one place or howsoever live together in some neernesse at least Which is the more evident because the largest Churches mentioned in Scripture did so as the Jewish Church all whose Males met thrice a year at one place and whose whole Territorie or Land was but small scarce the fourth part of England and therefore might the better be one entire Congregation or Church but had they lived some at one end of the World some at the other as Christians do there is no likelyhood they should have been one Church Integral and as the Christians in Jerusalem and in other cities at the first plantation of the Gospel The second Argument All the Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the vvhole Church Answ. All the Magistrates and Officers of the World are given to the whole world for the governing of it but not to the world conjunctim and as one single Common-wealth or Corporation made up of several corporations and Common-wealths but divisim in respect of the several corporations and Common-wealths The places alledged for proof 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. are answered above whither we refer the Reader The third Argument is drawn from the third fourth and fifth supposition page 48 When the Church was no more then could meet in one place the Officers governed them as one undivided body respectively But their number increasing so as they could not meet altogether they divided into severall Companies which are in scripture called Churches to some one of which every beleever is bound to joyne himselfe But these severall Churches should not act or worke as if they were Independent Corporations but onely as parts of Christs body and are all to regard the common good of the whole Eph. 4. 1. c. and for that end are as much bound if it may be to associate into Presbyteries c. as particular men and families into Churches there being as much need of the one as of the other and so as many men or families make but
at once first stop the inundation that will drowne all though the enemie in the mean time prevail the more The CONTENTS 1. THe Occasion and first Authors of the opinion of one Catholick Visible GOVERNING Church Together with the intent and scope of this Treatise as also the Authors call to this service Chap. 1. Page 1. 2. The State of the Question Chap. 2. page 4. 3. The just prejudices and strong probabilities against the former Notion Chap. 3. page 10. 4. Demonstrations against it from the efficient cause of Church Government from the material from the formal and final Chap. 4. page 19. 5. Answers to the Arguments produced for it Chap. 5. 1. By Apollonius page 33. 2. By M. Hudson page 51. 3. The Reverend Assembly page 60. 4. M. Noyes page 70. 5. The London Ministers page 78. 6. The Conclusion Chap. 6. page 83. 1. Illatory or by way of Corrollary 2. Hortatory to the Brethren of this opinion To the Reader Whereas I have reckoned chap. 1. Mr Randal in his treatise of the Church among mine Adversaries in the Argument I handle upon better search I finde him not to be so but to hold the Catholicke Church as others did and my selfe doe as by a marginall quotation I have made appear CHAP. I. The occasion and first Authors of the Question Together with the intent and scope of this Treatise As also the Authors call unto this service SECT. I. GOD having put it into the heart and hand of the Parliament of England to set upon Reformation of the Church as well as of the Common-wealth they for that end conveened an Assembly of such Learned and Godly men as they adjudged meet for their direction in that work and those of known different Judgements Episcopal Presbyterial and Congregational that they might by their opposition the better discern what way of Church Government and Reformation they should countenance and strengthen with their Authority Now the Episcopal way â—aving rendered it self odious by its imperiousnesse and otherwise the contest remained betwixt the other two whereof the Presbyterian being practised in some things in certain Reformed States and Churches who were partly constrained thereunto there being some hints of Scripture also that might be apprehended to look that way Some other things withal concurring got place either in the interests or affections of a great part of the Assembly Parliament City and Ministers in the Country Hereby also they were eyed the more by the Churches abroad that were of that way and had the opportunity to improve their endeavours for their assistance The Congregational way in the mean time though it wanted not Assertors very learned and godly and of great name in the Church and had the advantage of an amiable pattern of it in the new-English Plantations and withall the daily accesse and addition of the most knowing and conscencious sort of Professors Yet by reason of the former disadvantages it was not rendered so considerable among the Churches abroad as to depart from received Principles or neglect to appear in the defence of the former for consideration of it Hereupon the Walachrian Classis in Holland among others being sollicited by the Presbyterian partie here for their assistance they appoint G. Apollonius Pastor of the Church at Middelburgh to take on him this province and having according to his principles acquitted himself of that service in a Tractate intituled A consideration of certain controversies which concern the Government of the Church of God agitated in England the approbate of the Classis is added to the book and published 1644. both in Latin and English This Author observing as it seems that the assault on the way of the Presbyterian Government was like to be strong and fearing that the former basis and foundations of it viz. That the Government of the Church was to be by the Elders and they in equal povver 2. That it is alvvaies convenient if attainable and sometimes necessarie that Churches be associated and act in combination vvith joynt consent 3. That as Princes and States have an Independent povver within their owne limits so Churches under the Government of one Prince or State have no absolute or necessary dependance on other Churches in point of Ecclesiastick Power and Government c. These grounds as was said being doubted whether defensible the Author in the third Chapter of his discourse which treates of the Visible Instituted Church betakes himself to a larger medium and of all men that I know of the Presbyterian and almost of the Protestant judgement he first layes down this conclusion That there is a certain universal outward Church dispersed through the whole World described in the Scriptures which in a certain visible Government doth make one onely Corporation Ministerial Church-body or Political society under which all particular Churches Classical Provincial and National as it were parts of the vvhole are conteyned Apollonius is followed herein by M. Hudson in his Book written on this Subject Intituled the Essence and Vnitie of the Church Catholick visible also by the Reverend Assembly of Divines as we shall see afterward Again by M. Noyes a Minister of New-England in his book intituled the Temple measured and lastly by certain London Ministers in their Tract of the Divine Right of the Presbyterian Government by which it seems the Notion is so amiable that there is as it were a kind of Ambition who should appear first in being the Authors or Owners of it Though the truth is this conceit for substance hath been before all these the Tenet of some others whom it is not any great honour to be followers of in this as first the Papists generally also a few Episcopal men as Crakanthorpe M. Randall and perhaps some others And it may be by some absolute Royalists for that spirit must needs work in Church affairs to some such opinion I remember one of them being in conference about Church-government acknowledged indeed the Church of Rome to have abused its power that way but conceived that it was necessary for the Catholick Church to have some one standing Court and place of residence whereunto to have recourse on all occasions and which might have authority over and influence upon the vvhole to this effect was his discourse which opinion cannot be avoyded if the notion of one Catholick visible Church be granted as shall appear hereafter Now the scope of this Treatrse is not to unfasten the ground of all Church combinations and to lay a foundation for absolute Independencie The conveniencie and somtime the necessity of Classes and Synods for direction and determination and that by Divine Authority is freely acknowledged though not with power properly juridical yea I add that Episcopacie it self was and might be maintained as also Presbyterie if confined to a particular Church and not subjected to superior Ecclesiastical power which was the most ancient way of it without the notion
is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} depends upon and is referred to the Pope I answer 1. Besides what is said above The Popes themselves in some actions insinuate that they are not supreme in their owne personall relation but as the head president or chair-man of the Vniversall representative Presbyterie which are the Colledge of Cardinalls representing the Colledge of Apostles said to be the Generall Presbyterie representative of the Catholicke Visible Church Hence the forme of some Instruments in the Popes name is By the advice of the most Reverend the Cardinalls His Holinesse decrees such or such a thing In Imitation of Kingdomes which Christ forbiddeth his Church as being of an other nature where the Parliament represents the Kingdome and in their absence the King and Councel represent them both hence perhaps it is that in Proclaimations the forme often is Wee saith the King by the Advice of our Privie councell c. 2. Papists of chiefest note * yea Popish Vniversities yea Popish Councells does assert a Generall Councell which is nothing else but an Vniversall Presbytery to be above the Pope So that it may be really Popish though all do not depend on or bee referred to the Pope firstly and primarily Now that this Catholique Visible Church as our Brethren have represented it may degenerate or rather advance thereunto let it be considered that Papall Government it self had the like originall It is granted even by Bishops themselves That the Bishop at first was but the PRESIDENT or Chaire-man of the Presbyterie or assembly of Ministers Afterwards partly by the Ambition of those who were chosen to that place partly by the sloth flattery and slavishnesse of the rest of the Ministers and people all came under him So also at first each Church did all things among themselves as ordaine excommunicate c. Afterwards they associated with the great Churches in time what was of voluntary consent became a necessity and due subjection So the Bishops of Rome at first for civilities sake because it was the Emperours Seat had the Precedency for a time at length claimed it as due So here if an universall coporation there must be universall Officers over these one President or super-intendent or Chaire-man hee perhaps may have it for his life if an able man and may obtaine to act with a Committee as the representative of a Generall councell in their absence and what hinders but if another Boniface and Phocas An ambitious President and wicked Emperour meet hee may be made Vniversall Bishop Men are more loose in their Ecclesiasticall then Civil Liberties And if this Government bee not of God he will leave it to corrupt it selfe even as the other did But Thirdly Necessarily and of it self it tends to the depriving of all particular Churches of their Libertie yea though they should be Nationall Churches 1. Because In them particular Churches are not left to their choise but are Bound by this opinion to associate and to send Elders to the Councells and Presbyteries so the Reverend Assembly * 2. Though they should not doe it yet are they neverthelesse under the Government of the Catholique Church which is the first subject of Church power and so are bound to act according to the Letter or Plaine sence of the determinations of the Catholicke Church without adding altering or detracting in any Materiall thing especially which might concern the whole Church * And then what will become of the Reformations of all the Reformed Churches 2. In particular in respect of the Protestant Churches of Europe 1. Because they are much fewer then the other Churches of the world that are in the maine Orthodox as some whiles since a * Presbyterian Writer hath given in the account 2. Who shall exclude the Popish and other Heterodox Churches from being members of the Catholicke Visible Church till by a Generall Councell they be heard and excommunicated or Non communioned And whether the major part of the Churches in the world will consent to such an Excommunication or Non-communion is uncertaine and then they must VOTE also and so the Orthodox Churches will be the more over-borne Object 1. But it may be it will be said the throat of the cause is yet safe because it seems sufficient that the major part of those that are of the same judgement ought to governe the lesse To which I reply that in all Corporations and Common-wealths as our Brethren say the Vniversall Visible Church is not the major part of a Part but the major part of the whole body are to rule the rest and that not divided in severall places at a distance but convened together at least in some neernesse of place Object 2. If it be said that by reason of distance of place and multitude of persons this cannot be done viz. the collection of the Catholicke Visible Church I answer and say 1. Therefore such an opinion is not to be asserted which unavoidably and necessarily enforceth such a gathering 2. That in respect of the Commissioners general some for many Churches which the Authours of this opinion doe or must allow it may be done for matter of companie or number 3. Princes from one end of the world to the other hold leagues and correspondencies together as doth the Kingdom of England with Russia in the North and Persia in the East 4. Rome governs in all parts of the world as a single corporation notwithstanding distance of place 5. Lastly The Churches of Europe at least might have met for the Reformations they have endeavoured as many of them did in the Synod of Dort about Arminius CHAP. V. The Arguments for an Vniversal Visible Governing Church with the answers to them HItherto we have as it were battered and taken the Assailants Worke it remains that we seise on their Ammunition and Weapons the opposite reasonings produced by them And first to the Arguments of Appollonius who by the way I observe to give the cause in all particulars but one or two to those of the Congregational way and well he could not avoid it seeing that the Churches of Holland go by the same principles except that of the authority of Synods and baptizing of all children which latter how it stands with their denying Church-fellowship to all ipsi viderint But to his Arguments The first is taken out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers which Church there is said to consist of divers and heterogeneal members but the Ministry the Apostles c. are not given to any particular Church and the Apostles c. were the Governours of the Catholick Church Ergo The Visible Catholick Church is one Governing body under which all particular Churches are subjected and conteyned Answ. At the stating of the Question I premised the distinction of onenesse in Essence and mysterie and onenesse in
nor were sent to so farre as is related and then it will fall out either that they did conclude and injoyne onely Doctrinally though with authority or else that a particular and ordinary Church or two or three Churches by ordinary power may prescribe and by authoritie injoyne Lawes to all Churches in the world by way of Jurisdiction It will not be easie to get safe from betwixt the hornes of this argument 5. But it will not prejudice me to yeeld it an ordinary Assembly for it is granted to any Assembly of one Church or more to do as much as is here expressed this councell to have done viz. 1. To meet for the discussion of any Doctrine that afflicts the Churches especially if they bee sent unto as these were 2. To conferre scriptures together which concerns those points 3. Light appearing by the spirit of God and Scripture they may represent their results as the will of God and minde of the Holy Ghost and so may 4. MINISTERIALLY IMPOSE and enjoyn to all other Churches what appears to be the clear mind of Christ as Paul did 1 Cor. 7. having no expresse command and as any of our Brethren do when they preach the Word Do they not injoyne obedience in the name of Christ but withall they disclaim having sole Jurisdiction so as to Excommunicate any alone by themselves if they obey not and yet they do the former by Authority because the Ministery of the Word is an Ordinance of God Object But it was an Assembly representing the Catholick Church because of the Apostles who were the Catholick Officers and the whole acted by the ordinary power of the Catholick Church Answ. 1. The Reason overthrowes the Argument For if it was therefore an Assembly of the Catholick Church because of the presence of the Apostles Then if the Apostles had been absent it had been but the Assembly of a particular Church And the Apostles when assembled alone had made an Assembly of the Catholick Church So the universality or Catholicisme of the Assembly depended wholely and solely on the Apostles Or else secondly The Apostles if alone out of this Assembly neither severally nor joyntly should have been able to determine and do what was here done Or else thirdly The Apostles in this Assembly did denude and strip themselves of their Apostolical power or at least suspend it it for that time and acted onely as ordinary Elders of the Catholick Church but then it would follow either that that particular Church of Jerusalem was the Catholick Church as Rome is said to be for there were messengers from few if from more then one other Churches Or that the Apostles though laying aside their being Elders of the universal Church for that was their Apostleship did yet act as Elders of the universal Church all which are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} crasse interferings I thinke this Church acted 1. As the mother Church 2. As having an accesse of Authority by the presence of the Apostles 3. As being the Church from which the scandal enquired about was conceived to arise Neither doth the joyning of the Elders and Brethren wholy take off the eminency and authority of the Apostles above the rest for their speeches onely are recorded no more then Paul's joyning others with him in his Epistles though it do argue that the Church of Antioch had not that esteem of them as infallible alone And thus much also for that other place brought for confirmation of the third Argument A Representative Catholick Church in Scripture The fourth and last Argument is from the Testimony of some Reformed Divines viz. Walaeus and the Professors of Leydon But the first speaks nothing for him but what all acknowledge and was granted above scil. The Church saith he may be considered two waies 1. Vniversally for the Church which by the preaching of the Gospel is called out of the world throughout the world which in a certain sense or in some respect may even be called Catholick or for a particular Flock tyed unto one place In which sense I know none denie a Catholick Church it being one of the Articles of the ordinary Creed that there is a Catholick Church that is that the Church is now no longer bound to any one place as under the Jewish Government But that the Church in respect of the several members and societies of it is dispersed over the face of the earth But this doth no more conclude that therefore they are one Visible Corporation then when we say Mankinde is spread over all the World that therefore all men are one company or body politick 2. The Professors of Leyden are against him for they distinguish betweene a Visible and particular Church and betweene the Invisible and universal and say That a Visible Church is considered two waies 1. As a company or Society of one Towne City or Province which are united not onely in the unity of Faith and Sacraments but also in the Forme of outward Government or else it is considered as a certain Oecumenical and Vniversal body dispersed in several places throughout the whole World Although THEY DIFFER IN THE EXTERNALL FORME IT SELFE OF CHVRCH-GOVERNEMENT and circumstantial Rites very much yet agreeing in the ESSENTIAL VNITY OF FAITH and of the Sacraments Whence that is common in Cyprian Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Wâ—ich words evidently destroy this opinion For first they make the Essentialunion or forme of the Society and onenesse of the Church to consist in the onenesse of Faith and Sacraments Secondly They imply That Government is one as it is in Christ but divers as it is in severall Churches and in the hands of severall Officers for so Calvine in Ephes. 4. 11. expounds that of Cyprian The Episcopacie he gives to Christ alone in the administring whereof every one hath his part Thirdly And which chiefly assaulteth the heart of the cause for which it is brought by this Author They make the very difference betwixt the universal Church and a particular Church to be this That they disagree in the outward or visible forme of Church-Government therefore in the sense of the Professors of Leyden the Vniversal Church is not one Governing Body for then the Government must be one not only in Essence Nature and Kinde but one in Number Existence single and Indivual being And thus much for answer in particular to Apollonius who indeed hath the substance of what hath been said for this opinion others that follow having taken his grounds and dilated them a little but not much strengthened them thereby as will appear in the sequele 2. The next Defendant of this opinion is M. Hudson cited in the first chapter his sense is the same his words and expressions not so distinct as the former Before I come to his Arguments such as seem to differ from those before 1. note that the
taken as single men have no more or higher authority then one man nor all families then one family nor all Corporations then one Corporation Wee see that 't is not one sort of men onely that are obnoxious to contradictions both verball and reall Besides the Author he seemâ— to folloâ— viz. Apollonius enterprets that place Eph. 4. 16. The whole body fitly joyned together to be meant of an Organicall Ministeriall body differing in members which Mr Hudson expounds to be meant of a Similar and body whose parts are all alike Wee see here also that even persons of this opinion cannot agree among themselves shall wee therefore say they know not what they would have seeing one would have one thing another another We must then reach out the same ingenuity unto others differing in like manner that we stand in need of our selves About his answers to the objections he brings against his opinion we may note severall things as first in his answer to the 1. Objection he saith That the dwelling in one Towne where there is a Church and being member of another Church is a kinde of dis-churching that Church which is in the Tovvne where he dwells But the answer is ready according to his opinion for they remaine still of the same integrall body if the whole Church bee but one visible Congregation and so we see what way by this opinion is made to the scattering of particular Churches seeing men may remove though not in dwelling yet in relation at pleasure without danger of Schisme for they remaine still of the same single though larger bodie as a man may dwell in one Corporation and be a member of another yet he still abides a member of one and the same single Kingdome His 2d Objection is That if all particular Churches bee all one Church they must all meet some times His answer is 1. No It is sufficient that it have the same King Lavves Spirit c. But was there ever in the world such a Kingdome or Corporation that the members of it do not meet sometimes if it be not a meere visible Monarchy as under Popery If it have any liberty left to the subjects they must meet sometimes at least by their Deputies as the Kingdome of England in Parliament the Empire of Germanie in the states of the Empire c. His 2d answer is That the Church Catholicke visible hath met in Generall Councells as a ministeriall Church and mark it is now ministeriall and heterogeneall which was before similar and homogeneall but this is replyed to above where was shewed 1. That the most primitive Churches did not so act 2. That the whole Church did not meet in them 3. That they either acted as a similar body acts in the name of those and within the Churches that sent them each for their owne and all for all those whose Deputies they were for ought we have learnt yet or else that they acted much by Regall power as by Constantines in the Councell of Nice and others by other Emperours and they acted also in late Councels by Episcopall Archiepiscopall and Patriarchal power and not as a similar body 4. If those were the Catholick Church visible representative How dare any particular Churches at most but if national abrogate and sweare against the Ordinances and government established by the Catholicke Church Let him minde this Againe he saith The power of a general Councel or of the Catholick visible Church is but EXTENSIVE and the power of particular Churches INTENSIVE but 1. This overthrowes his tenet for then the Catholicke Church hath no more power in it selfe and properly but meerely by accident then a particular Church And 2. This plucks up his second Tenet viz. That this Catholick Church is the first Church to whom power is given for if its power be extensive onely and not inward It cannot be the first subject of power The 3d. Object Hee moves against himselfe is A visible Catholicke Church must have a visible Catholicke head His 1. answer is That it is sufficient that Christ is the head though in heaven But this is altogether an unsufficient answer For Christ is the Head invisible and thence our divines affirme his body the Church to be mysticall also and invisible taken properly 2. He saith that The Church in regard of the head the government of it is absolutely Monarchicall but in regard of the Officers it is Aristocraticall But this answers not the objection for be it Monarchicall or Aristocraticall yet if the body bee one visible Corporation then must the Governours of it bee one visible either person or company of men usually or at sometimes ordinarily meeting together or at least to be considered as one body or Colledge of men by whom this body is joyntly and together and not asunder to be governed And this is the force of Calvins reason on Eph. 4. 11. though applyed to the Papacy For if wee must bee one visible corporation there must bee one visible governour either person or society which the Apostle omitting in that place where it was necessary to have been mentioned it if it had beene an ordinance cannot saith he be excused His 4th Objection is That if the Catholicke Church bee one visible body it must have a visible existence and being as it is universall and Catholicke but universalls have no beeing of their owne but they exist and have their being onely in particular as Mankinde in generall hath no being a part by it selfe from single men but hath its being in them onely His Answer is That all gathered aggregated or collected bodies do exist and have their beings so As a heape of stones hath its being only in the particular stones the water in particular drops particular Churches consist of particular families and families of particular persons and an Army in the severall Brigades which yet are one though they should never meet But this reply amounts not to an answer For no collected body that is made up of severall things hath its being in these things severally considered and apart but as united altogether it is not a heape of stones if one lye at Yorke some at London others in France Spaine c. So a Church is not a Church or one companie as the families are severall but as met together in one Assembly and so an Army Brigades may be sent out of it but if that part were never united to the Army by 1000. miles nor intended to be and if they be not governed either by one visible head or by one visible Councell of Warre no man will say they are one Army especially if one be in England and the other in America Do wee not say The Parliament hath had severall Armies under severall distinct commanders in cheife who had no dependence one on another as it was a good while after the Earle of Essex had his Comission and
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 Scoâ—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 Brethrâ—ns eares and bosomes I have done As to the former 1. If there be one Visible Vniversal Governing Church â—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 pâ—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 â—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
case of his owne otherwise unavoidable peril of life Or 2. Ordinary which is that which it is actually and constantly endued with and which it is daily to exercise as occasion serves And this againe is 1. Imperative or by way of command and imposition of truthes or duties in the name of Christ 2. Coercive and executive by censure by admonition and excommunication or cutting off from the body of Christ And thus far of the explication of the termes now we come to the stating of the Question And 1. negatively what is not the question The doubt then is not 1. whether there be a company of persons in several or in all parts of the World that diuisim and in their several places do visibly outwardly and openly professe for substance the same faith seals worship and Government and so may be said to be one company one society one congregation in Nature and Essence i. e. Acknowledgement of the same Faith as we say the Turke or Turkes are one company of men because their profession of Religion is one though those of Constantinople and of Persia have no dependance one on another either Civil or Religious in point of Government Nor 2. is it the Quaere whether the several Companies or Churches of this Profession as they are one in Nature so also in Spirit and affection and thereupon in the engagement of mutual care one of another and to take notice what doctines are dispersed what conversation used among the Churches Brethren of the same first Family are bound to do this though they be every one master in his owne house Nor 3. Is it doubtful whether such Churches may voluntarily as occasion shall require associate together for mutual assistance and act in many things by common and joynt consent as it was at the first in the Church of Geneva This the Scripture and the light of Nature dictates even then when the same Scripture and light of Nature reserves entire and distinct liberties to the particulars as in the present conjunction of England and Scotland And so in the conjunction of the Apostles and Churches at Jerusalem Acts 15. nothing was done there of particular Jurisdiction as the decreeing of Excommunication or the like to those that should be refractory this was left to the particular Churches Now to these two latter and not to the point of Government properly so called belongs those testimonies out of the Ancients alledged by Crakanthorp to prove that all the Bishops joyntly and severally are set over the whole Church in common and not the Pope onely for these Testimonies expresse onely a generall obligation of duty and charity not of special office 4. Neither is it the scruple whether all or most of the Churches in the world may not possibly become occasionally one by their messengers in a general Councel though such a thing never yet was nor perhaps ought to be of which hereafter Thus of the first four termes In regard of the last viz. the Power of the Church the question is not 1. whether an Association of Churches lesse or more and especially a general Counsel have not a power more then barely consultative or by way of meer Counsel and advice and whether they have not so far as the object of their Commission reacheth an Authoritative power at least virtual from Christ to act In all Faculâ—ies there is a certain power given both by God and man to the allowed Professors of them to give Authoritative not advice only but directions and rules to which the Conscience is bound to submit unlesse special cause disswade us and this Authority is the more August and solemn though not greater or more or lesse vary not the kind the greater the number is and the more publicke the manner of giving forth the precepts shall bee As for instance an allowed Lawyer or Physician have not onely ability to give advice in point of estate or health by vertue of their skill which others possibly may doe materially as well but have authoritie and legall power from God and man to appoint direct determine and prescribe rules and waies to be observed in both to which the person ought to be obedient that seeks advice and this the more if it shall be done by an Assembly of Lawyers or Judges or Colledge of Physitians by publick consent convened for that purpose though neither the one nor other have power to compell the clyent or patient to follow their directions nor obtain they any new and superiour power by being gathered so in the affaires of the Church of God In doubtfull cases or upon occasion of grosser errours and scandalls God hath by or dinance virtual appointed recourse to others especially Churches whose prescriptions not disagreeing from the word are to be obeyed not only because they are materially good but formally theirs that is the determinations of many of those who are appointed by God for such offices in their severall places so that their acting is the acting of Officers but not as Officers for such they are only in their severall Churches but yet by reason of 〈◊〉 relation they are the more fit for that work but do not act in another and superiour right and relation when assembled and therefore have not any power coercive more then before to constraine by Church-sure Excommunication c. to their decrees Neither do we find that the Apostles themselves when holding such a Councel in our Brethrens opinion did more then in the Name of the Holy Ghost Decree and command but did not impose any such penalty by authority of the Councel upon the disobedient in the particular Churches 2. Neither is the question properly what power the Catholick Church may possibly have in unusual and extraordinary case or accident and which in ordinary it cannot do nor is the proper subject of such power as we saw before in the instance of necessary self defence 3. Yea further ad hominem in respect of the practise and condition of most of those Bretheren who plead this Catholick visible onenesse of the Church The question would not be what power the Vniversal visible Church might have if possibly convenable together as it was at Jerusalem in which case we grant what is contended for as what the parts of it have asunder and without endeavouring the joyning with the other For even in a Kingdom though all the Corporations gathered in one have power over all particulars yet not some of these much lesse a few of them asunder which is the way our Bretheren now practise None of these is the point in controversie But Secondly It is positively this viz. Whether the whole company of Christians on earth are in their ordinary and setled Church constitution so one entire single Common-wealth Corporation and Congregation as that of Right and by the will and appointment of Iesus Christ it is the first subject of all Church power by authority
many houses of the Hebrews have but onely one * Power Nature and Condition as the Churches throughout the World and in several Provinces being many in Numbers are but One Church Where he makes them One in that they have One Nature and Condition but saith they are Many in number Whereas this opinion makes all the Churches in the world to be but one in number in respect of Corporation and Government as all the houses in a City make but one single Corporation and all the Corporations in England make but one single Kingdom So that this Testimony taking the distinction above mentioned of onenesse in Nature of those that are many in number looks as much if not more on us then on our opposites 2. CLEMENS ALEXAND. * There is absolutely but one Ancient and Catholick Church in the Vnity of one Faith whereunto agreeth that of CALVINE The unitie of the Church consists in the unitie of the Faith and expresly against this universal visible Government he addes it is not necessary that we see it the Church Catholick and that it be visible for preservation of that unity 3. CYPRIANUS when he professedly disputeth the question about the unity of the Church passing by the corruptions added in this place and some of his * Epistles by the Papists defineth the unity of the Church by Doctrine and Discipline and saith This onely is the cause of Schismes Quod magistri Coelestis Doctrina suis quod idem est Ecclesiae vivitas non servatur That the Doctrine of our heavenly Master or which is ALL ONE the unity of the Church is not preserved and as there is one God one Christ one Faith so there is one Church one Discipline in it one Bishoprick whereof in the whole every one hath his share and as the Sun hath many beams but one light and the boughes of a Tree many but one Trunk so many particular Churches whereof unum lumen unum Caput una Origo one light one head one original in all which he makes the unity of the Church to consist in onenesse of nature faith spirit head not in number and Government As the leaves and boughes are not one in number and in themselves but in their Original and Root so are the Churches one in Christ and the spirit and nature though different in suppositum and Government 4. HIERON. It is called one Altar as it is said one Faith and one Baptisme and one Church but faith and Baptisme are said to be one in respect of Kind and nature not Integrally and numerally 5. AUGUSTINE He speaking of the first Subject of the keyes or Church power saith For all the SAINTES theâ—efore that doe cleave inseparably to the body of Christ did Peter receive the KEYES of the Kingdom of heaven because not he alone but universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata the universal Church doth binde and loose sins But that he doth not mean joyntly as one body or Corporation but severally every Church by it selfe and so the onenesse of the Church here implyed is in nature and kind not in number appeares by what he saith in other places as where repeating that about Excommunication Mat. 18. If he hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen he saith He who joyneth him to himself which is after this order cast out he not permitting being orthodox by vvhom he is cast out juris sacredotij sancti limites Excedit doth violate the rights of holy Priesthood He doth imply that particular Churches did excommunicate within themselves or the universal Church distributively taken 6. EUCHERIUS The Church dispersed throughout the whole world consists in one and the same faith and fellowship of Catholique truth and vvheras there is an innumerable multitude of the faithfull yet they rightly are said to have one heart and one soul in respect of their society in the Common faith and love Where all the universal onenesse hee implyeth it of faith and love This opinion then doth not appeare in prime and best Antiquitie nor with any evidence in those that followed so that till better testimonies appeare we must say that it is therefore absolute new 2. It is more new Relatively 1. In reference to the protestant party who Generally save very few excepted have never owned it but on the contrary constantly opposed it as shall be shewed anon But it is most nevv in regard of the Presbytirians these Brethren being the first we have met with or as it seemes themselves either for those they quote make rather against them as will appeare afterward certaine it is that Calvine whom they vouch as the first restorer of that Government though his was but a voluntary association as we saw before gave evidence expresly against it Also Chamier speaking the sence of the French Churches as afterward must be related but we need not be sollicitous to prove this seeing the Brethren of this opinion confesse this conceit to be opposed by the greatest part of the protestant writers as wil appear in the fourth Argument If therefore Novelty and new light be a prejudice against other opinions it cannot but reflect suspition upon this 2. Another just prejudice against this opinion may be that it is of Dangerous Consequence For if the whole Church that is Visible and to be seen on earth be one single Corporation or Kingdom and the first subject to whom all Government in Church affairs belongeth and in whose right and by power from which all particular Churches do act then of necessitie 1. There must be Viniversal and General officers and some one above the rest to whom the particular Churches may have continual recourse For all Corporations have officers that are officers of the whole Corporation and over all and not particular onely as not onely the Constables of the severall Parishes or Aldermen of cath Ward but the Major also of the whole who hath though not a divided yet a distinct and superior power in order to the Corporation above the rest though conjoyned 2. Seeing Christ hath provided a seasonable and standing means for the continual exercise of the Government of his Church that may be made use of as occasion requires therefore these officers must have alwaies residence in some one place though they may also remove to another they must have an actual being and residence as being the officers for the exercise of the power of the universal Church For it is impertinent to say that it is sufficient the universal Church meet by parties in severall Countreys and Ages for the meeting of officers of Corporations must be in one place and time as the Parliament Convocation Consistory c. And it were notably vaine to imagine that Christ hath committed the government of his Church first chiefly to that body that should not meet six times in sixteen hundred yeares * nay
and by consequence the onenesse also to consist in onenesse of Faith and doctrine But he hath a little before pag. 206. a considerable passage at this time about the call of our first reformers and saith that any enlightened by the spirit of God and members of the Catholick Church should teach informe and help their fellow members being seduced and led by blinde guides is agreeable to the law of nature Also that In extraordinary times men may go beyond the ordinary path so the thing done be materially good But this by the way Lastly the Professors of Leyden cited for this opinion by Apollon. which is much to be wondered at doe distinguish betwixt the Church Catholick and particular and say that The former is one in doctrine and faith but the latter one in discipline and government also Evidently implying the universall Church not to be one in Gouernment or not to be one Corporation And thus of the third and fourth inconveniences of this opinion and so much also for the first generall head of exceptions against it viz. the just prejudices and suspicious appearances of it as being Novell dangerous Papall and Anti-Protestant CHAP. IIII. Demonstrations against an Vniversall Visible Governing Church HItherto have been handled the lesse Artillery and as 't is hoped not without successe The main Batterie now follows by Arguments demonstrative and such as necessarily conclude against this opinion and that this may be done I premise as granted these principles 1. That the Author of all Ecclesiastick power in the Churches is Iesus Christ for unto him all of it was committed and from him derived 2. That he expressed plainly enough whatsoever was of great consequence for the well ordering of his house as for all other things concerning the salvation of his people 3. That the Apostles were appointed by him to perfect by themselves or Deputies whilest themselves were living either by precept or practise whatsoever concerned the Churches in such particulars 4. That they accordingly did faithfully discharge this trust 5. That Christ and his Apostles in those their precepts and practise are a rule to all Churches to the end of the World I am with you viz. in observing these things which I have commanded you unto the end of the World 6. That they are our rule both negatively and positively i. e. what they did not in such and such cases when they had opportunity we may not in the like and what they did we must do so also as occasion requires and opportunity serves The former particulars are plain enough the last not difficult if these places following and the like be considered Act. 15. 24. The Apostles charge the urgers of Circumcision upon the Gentiles not onely because they taught such Doctrine but also because they taught it having received no such Commandment unlesse we understand those words as having reference to what those Teachers it may be boasted viz. That they had Commission from the Apostles for that Doctrine Again The Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews insinuates it to be sufficient proof that the Priesthood did not at all belong to the Tribe of Iuda but of Levi because the Scripture speakes nothing saith he concerning the former in that respect The speech of Balaam implies as much and that other of the Prophet if the Lord have not spoken who can prophesie We know how the Lord thundereth against those who prophesyed and the Lord had not spoken to them which yet we would have understood as was said before with this caution viz. not spoken neither expresly nor by neer consequence in things of special concernment to the Church 7. That the Government of the Church of Christ it being his house and the knowledge of the first subject or chief trustee to whom the keys of that house is committed is of very great concernment and therefore to be laid down in Scripture at least by such evidence as with moderate opening to godly knowing and impartial men may comfortably be perceived These things premised we come to the Arguments The first whereof is taken negatively from the Author and Founders of the Church viz. The silence of Christ and his Apostles touching one Catholick Visible Governing Church This I conceive is not to be found in Scripture unlesse by such strayning of reason as we saw before Austin saith is dangerous in the things of God What is brought on the contrary out of Scripture shall be examined in another place to wit in the fifth chapter when the Arguments for this opinion if God permit shall severally be discussed onely for methods sake this being the joint for this Argument naturally to fall into 't is here mentioned The second Argument is from the same persons positively to wit the contrary Institution of Christ and his Apostles gathered plainly from their Teaching and Practise 1. If the keyes of Government were given first and fully with entire power immediately to a particular Church then there is no universal visible Governing Church because that is therefore contended for as the first subject of Government but the first is true therefore the latter The former is thus proved All Church power was given first and fully to the Church of the Jews But the Church of the Jews was a particular Church not the universal unlesse by accident because so it was that there was no other Church state in the world at that time unlesse we shall hold as * some do that there were other societies of Beleevers that were not united to the Jewish Church as Iob and his family c. but this is doubtful I therefore omit it The Church of the Jews was a particular one 1. It is every where called One congregation 2. All the Church in the chiefest Sex of it met together to solemn worship at one place in the Temple three times a year constantly and oftner as occasion served in Fasts War Thanksgiving Consultations c. neither had they any thing to do with those that joyned not themselves to their body as Cornelius Act. 10. A beleever and yet one that Peter might not go to And though it be granted to have been a Type of the Church of the New Testament yet not as Catholick but as Congregational as it self was or else as mystical for even our Brethren denie that order of Governours to bind under the Gospel though the Papists contend for it 2. The first Institution of the Church under the new Testament by Christ does give entire power of Government immediately to a particular Church Matth. 18. If thy Brother offend thee c. Tell the Church if he hear not the Church let him be as a Heathen c. Now this was a particular Church for it was such an one as one might complain to and it was endued with entire power even to excommunication 2. If the power and presence of Christ be so with a particular Society
that Whatsoever they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. and this be given immediatly to a particular society of Christians then the assertion is good but so it is in that Chapter When two or three are gathered in my Name I am in the midst and so as that what they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. As by the coherence may be gathered Object But this is meant of the Jewish Church Answ. 1. If so the former Argument takes place But 2. It is not * likely for where is the Jewish Consistory called the Church it is called by Christ Matth. 5. the lower Assembly a Councel the greater Sanhedrin a Iudgement but not a Church 2. He had chap. 16. spoken of his Church and it is like had explained himself more fully about it for all could not be written as Iohn informes us chap. 21. ult. 3. In the former chapter Matth. 18. 18. he giveth the greatest Ecclesiastick Power to a Congregation of Christians Whatsoever ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. it is added immediately upon his precept of telling the Church as the reason of it and to corroborate it he assures them in the same place that what they should aske in his Name should be done and to strengthen that he promiseth that when they were gathered together he would be in the middest of them By all which it appears that he speaks of a particular Christian Church and which is to be noted without any mention of appeal to a higher Judicatory if right should not be done there 3. The first execution of the greatest act of entire power was by admonition and command of the Apostle himself but not by his power exercised in a particular Church without appeal to or consulting of the universal Church which they might have done according to this opinion the Apostles then being surviving viz. delivering one over to Sathan the Apostle saith when ye of Corinth are gathered and my Spirit consent and approbation or the holy Ghost acting in you and me by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ not which he hath committed to me but which is among you for besides that Paul according to this opinion being but one of the Catholick Ministers could not orderly have excommunicated this man without consulting with or by authority of the rest of the Apostles Representatives of the universal Church if the Catholick Church be the first subject of Church power It is certain that Ecclesiastical Power iâ—herent in any cannot be delegated or transmitted over to another but of transmitting Apostolical power we read not 4. If entire power were first committed to particular men then not to the Catholique Church and so it was not the first subject of Church power and so not one visible governing Church but entire power was committed to the Apostles severally and to all joyntly as hath been hitherto confessed by all Ergo c. Object But the Apostles represented the Catholick Church Answ. 1. Not in all the power they received for they might do that which all the Churches cannot as constitute Articles of Faith c. 2. They represented the Church not as united but as multiplyed for Paul had as much power as any and yet he was not personally united to them as appears Gal. 1. 17. 3. Howsoever they had no successors in Apostolick power as neither had Moses in his At the first planting of a Church more power is to be used then afterward is needfull as our Brethren of Scotland alleadge both for their having at the first and for not reteining Generall Visitors still 5. If the first reproofe from Christs own mouth for the englect of exercise of Church power was directed to particular Churches alone by themselves and not to the combination of them though neere one the other much lesse to the universall Church then particular Churches had entire Independent Ecclesiasticall power as single Churches and not as parts of one visible Catholicke but the former is true from the second and third chapters of the Revelation where Christs reproofs are directed to the particular Churches and not to the Presbytery over all or to the Catholicke Church though some of these Churches were but 8. or 10. miles one from the other and the furthest but two hundred being all in the lesser Asia and this after Christianity had been about 70. years in the world so that they had time to have combined or united into an Vniversall or at least into a Nationall or Provinciall societie or Classis if it had been so taught them by the Churchfounders Christ and his Apostles 2. Sort of Arg. From the matter or members of this universall Governing Church laying for ground what was noted before viz. That every subject or agent that hath reall and actuall properties and effects must some time or other have existence and being as one if one Naturall then so if one Civil then must they be as one body gathered into one place as the Jewish nation as we said before Corporations in their Halls Kingdomes in their Parliaments This being undenyable though Mr Hudson deny it against all experience and reason because It is sufficient saith he that they are under one King and governed by the same Laws but how should they be so if they never met at least by their Deputies formally or virtually to yeeld to such a government not as was proved before any cleare institution left by Christ for such incorporation The 1. Argument is That which never had an actuall being and existence in the world that neither is nor is the subject of Church povver much lesse the first but this Church Catholick as such never had a being because it was never together gathered into one place neither in its members nor in its Deputies and therefore can bee one not actually or really in it self but by * imagination onely and conceit Either in regard of the same onenesse of kinde and nature that is betwixt Churches or of relation they have to one head and in order to and dependance on one rule or law the word of God As several Armies to use M. Hudsons similitude gathered by Commission from one Generall in severall parts of a Kingdome or of an Empire or of the world and never yet brought together nor intended so to be but to abide under their severall particular commanders one perhaps in England another in India might be called one Army in Regard of one Commission and one chief General Yet such a similitude will not here so properly serve because the Onenesse of the Church is denyed by our brethren to be such as is of an Army where all are under the command of one the whole Church and its Officers are by them said to govern all particulars Object But Mr Hudson saith 1. That it is sufficient that the Church Catholick have existence and a
all Churches must act from the Authority and by vertue of Commission from the Catholick Church for they act in the name of the Catholick Church So the Assertors of this opinion Expressely but then it follows unavoydably that all particular Churches whether National or Congregational that shall innovate change and alter any material thing in Doctrine Worship or Government without the consent of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and if they be resolute in it against what might be said to the contrary they are HERETICKS as those have done that have changed in part Doctrine Worship and that Government which those general Councells did owne and establish much more those who have sworne to such alterations expresly against such things as the universal Church in those Councels did decree 5. Then all Magistrates are deprived of power of Reformation within their Jurisdictions before authority derived from the Church either in General Councel or from their Committee And hence is that cited out of our owne Lawyers Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet That which concernes all must be allowed of all viz. That are of the same visible corporation 6. Lastly That I may add no more There must be a solemne meeting for the election of such general Officers as are to governe the universal Church in the absence of the universal Ministerial Representative Church For if one Corporation should choose Burgesses that should vote in the businesse of the whole Kingdome it would not be valid if there had not been first an agreement of the whole Kingdome in Parliament gathered that these so and so chosen should be Officers General and have votes in the publick Object If it bee said that Christ himselfe hath appointed such Generall officers by appointing Ministers in every Congregation and then Synods for publicke occasions It is answered This follows not 1. Because an Officer chosen in one particular Corporation as a Major or Alderman is not an Officer in the whole Kingdome No though all the Majors in the Kingdom were gathered together are they Officers of the whole Kingdome unlesse by way of distribution and as in relation to their severall places and but remotely and by accident only to the whole Kingdome so though all the Corporations of the Kingdome were gathered yet are they not a Parliament and supreme Court simply because they are meerly gathered together but it must be on former consent according to such Lawes whereby they become a New and a Superiour body to all the Kingdome both joyntly so long as they continue a Parliament and severally much lesse should they have any more power because they are many but dis-joyned farre asunder So it is in the Church 2. They may be officers of Synods and Councels though never so generall and yet not be officers generall of the whole world in point of jurisdiction as one entire body Because their meeting doth not make them a New body nor give them as such a body any superiour juridical power but onely Consultative and Decretory whether we look on any Scripture Precept or Practise of the Churches in the New Testament 3. It is denyed that Christ hath instituted any such Catholicke Visible body or the Representative thereof An Oecumenicall or Generall Councell much lesse the abstract of it a Catholick committee or Presbyterie and there is reason for it for the multitude of persons difference of spirits Languages c. danger and want of ground to Delegate from hand to hand Ecclesiasticke Power would occasion great confusion and such as God is not the Authour of The fourth and last sort of arguments are taken from the end the Authours of this opinion aime at from the Issue of the opinion it selfe and from the true scope of Church Government The former seems to be either to found the Right of such Presbyteriall Government as is now endeavoured and to deprive particular Churches of intire power in themselves or at least of Independency in their Government from other Churches or else it is to lay Groundwork of a more effectuall cure and remedy then hitherto for all distempers of particular Churches whether nationall or other Touching the first What will it profit if they gaine by this notion the jurisdiction of the whole world for a while and afterward loose their own and others liberty and perhaps souls also for the former being lost truth will be soone oppressed as is to be seen in the Papacy of which straightway Again Absolute Independency so as no other Church shall have any thing to do with an erring or delinquent Church is disavowed both in Doctrine and Practise by the greatest Patrons of that way in this Kingdome and beyond the seas * Concerning the second All distempers of Churches as farre as the Apostolicall Churches were cured of them have beene healed sufficiently without this opinion yea and better then by those who have owned and practised this principle for they have cured some but made others greater and stronger then they were before as we see in the Church of Rome 2. But whatsoever their aime be they should remember that the true end of Church Government is not only to avoid Confusion and Disorder c. but also to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of particular Persons and Churches to prevent Tyranny and invasion that way evils that are as dangerous to the Church and as introductive to Heresie as the former unto which this opinion in the Issue of it opens a wide gappe My Baynes whom the London Ministers quote with Honour saith Dioces Triall Q. 1. pag. 21. That those who subject themselves to a Presbytery as being under it by Subordination may in effect as well be subject to an Episcopall and by consequence I say to a Papall Consistory For if the Church universall be one visible Governing body a man will readily conclude it must have universall Officers and among many there must be some one chief and Christ that hath ordered this hath surely designed by some intimation or other who this should be and where the seat of the Vniversall Church should reside and then how readily will that place of Matthew 16. Thou art Peter c. be understood to place it upon him and his successors and then the question is where hee was Bishop and because the scripture saith nothing therefore * Ecclesiasticall Writers must be credited and then the place is Rome and the rather because 1. Their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World 2. There was the seat of the Empire c. So that this opinion if not in the end of the Authours yet in the Issue of the things leads a man by the hand back to Egypt and Babylon again as it hath done many If it bee replyed No For that in this Vniversall body politique all Churches and their Elders shall be Equall and so in the Generall Councell conveened whereas in the Papacy all
Integralls and Accidents Hence I answer 1. That it is utterly à non sequitur and inconsequent to say because this Scripture and other like speak of the Church as of one in mysterie in nature and in essence that therefore it s one in Number or one Visible single body that because the Church is somevvay one therefore Integrally and by way of single Corporation Visible Now the Apostle speaks of the Church as one in Mysterie and Nature not Visibly and in Number appears from Verse 13. Where he saith Ye are all baptized into one body and been made to drink into one Spirit Now compare this with its parallel Eph. 4. 4. 5. Where the Apostle saith There is but one baptisme one faith and so makes the onenesse of the body to consist in these uniting the members to one Christ by one spirit to one God In which place two things are observable First That as he saith the Church is one so he saith Baptisme is one and Faith is one Shall we therefore say that there is but one single Baptisme or one single Faith visibly and integrally one in the VVorld Surely any man would answer that the former are said to be one mystically invisibly and in respect of their kinde and Nature because all true faith is of the same kinde and so all true Baptisme but are as many several faiths in Number and Baptismes as there are several beleevers and baptised persons Secondly That the onenesse of the Church essentially consists in the onenesse for kinde of Faith Hope Baptisme as also in the onenesse of its head its spirit and its God which doth indeed make it one mystical body but it doth not conclude them to be one Visibly Outwardly and Externally because some of these things wherein they are one are invisible others not on earth as the faith the hope spirit are invisible God and Christ are not on earth visibly and therefore the onenesse here mentioned makes not one visible corporation on earth and as one to be considered and to act VVe willingly grant that this union Mystical doth imply an union Visible also as much as may stand with the Institution of Christ and the edification of the Church But neither Christs institution nor the edification of the Church implies but opposes such an Vniversal Visible Vnited Corporation as we saw before But of this more in our Answer to his second Argument Now to return As we say of the body and of Baptisme Faith Hope c. So in the like sence we grant that the Church is one hath but one VVorship and but one Government viz. For Nature and kinde in the substantialls of it or that general platforme of it Matth. 18. and what else is to be gathered from the precepts and practise of the Apostles but as the Church is not one visible policie or corporation in number so neither in the outward Government of it For this as other accidents follows the nature of its subject So then when the Apostle saith God hath set in the Church some Apostles c. the Church must be taken for one not in regard of the outward or accidentall state of it but indefinitely and in regard of its inward nature and essence that is neither as visible nor invisible nor as universal or particular for all these are outward or accidental to the Church Object 1. But he mentioneth Baptisme various gifts and members divers Ministries as Apostles c. all which are visible therefore he meaneth the Visible Church Object 2. And whereunto belong both Jewes and Gentiles yea all that are baptised to which also the Apostles Evangelists and various gifts are given therefore it is the Vniversall Church Therefore I give a second answer I grant that hee speakes of the Church whether Visible or Invisible Vniversal or particular but not of it in these respects but mystically and totally as comprehending those in heaven also and this sence I will stick unto And it appears from the scope of the place the * not attending whereof hath occasioned saith Bucer great calamities in all Ages to the Church whilest men catch at words that make for their purpose not weighing the drift of the Author in such passages The Apostles intent there is plainly this viz. to perswade the Corinthians to concord among themselves and with the beleeving Jews as seems to be implyed verse 2. and 13. and contentednesse in their gifts and to the right use of them Now for the fastening of this he laies for ground that all Christians whether Tryumphant or Militant are but one mystical body of Christ vers. 12. and then teaches them that gifts they are all from one Spirit for mutual edification and for the distinguishing of the members of one and the same body and that there might be no Schisme or rent in the body about these gifts which are bestowed for the better uniting of it that all members cannot be in the same office nor have the same gifts but yet may be of the same body whereof the Church of Corinth was a part This is all the Apostle aimes at here And so also in that other parallel place Eph. 4. 3 4 5. c. His scope is the same to exhort to unity among themselves and with the beleeving Jews whom they stood at a distance from as they from them as appears in Peters withdrawing from the Gentiles when the Jews came Gal. 2. and this is implyed Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles fellow-heirs and of the same body and verse 15. he extends it to those in heaven also The whole Family in Heaven and Earth and having named the Church vers. 10. and verse 21. he saith in this Church should be glory to God vvorld vvithout end but then he must take the Church for the whole mystical body in heaven and earth And so when afterward chap. 4. he saith there is one body and he gave some Apostles c. for the perfecting of the body he must mean the whole and not that on earth onely for the body of Christ is not one part onely but the whole which must be perfected by union of Jews and Gentiles those on earth to be added to those in heaven He takes the body entirely not for the Visible part onely Now in this Body or in this Church as chap. 3. 6. or in this Family in heaven and earth as verse 15. He hath set some Apostles some Pastors Though these have exercise of their functions onely in that part which is one earth and in that part of it on earth which is visible yet they are placed in the whole Answ. 3. Should I grant which I doe not that the Apostle is to be understood of the Church on earth yet hee speaks as well of a particular Church when he saith God hath set some in the Church as of the Generall It s evident 1. If the word Apostle which alone grounds the objection be
taken properly in that he applies his speech particularly though not exclusively to the Corinthians ye are the body of Christ to wit yee are a particular body and members in particular and so chap. 3. 21. 22. All are yours whether Paul or Apollos let Apolonius note or Paul or Cephas or life or death all are YOVRS and ye Corinthians Christs c. where all are the whole Churches and each Churches in particular as their occasions require each in their order some Vniversal Officers which shall have power in Corinth or any other Church some particular to each Church So that the sence iâ— He hath given or set in the Church i. e. in this Church of Corinth and so in that of Ephesus c. Some Apostles c. as their need shall require yet not therefore making them one externall societie among themselves As some generall Officers make not England and Scotland one Kingdome 2. If we take the word Apostle as it is taken in some other places * and so may be taken here for such Officers as were sent out with commission from any Church upon speciall occasion which is the literall signification of the word and is so taken 2 Cor. 8. 23. Barnabas and the rest are called The Apostles of the Churches and Phil. 2. 25. Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians according to which the sence would bee God hath set some of Corinth in the office of Apostles some Prophets as chap. 14. c. and so the argument hence were voided But 4. Were it granted that the Apostle in these places meanes by the Church the Church visible Catholicke yet this opinion gaines nothing thereby for it doth not follow that because it was so then and in respect of the Apostles that therefore it was to be so to the end of the world and in it selfe Christ who is the King of his Church hath the same liberty in his Kingdome speciall that God hath over the world which is his Kingdome general Now at one time the Lord would have the whole world almost one Kingdome or Monarchy under Nebuchadnezar Jer. 27. 8. and threatneth with heavy plagues that nation that should refuse to serve him giving this reason that himselfe is King of all Nations vers. 5. which is also repeated again Dan. 4. 22. so that the whole world was one Kingdome upon the matter yet it was not the will of God it should alwaies bee so In the like manner in Moses the Church and Common wealth affaires were chiefly under the Magistrate but afterward they were distinct unlesse under those Kings that were Prophets also So the twelve Tribes were under Saul David and Salomon one Kingdome yet it was of the Lord that afterwards they were two and afterward one againe after the captivity So likewise Christ taketh the same power over his Church when hee saw it for the advantage of it hee set over it one Company of Officers who ruled it in common viz. the Apostles in relation to whom the Churches were one though not in themselves but that doth not argue that hee meant it should alwaies so continue after their decease It is a Generall rule in all proceedings that things at their first plantation and beginning need some things that afterward would be inconvenient as a Stick by a Twigge a Bladder to him that swimmeth a Standing-stole to a childe So at the first constitution of the Jewish Church God made Moses an extraordinary Officer so that hee had no Successor so absolute till Christs time So at the first erection of the Christian Church Apostles and Evangelists which now are generally apprehended to be ceased Yea also in Scotland as we heard above at the beginning of their Reformation they had certaine Officers in the nature of Bishops whom they called Visitors which the Authour informes us were then necessary but the Church being setled not now any longer needfull 2. Nor were the Churches one in themselves as we said before but one in the Apostles and that by accident also as England and Scotland are one in the King because he governs both but they are not therefore one Kingdome in themselves considered But 3. Though wee grant this that whiles the Apostles were living there was one body of Officers over the whole Church and so in respect of them the Church might bee said to bee one GOVERNED body yet I say it was never one GOVERNING body for whiles the Apostles lived the Vniversall Governing power was committed to the Apostles onely and not with them to any other Officers or Churches no and not to all the Churches together but they with their officers were all in subjection to them and when the Apostles deceased the scripture speaks nothing of instating any other collected and vnited body to succeed them in that Vniversall Government no nor can it be gathered by consequence but the contrary namely that because the use of that Vniversall power ceased therefore the Office Officers and subject of it Object But Church government did not cease Answ. That Kinde or Way of Church government did that is an Vniversall one but there continued the Government still though administered in another way viz. by way of Distribution Each Church as a Church i. e. as having the Essentiall notes of a Church in it viz. The true Doctrine or faith of Christ received that power for it self though not in so eminent a degree yet as immediately from Christ that all the Apostles had for all Churches 6. But I may deny the former supposition and rightly affirme that the Apostles were not one joynt Ministery for besides that each had entire power some had one part committed to them and some another as Paul expressly affirmeth Gal. 2. 8. The uncircumcision was committed to me the circumcision to Peter Hence chap. 1. he saith He went not up to Hierusalem to those that were Apostles before him which he ought to have done if the government had beene committed to the Apostles joyntly and not severally whence also his going up thither Act. 15. about the question of Circumcision was not on this ground but to satisfie the Christians of Antioch about his Doctrine as consonant to that of the other Apostles On the former principle he professeth 2 Cor. 10. 13. c. he had not intruded into another mans line alluding as it seems to the shareing out of inheritances by line as Psal. 16. 6. for this reason the Epistles of Peter Iames and Iohn are called Catholicke because written to the dispersed Iewes throughout the severall nations as is the expression in the entrance of those Epistles Hence also Paul is sent from Ierusalem as not his place Act. 22. 18. And though sometimes he disputed with the Jews yet it was but as making way to the Gentiles neither did hee greatly prevaile with them as appears Act. 13. 40. 41. chap. 28. 16. 7. To conclude therefore our reply to
this Argument If it follow not when we say God hath set in the World some Emperours some Kings some Princes some inferiour officers and Magistrates therefore the whole world is but one Governing Kingdome and all particular Kingdomes do but governe in the right of the Kingdome of the world in Common the Officers whereof are the Kings of the severall Kingdomes who being gathered together or a part of them have the povver of giving Lavves to other Kingdomes according to the Lavv of God and nature which are the rules of all just Government and this also to bee done by the Kings and Princes themselves vvithout any authority from or any dependency on the people unlesse for quietnes sake and as far as they see cause If as was said this follow not neither doth it follow that because the scripture saith God hath set some in the Church Apostles c. Therefore the Church throughout the world is but one Congregation to whose Officers first as the generall Officers of the whole Church not by way of distribution but as a Notionally at least collected body of Officers the power of Government is committed by Authoritie whereof and dependence upon which common officers and body the officers of every particular Church do act and those without any dependency upon the concurrence of the people as co-operating and acting with them unlesse for peace sake By which means let it be observed by all sorts The power being given not to any one Church but to the whole Church as one body and not to the members with the Officers but to the Officers onely there is derived a very Transcendent power and Authoritie upon every particular Minister more then any Parliament-man hath yea more then a King who is limited to his dominion It makes every Minister one of the standing Officers of the Christian world to whom with his Collegues not severally and by distribution but joyntly and as one body is committed the Government of the whole Christian world and managing of the Affaires of the Son of God throughout the face of the earth And so hee is one of Christs Vicars Generall and not particular onely which I acknowledge every Minister to be in his place magnum surely et memorabile nomen But if this bee so great reason is it that the Church of the whole world should choose these Vniversall Officers and so the Church of a nation the Nationall Officers c. by whom they are to be Governed in that which is of Dearest and highest moment viz. the precious soule or else their condition is most sad If every one that can get a little learning and desires to live upon the Sweat and cost of others and to become a minister though I professe that calling to be most difficult on earth and also that the Lord hath appointed that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and so being willing to submit to such conditions as is required shall have a friend patron or a purse to make one and come into the ministery and a living which is the Kings Road in some Churches and is the way whereby many of those who now are to be Presbyters came in he shall become a Parliament man and joynt Governour of the whole Church on earth by whose one vote all the liberties and truth of Religion in them may be destroyed A glympe whereof we have seen in the Convocations or Synods in our owne Nation This I say is sad yea more sad then the condition of men in their Civil Liberties In our owne Kingdom where none attains the honour of being an universal Officer a Parliament man but by the consent formal or virtual of all or the major part of them there having been a precedent act by joynt consent of the whole Nation that persons chosen by the free Vote of the major part of Corporations c. should if loyal be Officers pro tempore to their owne Corporations and to the whole But such agreement hath not been made no not tacitely by the Catholick Church nor no such institution of Christ hath appeared yet And these answers also are applyable to what the same Author hath else where from the word CHVRCH as when he denieth a Particular Church to be the proper subject of the covenant of grace and priviledges of it because saith he the CHVRCH to which these promises are made is perpetual Jer. 31. 36. The strength of which reasoning lies on this that the word Church and not Churches is used in these places and so it is represented as one Answ. As if it were not common to call that perpetual which is so by succession of those of the like Nature and Kinde because the Lord saith Day and Night shall not cease to the Worlds end doth it therefore follow that all the essential properties of day or night do not agree to this or that particular day Is it not a rule in Nature and Reason that all the essential properties of general and common beings are really existent in the individual and partilars Man is to continue on earth to the end of the World does not therefore the essential properties of man agree to Peter or Paul because they were not to continue His second and third Argument there is That a particular Church cannot be the subject of the covenant of Grace and consequently of Church power for the reason is the same because the Church which hath these is sanctified is the spouse of Christ hath the Law written in the heart of it c. but a particular Church as it is particular cannot be said to be such Answ. But 1. It was never said that one particular Church is so the subject of these as that another is not Secondly To speak properly The Church not as visible nor as particular nor as invisible nor as universal is the subject of these things but as a Church i. e. A society of Beleevers and under that nation a particular Church considered as a Church hath right to all and is the subject of all these All are yours saith the Apostle to the Corinthians whether Paul or Christ c. So that this Author by adding this clause as particular hath praevaricated and altered the state of the Question His last Argument in that place is from the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden and Amesius To which I answer That the former say nothing but that the covenant and promises and priviledges belong to true beleevers and the invisible Church whether in a particular Church or dispersed through the world So that this Testimony seems rather to make against him The other is expresly against him and speaks our very sense yea and terms almost insomuch that I wonder this Author is brought in as a witnesse His words are even as they are cited by Apollonius himself These things agree not to the whole multitude that professe Christ but onely to those that are truly
faithful or they agree to the Church militant in respect of its ESSENTIAL Nature which is proper to the truly faithful So then not to a Church as Vniversal or particular as Visible or invisible but as essentially a Church which a particular Church may be And the former replies also will serve unto what the other Authors urge from such like Scriptures and places as 1. M. Hudson from Act. 8. 3. Saul made havock of the Church Gal. 1. 13. I persecuted the Church 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence to the Church of God 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. That thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the Church of God Also when it is called the Kingdom of God a Barne a Draw-net a Marriage and because 1. Cor. 12. the Church is said to be one Body and one Woman Apoc. 12. one sheepfold John 10. one Dove Cant. 2. 2. All which and other places wherein the word Church is used are to be understood as hath been evidenced either of the Church in respect of the nature and essence of it as all beleevers and Churches have the same kind of Faith Doctrine c. or else as one mystical and invisible body of Christ but doth not at all insinuate much lesse prove that they are all one external and visible Corporation 3. M. Noyes who useth the same places of Scripture as the other as also Apoc. 11. 1 2 3. the Church is described as one City one new Jerusalem c. Answ. That place is taken by great Expositors to signifie such a state as is not yet in being what it will be when that shall exist is uncertain Secondly We grant it to be one City and Kingdome as a mysticall body 1. In respect of Christ the head 2. In regard that all Churches in their severall places walke by the same Laws c. i. e. as essentially agreeing together but not visibly governing as one body 4. The London Ministers part 1. pag. 3. who urge the forenamed place 1 Cor. 12. and that the Apostle maketh the whole Church but one Organical body a contradiction to their assertion Praefat. p. 11. That the Church is a similar body which overthrows their present Tenent for in a similar body all the parts together have no more internal power then single as in drops of water single Corporations as single though united in place So part 2. p. 66. where also they say that Eph. 4. 4. Christ is considered mystically not personally and if mystically not visibly Answ. First The Apostles scope and then the supposition he goes on are to be eyed The scope is to exhort to humility in great gifts to contentednesse in mean gifts and to love and edification by all gifts The supposition he grounds his Argument on is the relation wherein believers stand viz. of members of one and the same body sâ—il of Christ mystically considered as the Ministers speak but he neither expresseth nor implyeth the visibility of this body or the outward onenesse of it if he mean the Catholick and not the particular Church of Corinth 5. Lastly The Reverend Assembly who in the places above mentioned quote Eph. 4. 3. c. To which Answer hath been given above and may again when we come particulary to reply unto them And thus much in answer to the first Argument of Apollonius and others drawn from expressions that speake of the Church as one one body house Kingdome family sheepfold which is indeed the Achileum or Fort Royall in this Garison and which if I be not greatly overseene hath been by the former weapons out of Christs Armory absolutely taken and demolished The second Argument followes which is There is certaine Societie and Ecclesiasticall communion by divine institution and therefore a certain universall body for there is a certain internall fellowship and obligation to mutuall offices Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. which doth require an externall and outward Society and Commuion Ecclesiasticall in exhorting reproving comforting edifying one another and that fellowship which the members of a particular Church retain among themselves in a due proportion Churches Provinciall and Nationall ought to keep by which communion Ecclesiasticall all Nationall Churches do grow up to one Vniversall Ecclesiasticall body Ans. This reason no way concludes the intended proposition I willingly grant there is a mutuall fellowship and spirituall communion which also requires an outward communion in many respects and particularly in those named by this Author viz. exhortation reproof c. And indeed this was all the combination that was in the most Primitive Churches and such inward and outward communion there is to bee betwixt all good men friends brethren nations c. But this argues not that therefore they must be one body in point of Government Neighbour Nations are to retain this inward communion and outward so farre as may make for mutuall good and there may bee a society or league betwixt them as betwixt Solomon and the King of Aegypt betwixt Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre So men of the same trade and profession in regard of the same art have an internall communion together and this requires some outward communion also as occasion serves but it no way concludes that therefore they must needs be one body or Corporation Suppose some dwell at London some at Yorke some in England and some in France 2. It is also granted that the same Vnion that the members of a Church have one with another the same have the severall Churches among themselves IN A DVE PROPORTION which are the words of the Author but this proportion is not IDENTITIE or samenesse of Relation that is it is not so neer a relation nor gives that power that the former relation doth As the same relation that the members of a Family have one unto another the same in a due proportion have particular families one to another but no man will say that what the members of a family especially some of them may doe one to another the same may a Corpoporation of Families do among themselves there is some neernesse but not altogether the same And this also is sufficient for the second Argument I shall meet with it again anon in the first Argument of the Reverend Assembly The Third There were certaine meetings in the New Testament which did represent the whole Church and wherein the businesse of the whole Church was transacted to wit the calling of an Apostle which was a part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and there were the Pastors of the universal Church for they were sent unto all the world Matth. 21. 19. and therewere the brethren out of Galilee and Jerusalem Answ. 1. I deny with the Protestant Divines against the Papists that there is any Representative Church properly so called or that this was one it was onely at present a Particular Congregation whereof the Apostles were members though principall ones but not
yet actually instituted Officers neither of this or the whole Church which appears vers 4. 8. Tarry ye saith he in Jerusalem till you have received power from on high But it was indeed that first Church from whence all Churches were to be produced and the Apostles especially and the rest of these members were those who were severally or joyntly to plant those Churches for some members of this Church did plant other Churches and not the Apostles onely as is expressed chap 8. as one man that is father by generation of many Families neither is an universal man nor doth ever represent them neither is he the Governour alwaies of them but for a certain time onely 2. If it were the Representative of the universal Church because the Apostles the universal Officers were there yet it was their priviledge as was shewed above to be the universal Officers and that severally so that though the Churches were one body under one number of Officers then yet they having no successors in the latitude of their power the Church now becomes many else you may as well conclude that all the world must still be one under one sort of Governours because it was so in the time of Adam and Noah 3. This act declares very small power in the Apostles or universal Church for they could not make an universal Officer whereas every particular Church can make its particular Officers and this shews there was then no Catholick government properly such but that was reserved to Christ alone 4. If it conclude it argues that the Catholick Church is formally to chuse its Catholick Officers for so they did and to come together for that purpose 5. It puts the brethren into great liberty and priviledge for they choose and the Apostles onely put them upon the work and prayed over it But to avoid this else-where labour is used to prove that here were onely the Apostles or Elders in this election quid non mortalia pectora cogis Regni sacra fames The second Argument there is that the businesse of the universal Church was transacted scil. the election of an Apostle Answ. Adam did represent all mankinde and transacted the affairs and businesse of the universal Catholick world both before and after his fall so likewise Noah and his family after the flood Gen. 8. doth it therefore follow that the whole world should be but one Kingdom or Corporation It is usual for Kingdoms to send out Colonies into forraigne parts and to give them power to become Common-wealths of themselves without dependence unlesse voluntary upon that Kingdom from whence they had their Original as New-England So fathers of Families yeild their sons an entire governement in their owne families without necessarily engageing them to the families of their brethren further then mutuall love and relations shall require But before the Colonies be sent out the Nation from whence they arise doth represent and transact the businesse both of themselves and of all those Colonies and the father of the Families both represents and transacts the businesse of the Families that spring from him yet are both the one and other afterward without any absolute and necessary dependence either upon the one or other So in the matter of Christs Church The Church of Jerusalem was as it were the mother to the rest The Apostles c. spiritual fathers who represented and transacted the affairs of all Churches that should flow from that but so that when such Churches came to be planted they shewed by their practise that the Apostles had instated them in entyre power without any necessary dependence on other Churches whether single or combined as is evident out of the first and second chapters of the Revelation noted before and other places 3. The third particular is of little moment for the brethren that are called Galileans vers. 11. were so by countrey but now were by habitation and dwelling in all probability of Hierusalem And howsoever the thing is not much material seeing there was then no other Church or societie of Christians visible but that at Hierusalem Besides the former answers take off this also And thus the first scripture viz. from Act. 1. is answered The second followes out of Act. 15. 22. Where that Assembly of Apostles Elders and Brethren which by ordinary power prescribed Ecclesiasticall Cannons and decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles and by authority imposed them on them this Assembly is called the Church but to doe so could not bee in the power of any Provinciall or Nationall Assembly much lesse of a Congregationall but it is the Act of the Catholique Church which therefore this Assembly represented Answ 1. The former answers touching the prerogative of the Apostles and of the mother Church are equally applyable to this also 2. It is not called The Church indefinitely but with reference to THAT PLACE scil. of Hierusalem as by the context appeares for vers. 22. 'T is said It seems good to the Church to send chosen men of their OWN company but the whole Assembly as constituted of the Church of Hierusalem and the messengers of Antioch c. is not called the Church 3. It was not then the representative of the Catholick Church as it was in the first chapter there beeing now other Churches planted which were not there by their messengers Neither was the Colledge of the Apostles there the standing and supreme Court of the Catholick Church to which all Churches were to appeale and to whose judgement they were to stand but every one of the Apostles in the Churches they planted For Paul as he went not up to Hierusalem himselfe at first as was noted above and therefore could not teach the Churches any such duty of necessity binding them so neither did he now either himselfe or others therefore go up from Antioch to Hierusalem as if he had not plenary and full power to have determined the controversie but for satisfaction of the Brethren who either were told by those that came from Hierusalem as it seems by what the Apostles wrote in their letter vers. 24. to whom we gave no such commandement implying that those persons had given out that they had such command from the Apostles or else they desired the mind of the other Apostles also for further confirmation Therefore doth Paul goe up Also in divers of his Epistles hee joynes Timothy Sylvanus and Sosthenes c. with himself yea and all the Brethren Gal. 1. 1. as here the Apostles joyned the Elders and Brethren yet these examples doe not argue that the Apostle or the Apostles had not absolute power of themselves to have determined the controversie 4. It is denyed that this Assembly did act by an ordinary power for if the Apostles presence made not the Assembly extraordinary then was it but an ordinary and particular Church or two or three partcular Churches at the most there being many other Churches then planted who had no Elders there
one particular visible Church so all particular Churches by this association make but one Catholick visible Church Ministerial and Governing of right all the rest Answ God and Christ have disposed and ordered the Government of the World and the Church according to the severall conditions whereinto the providence of the one and the other hath determined to bring them When wee are Children God hath appointed one kinde of government for us viz. to be under tutors and governours until the time of age and then we are not so when afterward a man is disposed in marriage though he have a relation to his Parent yet not a necessary dependence on him in point of government So whilst a Family is but one it is gouerned as one body by one or more Parents of Officers who in point of government are one single body but as was said if this Family multiply beyond the bounds of that first house they are not now still to be fancyed to be but one Catholick Family to be governed in common Take for instance the Family of Adam or Noah The whole world was but then one Family and governed by one man c. shall we need to repeat the absurdity of the consequence if therefore we should conclude that the severall Kingdoms and Nations are not therefore to act as Independent Corporations but as parts of the body Politick of the World which is Gods kingdom general And yet there is a relation betwixt all societies of men as men by vertue whereof they are all to regard the common good of mankinde c. In like manner doth Christ in his Church when beleevers are babes he would have them the more absolutely to subject themselves to their spiritual Parents when growne up they have a greater freedom and are to be otherwise governed the Apostle bids Timothy not to rebuke an Elder but to intreat them as Fathers c. So when the whole Church was but one company they were governed as such and by one company of Officers that had charge over them all and every one particularly according to their several offices As the Pastors to teach every one the Rulers to watch over every one the Deacons to provide for every one c. But this Family of the second Adam and second Noah as Peter implies him to be spreading into many particular Families and Nations the Scripture never I say never represents them as one visible body in respect of their outward Association and Government but still speaks of them as many the Churches of Judea which yet under the Legal government was but one the Church Act. 7. pray why this difference of speech but to confute this onenesse visible of all Churches When they are called the Church it reflects upon them as one in Faith Spirit kind of worship and Government as the place alledged Eph. 4. 1. plainly expresses And yet I denie not that these particular Churches are to have a regard to the common good of all Churches and not to act as if they were in relation to none but themselves and for this end also it is convenient and sometimes necessary if it may be done to associate with other Churches for mutual assistance and to meet in Synods and Councels together as did the Church of Antioch and Jerusalem and the Churches in the Primitive times The kingdom of England and so other Nations are bound in some cases to associate with other Kingdoms and are actually associated with them as also was Solomon with the king of Aegypt and Hiram king of Tyre but is England not to act as an Independent Kingdom from France Spain Scotland or the Kingdom of Israel or Independent saving the Articles of Association for all * that They add in the same place as a prevention of an objection That as the mutual consent of particular men and families orderly into Churches gives them Power and Authority Ecclesiasticall one over another without destroying the liberty of such persons and families but helping of it so also in this association of Churches their mutuall consent orderly regulated gives them a sufficient call for their Elders to exercise their power of Elders over the Congregations in common without impeaching the liberties c. But 1. This similitude doth not truely represent these Brethrens opinion who hold that the Catholicke visible Church is before any particular Church and is the first subject of all Church Power and the mother out of which particular Churches spring whereas this similitude makes the particular Churches to exist First as mothers to the universall this being according to their expression now nothing else but a collection or aggregation of them Secondly This seems inconsistent with the former reasoning for if by Divine Right all particular Churches are but one universall and generall Church or Corporation and all particular men and families by Gods appointment are to associate with some particular Church then have the Churches right to this common government not from any consent but from Gods institution whether the members or persons consent or consent not yea and hence is it that Churches and Presbyteries may by our brethrens principles bee excommunicated for we may suppose some Churches will not consent to such associations Objection If it bee said This consent grounds the relation to this or that particular Church with which they shall associate I reply that this removes not the objection for in generall they are ingaged unto subjection to the universall Church and the particular Church to which they joyne is but a necessary condition that they may the better bee under the universall discipline 3. The case is not the same betwixt particular persons and Families joyning into some particular Congregation and the association of several Churches into one body much lesse of all into one generall Common-wealth For the former instance plainly confutes it A man or family is ordinarily bound to be of some Kingdom Common-wealth or State but it doth not therefore follow that all States or Kingdoms must needs be associated together into one general Common-wealth neither is the reason the same For a whole Kingdom State or Society is better able to defend it self against injuries and to accomodate it self with necessaries than a particular person or Familie and what is wanting may be sufficiently supplyed by meer Voluntary Arbitrary and Temporary Association in a Common-wealth which in a Family or Person is not so 4. It must not be said by rational men that 1. All men are bound to associate and so all Churches 2. They being associated are to be governed by others which are more then themselves and yet their liberty is not diminished but strengthned if the Reverend Assembly shall say that their security and safety may possibly bee thereby strengthened it might in some cases be admitted But surely as the liberty of a particular man or family is not the same before he is bound to others and afterward though his
safety may be the more so here 5. How are we slidden from one Integral entire body flowing from one Church at Jerusalem c. to a body made up of voluntary Associations The Kingdom of England is one entyre Common-wealth or body corporate of it selfe intrinsecally politically the Vnited Provinces are one by aggregations and voluntary Association But these two Reipublicks do greatly differ now the Church general is asserted by the Reverend Assembly to be one Common-wealth and Body corporate to whom as one yea and as first before all particular Churches The Officers Ordinances and Governement of the Church is concredited and committed Of like incompossibility is what is there added for illustration sake viz. That this joyneing is such as proceeds Ex charitate ex debito mutuae societatis colendae as is betweene Friends and Equalls Non ex debito inferioris conditionis ad praestandum obsequium As betwixt Masters and servants For what is this but Verba dare rem auferre The Honourable Houses of Parliament and Assembly of Divines Kingdome and Churches of England take their liberty now to reforme the State and Church as they judge agreeable to Law Reason and Religion This opinion by consequence makes this Kingdome but a Depending Member of the Vniversall Monarchy of the World and doth expresly affirme the Church or Churches in this Nation to act but as such in respect of the Vniversal Church Whence it inevitably and evidently follows that they ought to be in actuall association with all the rest of the Nations and Churches of the World these being an hundred times more in number have power at pleasure to over-vote them and to governe them and yet must the Parliament Assembly the Nation and Churches of this Kingdome even when actually so overborne perhaps against their minde and wills fancie and coneit themselves as free and enjoying as much liberty as now they do May wee not ascend by a predicamentall Ladder Classibus Vniversalium Kek. must it bee by a Transcendent even to Reason it self Another confirmation of this third Argument is taken from the Light of Nature which requires say these Reverend Gentlemen that the meanes for the edification of Particular Christians should be as applyable to whole companies of them unlesse Gods word hath some where forbidden it To which I return 1. That this Light of Nature should not be too much urged for it will plead hard for Episcopacie and a Pope {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will bussle shrewdly here 2. That the method of the Light of Nature is to follow the Scriptures in matters of Christian Religion and not to move in them where the Scriptures stand still and are silent hence I note in the ranging of the Arguments of the Ministers of London in their divine right of the Presbyterie that they place the light of Nature first which though they do as intending it for the lowest step yet it is not justifiable to make it any at all in the things of Christ but where it hath some precedent hint from Scripture 3. The light of Nature I have shown before doth make a difference betwixt the necessity of associating of particular persons and of Common-wealths such as the Church is said to be and differenceth also the associations of the one and the other making the former a necessary onenesse and singlenesse of Corporation and Government but the other meerly an arbitrary and temporary friendship 4. The Scripture hath more to forbid all Churches to associate into one body Vniversal Politick then it hath that particular Churches should be entire body Politicks or Corporations of themselves seeing there is often expresse mention of particular visible governing Churches but none expresly of an universal one 5. I retort the way of reasoning the light of Nature teaches there is not the same reason betwixt particular persons and Common-wealths in this particular and therefore not to bee made all one unlesse the Scripture had commanded it The last particular which may seem to be though not brought here by them for that end a confirmation of this Tenet is by occasion alledged in page 61. from the parallel of the Church of Christ with the Church of the Iews to whom the whole Tribe of Levi was given as their Ministry 1. As to one body together when in the Wildernesse 2. To them as one body fixed and dispersed in Canaan This is replyed to before I repeat now That these being and living together in one small Territory and meeting all the Males three times a yeer in one place Jerusalem at one meeting house the Temple doth not argue the Church scattered throughout the World to be therefore one no more then because one Kingdom may be one Common-wealth and have Officers in common therefore all Kingdoms must be one 2. Besides this instance engages all the Churches to meet at some one place to have one chief Governour besides the Elders in common with such other inconveniences as are usually urged against this parallel We have done with the Arguments one passage or two I shall animadvert upon and with due respect take my leave Whilest they endeavour to maintain That it is not left free but is a duty of every Congregation to associate with others They say All are enjoyned to be of some Congregation but when they joyn to this rather then to that the mutual consent between them and the Congregation with whom they joyn is that which immediately gives them that special relation one to another c. From which I note That here is implyed a liberty in particular Christians to joyn to such Churches as they shall see cause If this be so how is it that the violation of Parochial limits is so insisted on though oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification c. and those who keep not unto their Parishes presented and persecuted and those ministers that admit Christians of other Parishes resented as the destroyers of particular Congregations and such who novo inaudito exemplo gather Churches out of Churches Now it will not salve to say 1. That at the first constitution of Parishes there was such voluntary consent seeing 1. Which Parishes did so doth not appear And secondly In many 't is evident they were cast into parishes by those who were lords of those Mannors 3. Neither is it rationally probable that the whole Nation to one man did voluntarily receive the Gospel it self seeing fraud and force neither of which are voluntary motives were the tooles of Popery under which the conversion National was made 4. And though at first the union of such might be convenient yet afterward it may become an hinderance Yet am not I for the drawing of any Godly Able and faithful ministers people from him who is for the substance of Reformation though with many defects in lesser things Nor 2. will it be sufficient to say that when they choose to dwell in such parishes that then they consent to be
the good of the whole 2. As pride and independency are inseperable so also pride and usurpation pride and invasion of the rights of particulars under notion of a common society pride and Tyranny which hath its way paved in the Church by this notion as hath beene found by experience and 't is acknowledged by this Author in this chapter to have beene the occasion of the rising of the man of sinne viz. some of the Ancients their high doting on the unity of the visible Church 3. Some kinde of Independency may bee without pride such as was in the Apostles and is in the severall Kingdomes and free States in the world whereof New England the place of this Authours habitation is one and all kinde of it and an absolute independency is disavowed by persons of the greatest note in that way as the Apologists expresly call absolute independency as a proud and insolent title so the Elders of New-England and particularly M. * Cotton This Author therefore should either have explained himself touching Independency or else have used some other expression then that which he could not but know would be ad salviam indeed to the palate of some but ad contumeliam an addition to the pressure that others good and sober men are oppressed with But it may be the superstition of certain of the old * heathen takes at this day who in sowing some kinde of graine apprehended it would grow the better if it were done with reviling and reproaching each other I would willingly hope that example of Tertullian is so well known to Mr Noyes that no provocation from the Church should excite him to satisfie himself upon it Injuriae parentum ferendae sunt Argum. 9. The Covenant or profession of all Israel together was to walk before the Lord And converts in the Primitive Church promised to walk with all Saints in all the Ordinances The Church is one Citie having many gates or particular Churches by any gate or Church entrance is had into the whole Church c. Answ. 1. There must be difference made betwixt the state of the Jewish and Christian Church because they were joyntly One Common-wealth and one PARTICVLAR Congregation and not the universal Church unlesse by accident in as much as there was then no other visible Church except as we said before we follow those who hold that Iethro Iob c. lived in those times and were particular Churches 2. Whether the Covenant in the Primitive time ran in such a forme doth not appear to me but for the sense of it it may be admitted according to what hath been often said men are ingaged and may promise to do the duties of their relations to those to whom they have any tye and so in that respect are one with them and yet it followeth not that this body is a visible body or Corporation it may be a mystical one or it may be visible in some respect and not in point of Government or yet the government may be visible in several parts but not as one in the whole All the Apostles were engaged to assist one another yet did they not depend one on another in point of Government as after I had said this above I found M. Cotton to have taught it before whom then I had not read All men are bound to offices to all men Do good to all men saith the Apostle are therefore all men one visible corporation or body politick 3. By one Church we are let into all Churches in respect of their essential being Rights and common priviledges mystical union c. not in respect of particular jurisdiction A man that is borne of one Parent is let into the whole society of men and all common Prerogatives but not into the Rights of each Citie c. His 10. and last Argument It is generally supposed that all Churches have power to act together and to expect power of Jurisdiction in a general councel Calvin is expresse Inst. l. 4. c. 8. and 9. therefore the Church is one visible body else it could not so act Operari sequitur esse Answ. 1. It hath been granted that a company in some sense may be a visible body or Corporation in respect of some more common and lesser acts but not properly so and in respect of the parts of Government and Jurisdiction properly so called 2. The acting of a general Councel yea though it were to the highest points of Jurisdiction as Ordination and excommunication may proceed on our grounds and not on the visible and integral onenesse of all Churches into a Corporation for it may proceed on the ground of Voluntary association and communion of Churches whereby all particular Churches are willing to unite freely and not of necessity their power and to act for the use of their particular bodies and in order to the whole but not as being one incorporated Reipublick nor as having any new or properly larger power being met as such a body but onely by accident as being aggregated and collected together After which manner was the first Presbyterian Church erected viz. at Geneva the several congregations uniting voluntarily as so many distinct bodies into one aggregated body And as the Kingdom of England and Scotland and some free Cities in Germany upper and lower act together which neither makes a new or greater power in the assembled or general body nor destroyes the entire power of the particular societies in which sense our opinion would admit of the power of a general Councel but I cannot owne it because it is partly groundlesse in Scripture partly impossible and partly dangerous in the thing it self as hath been observed above 3. Not all acting together nor all acts that in some sense may be said to be acts of power doth imply an onenesse of Corporation or jurisdiction properly so called I have shewed before that a Colledge of Physicians may meet to consult and give advice in point of health which they have power by their profession and by the Lawes to do and the patient is obliged by the lawes of Nature prudence and conscience unlesse there appear a sufficient impediment but this neither argueth that all these Physicians are of one Colledge yea or Kingdom nor that they have power to constrain the Patient to obey Calvin in the very chapters quoted by this Author he laies down ground for the overthrow of this opinion as where he teacheth That as the writings of men though godly so neither the authority either of particular Churches or of the whole Church in general is such as was the authority of the Apostles for they may not establish any new Article of Faith c. And also answers divers of the Arguments of this Author and the other by affirming that the promises of not leaving the Church of guiding it in all truth c. and so we might add all the other almost before mentioned are made NO LESSE