CHAPTER I. The Explication of the Tearms.

FOR the handling of this Question, here are these four tearms to be opened. First, What is meant by Ecclesia, or Church? Secondly, What by vi­sibilis, or visible? Thirdly, What is meant by universalis, sive oecumenica, or universal and oecumenical? Fourthly, What by prima and orta, or the first Church, and that which riseth of it or secondary?

1. First, What a Church is? SECT. 1. The word Church is taken in a civil or theological sense. In a civil sense, for a company of peo­ple summon'd, or gathered together for some civil affairs, Acts 19.39. It shall be determined in a lawfull assembly; the word in the Original is [...], a Church. Yea even the rout met together, Acts 19.41. is called Ecclesia, [...], He dismissed the assembly; or the Church, as the word is in the Original.

Secondly, In a theological sense, it signifieth a company of peo­ple that are called, or to be called and joyned together, standing in some spiritual relation to God. And so the word is taken di­versly

[Page 2]First and most properly, for the whole company of the elect, as they are opposed to the reprobates, whether Jew or Gentile: and in this sense it is taken Ephes. 5.25, 26. As Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word. So vers. 23, 27. and 32. Again Col. 1.18. His body the Church.

Interdum cum Ecclesiam nominant, eam intelligunt quae rever à est coram Deo, in quam nulli recipiantur nisi & adoptionis gra­tiâ filij Dei sunt, & spiritus sanctificatione vera Christi mem­bra. Ac tunc quidem non tantum sanctor qui in terra habitant comprehendit, sed electos omnes qui ab origine mundi fuerunt. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 7. where you may see more of this subject. Of these there are three sorts: The first are elect un­called, which are not actually the Church, but in potentiâ, and in Gods decree: the second sort are militant, warring with principalities and powers, with flesh, world, and devil, be­ing actually justified and sanctified persons; the third sort are triumphant in Heaven, having finished their course, and are now the spirits of just men made perfect: For the fourth, which the Papists make, viz. Ecclesia dormiens, in Purgatory, we ac­knowledge not.

Secondly, The word Church sometimes signifyeth more then the elect, viz. the multitude of beleevers whether truly or in shew only. So Act. 8.3. Saul made havock of the Church. Act. 12.1. Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church. Now it is certain that neither Herod nor Saul knew who were elect; but as himself expounded it, He persecuted this way unto the death. And he desired letters to Damascus, that if he found any of that way, he might binde them, Act. 9.2. So Act. 5.11. Fear came upon all the Church. Now it cannot be conceived that they were all elect that feared that judgement of God. So 1 Tim. 5.16. Let not the Church be charged with them, that it may relieve widows indeed. Now we cannot conceive that only the elect gave collection, but the whole number of professors, which yet are called the Church, In Ecclesia plurimi sunt permixti hypocritae, qui nihil Christi ha­bent, praeter titulum & speciem. Calvin Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 7.

Thirdly, The word Church is sometimes taken for the mem­bers [Page 3] of the Church, as distinct from the officers, Act. 15.22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church. And ver. 4. They were received of the Church, and of the Apo­stles and Elders. And this was before their convention in the Synod. And Act. 14.23.

Fourthly, The word Church sometimes signifyeth the Go­vernours of the Church, to whom of right it belongeth to ad­minister and dispense the censures of the Church. Matt. 18.17. If he will not hear them, tell it to the Church, i. e. the Ministerial Church, where Christ seemeth to me to speak of a Church that was in present being among the Jews, because he applies his speech to the capacity of the Jews present, Let him be to thee as an heathen and Publican, who might not have communion with Heathens, and would not with Publicans, but Christians might eat and drink with both: and the same course by analogy was to be taken by Christians when they had Churches set up, as it followeth, ver, 18, 19. Whatsoever ye shall binde on earth, &c.

Now we know that matters of complaint were not among the Jews brought unto the Assembly or body of the people, but to their Elders and Rulers. And the word Kahal, which signi­fieth Ecclesia or Church, is frequently used in the Old Testa­ment for a Court of Elders, not only Ecclesiastical, but even civil. See 1 Chron. 13.1, 2, 4. And 1 Chron. 29.1, 10, 20. And 2 Chron. 29.28, 31, 32. And 2 Chron. 30.2, 4. called Psal 82.1. The Congregation of the Gods. Compare also Num. 35.12, 24, 25. and Deut. 19.12. with Iosh. 20.4, 6. By Congregation in one place is expounded Elders in the other. Also Exod. 12.3. with v. 21. Deut. 31, 28. [...] gather me the Elders, or make a Church of Elders. The same word we finde 1 Kin, 8.1. of Solomons assembling the Elders of Israel. And 1 Chr. 28.1. of Davids assembling the Elders. The Septuagint trans­late Kahal Ecclesia or Church, by [...] Prov. 26.26. His wic­kednesse shall be shewed before the whole Congregation, [...]. Compare also Deu. 23.1, 2, 3, 8. No bastard, Ammonite, Moabite, &c. might enter into Kahal, the Congregation, which is rendred by the best Divines to be Consessus Iudicum, the Con­gregation of Iudges. For by Exo. 12.48, 49. and Num. 15.14, 15. and 9.14. and Lev. 22.18. All strangers upon circumcision were [Page 4] admitted into the Congregation of the people to offer to God as well as Israelites. Chap. 1. Demosthenes useth the word [...] pro concione maguntum, saith Pasor. It is very frequent in the Scri­pture to speak of executing of judgement and justice, and put­ting away of evil from the Congregation, indefinitely by ye and thou, as if it were spoken to the whole Congregation, which was done by the Elders and Judges only, judicially: Levit 19.15, 35. Deut. 16.19. Ier. 7.5. Amos 5.15, 24. Zach. 7.9, 16. 1 C [...]. 5.4, 7, 12.

Fifthly, The word Church is sometimes used to signifie the faithful in some one family, Philem. 2. &c. To the Church in thy house, Unlesse those families were the meeting places for the Christians that dwelt about, to enjoy the Ordinances of God in, because there were no publike meeting-houses built. And to this I confesse I incline. The second acceptation of the word Church, sutes best with this question. Sect. 2.

The second [...] to be opened is, what is meant by Visible? The Church is distinguished into visible and invisible, which yet are not two distinct Churches or species of Churches, but it is a distribution of the Subject by the Adjunct, viz. a duplici modo communion is, externo & interno. Such as have spiritual commu­nion with Christ, [...] inwardly, are said to be invisible mem­bers, which are only known to God, and not to men, having this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his. Such as have external communion in outward Ordinances [...], they are called visi­ble members, because their communion is visible and apparent. I grant the internal communion is invisible, but the external is as visible as of any civil society: and Gods Ordinances are as visibly administred, as justice at the Sessions or Assizes, and the profession of Christianity is as visible as the profession of any tratle: the general calling to be Christians by profession, is as visible as the particular calling and trade of life. The inward grace is indeed invisible, but the outward administration of the Ordinances, and communion in them, is visible, i. e. perceptible by the senses. And this external communion in the Ordinances, though it were distributively in the several places where men live (which is confessed by all) would serve my turn for this que­stion which I have in h [...]. But visible taken in the sense which [Page 5] M. Ellis takes it in, in his Vindiciae Catholicae, for that which Ʋno intuitu videtur, is seen with one view, was not my mean­ing, and therefore to expound it so, which he knows I did not, is to prevaricate, as he chargeth me, pag. 59. If visible, i. e. that which may be seen, and visum, that which is seen actually, be the same, then is not the world visible. But when we say the whole world is visible, there is required an act of the minde: we con­ceive that all countries are visible as well as our own; and if we were there we might see them. They cannot be said to be invisible, because we see them not actually. Nam visibile est quod videri potest, licet nunquam videtur. Visible is that which may be seen, though it be never actually seen. Videri potest, or may be seen, is referred to the capability of the object to be seen, not to the particular act of every agent at all times. But take visible in his sense, Quod u [...]o intuitu videri potest, as a King­dom representative in a Parliament.

Is a Parliament only visible [...]o such as do actually see it, and invisible to all others? Is it not visible because not visum? Men know it may be seen, though they see it not; though they ex­ercise their knowledge only about it, and not their senses, yet that makes it not a genus or secunda notio: It is visible, though not actually seen. Cameron de Ecclesiae conspicuitate, pag. 245. saith, the Church is visible as the world is: we cannot see the whole world together, but secundum partes, successivè, non uno ob­tutu: attamen nulla est pars terra habitabilis quae non possit cerni.

Now only the invisible company have internal spiritual com­munion, and are elect: many of those that have external com­munion and are visible members, shall perish. And yet by rea­son of their profession are said 2 Thes. 1.1. to be in God the Fa­ther, and the Lord Iesus Christ, as Ames also confesseth, Ames. med. lib. 1. cap. 32. art. 9. Such was the Church of Corinth and E­phesus, &c. wherein all were not in communion for life. And of such Christ speaketh Ioh 15. [...]. Every branch in me that bear­eth not fruit, he takes away. And vers. 6. If a man abides not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. These are said to be redeemed, 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord that bought them. And sanctified, Heb. 10.29. And hath accounted the bloud [Page 6] of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing. And in Pauls exordiums to his Epistles, To the Church of God, to them that are sanctified in Christ Iesus, called to be Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. These are called the sonnes of God, Gen. 6.2. And Deut. 14.1. It is spoken of Israel in general, ye are the children of the Lord your God. And Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Iesus. Now it is not to be conceived that all the members of the Churches in Galatia were true beleevers. They are called the children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. i. e. reputed so, but yet many of them were cast out into utter darknesse. And Act. 3.25. Ye are the children of the Covenant which God made with our fathers.

Their advantage by being of the visible body was great every manner of way, Rom. 3.1, 2. To them pertained the adoption, Rom. 9.4. and the glory, and the Covenant, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises. Which adop­tion is not internal adoption (proper only to true beleevers) for it is a priviledge belonging to the body of that people; but it is the honour of being separated and reputed the children of God, and so to live under the external Covenant and service of God, and promises, though they had not grace to improve them. They are called Ro. 11.17. branches of the true olive, par­taking of the root and fatnesse of the Olive, which were broken off, and others ingraffed in their room, which cannot be meant of the invisible company of elect, but the visible Church. God did not blot some out of his book of election, and put others in; or break off any true beleevers, and graff others in, but only out of their visible Church, standing, and partaking in outward Ordi­nances.

Object. But is not this absurd that Christ should have wicked men, who are limbs of Satan, to be of his mystical body? Car­nal wicked men to be members of such a gracious, glorious head?

Answ. If by mystical body be meant the company of elect, faithful ones, that are knit to Christ by the Spirit on his part, and by faith on their part, and receive spiritual sap and vertue, and grace from Christ internally; it were altogether absurd to suppose any limb of Satan were so: but mystical body is taken in opposition to a natural and civil body. Now draw a word [Page 7] (as suppose head) from its natural and proper signification to a civil use, and head will signifie a King, who is called a civil head, and then draw it to a theological use, and it is called a my­stical use of that word, and so Christ is called a spiritual or my­stical head, and the Church a mystical body. And in this sense mystical and organical are competible, for both visible and in­visible members may be said to be of the mystical body of Christ, though in a different respect in regard of their communion, the one visibly only, the other not only v [...]sibly but also invisibly. And in this sense M. Cotton in his Catechism cals a particular Church a mystical body of Christ, wherein all are not of the in­visible company. And as the body admits of such a distin­ction, so doth the head also, for Christ affordeth spiritu­al communion to some inwardly, as well as outwardly by Or­dinances, even saving graces and comforts by the Spirit of grace; to others only outwardly by Ordinances, and by common works of his Spirit. In the same sense that a visible Church may be called a mystical body of Christ, Christ may also be called a mystical head thereof. As Christ terms himself a Master, so he hath evil, slothful, unfaithful servants and stewards: as a King, he hath rebels that will not have him to rule over them, even in his Church, Mat. 25.26. Luk. 19.14. as a shepherd he hath goats as well as sheep: Mat. 25.32. as a housholder he hath vessels of dishonour as well as honour, 2 Tim. 2.20. Mat. 25.2. as a bridegroom he hath foolish virgins as well as wise invited to the wedding▪ as a husbandman, he hath tares among his wheat, Matth. 13.25. as a fisherman, he hath rubbish in his net as well as good fish Mat. 13.47. as a vine, he hath unfruit­ful branches as well as fruitful, Joh 15.6. Christ saith, my peo­ple are foolish, they have not known me, sottish children that have no understanding, that are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge, Ier, 4.22. yea, stubborn and rebellious people. In the N.T. there were some in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. that had not the knowledge of God, denying the resur­rection, guilty of drunkennesse at the Lords table, guilty of for­nication and uncleannesse, and lasciviousnesse, and had not repent­ed. And Tit. 1.16. Paul speaks of some in the Church, that pro­fessed they knew God, but in works denied him, being abominable, [Page 8] disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. And 2 Tim. 3.5. Having a form of godlinesse, and denying the power thereof. And Phil. 3.18, 19. Enemies to the crosse of Christ, whose end is de­struction, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame, who minde earthly things. See what manner of persons Iude speaks of in 12, 13, and 16. verses. Spots in their feasts of charity, feeding themselves without fear, clouds without water, carried about with windes, trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, fom­ing out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever: murmurers, complainers, walk­ing after their own lusts, &c. Yet these were Gods people by de­dication and consecration, and God owneth them so. And is it not as absurd for Christ to have such branches as such mem­bers?

But though the Metaphor taken from the natural head and members, seem to imply such a strict union and communion as to set forth only the elect, yet we know that many of them are not called, and so in their natural condition as vile as any, and even the best on earth are but sinful men; yet as it is borrow­ed from a civil head and political body, it is no absurdity at all. For God himself is head and Governour of all the world, and thereby of devils as well as angels, beasts as well as men, wicked men as well as good, for he is the soveraign ruler over all. And Christ Eph. 1.22, is said to be head over all things to the Church his body. There is therefore a visible Ecclesiastical body, which may also in some sense be called mystical: and there is also an invisible spiritual body of the elect only, which is most properly called mystical. There are two sievs or garbles which God useth, the first is, to fift the world into a visible Ecclesiastical body, over which Christ is a mystical, political, go­verning head and ruler, and this sieve is managed by the hands of the Ministers; the second is to sift the visible Ecclesiastical body into a spiritual invisible body; and that is in Gods hand only.

Now we are to know that this distinction of visible and invi­sible is a very lame one, and the lamenesse thereof deceiveth many: For whereas all distributions should have their parts di­stinct and different, and the more opposite the members be, the [Page 9] better the distribution is; these two branches of this distinction interfier one with another, and the one comprehends the o­ther: the visible comprehend the invisible here in this world, I mean, the persons though not the notions For though indeed every visible member is not invisible, yet every invisible member in the Church is also visible. Ad Catholicam Ecclesiam visibi­lem in terris se recipere debent, quot quot invisibilis illius cives esse cupiunt. Polani Syntag. l. 7. c. 9. Invisibilis Ecclesia latet in Ec­clesia visibili ut pars in toto, frutramque consideres ut coetum vo­catorum externa vocatione, quae communis est invisibili & visibili Ecclesiae. Ibid.

They that have inward communion with Christ for life, are not taught and nourished only by an inward unction or inspi­ration, but are fain to have external communion also in the outward Ordinances of God. De Ecclesia vivorum modò agi­tur, cui Symbolum Apostolicum praescriptum est, non decoelesti. Ram. in Symb. So that this distinction is like the old distinction of Gratia gratis data, & gratia gratum facient, whereas Omnis gratia gratum faciens, est etiam gratia gratis data.

If invisible had been taken for Saints in heaven, and visible for Saints on earth, it had been a compleat distinction. Or if visible had been taken for a Church conspicuous, flourishing with liberty of Ordinances; and invisible for a Church latent, as under persecutions, and general heresies, then it had been compleat; but the terms are not used in either of those senses, and therefore the distinction halteth. So that in what is to be said we must take heed that by visible we mean not only such as are hypocrites and reprobates, but those that are also truly godly: not only such as make external profession of faith, whereby they are differenced from heathens, but such as have inward sincerity also, whereby they are differenced from hypo­crites.

The Church visible (I said) is a company of people called or separated by God from Idols to the true religion, What a Church visible is. and yeelding pro­fessed subjection to that call, which is true of the godly as well as of the hypocrites. This description is excepted against by some, because it is said to be a separation from Idols, whereas many Athiests and Jews, &c. which worship no Idols, may be con­verted, [Page 10] and therefore (say they) it had better have been said, called out of the world. But I answer, that that expression would have admitted of as much exception, for there is much of the world in the Church. I pray not for the world, saith Christ, Ioh. 17.9. which was meant of the reprobate Jews, which yet were in the visible Church. If I had made a description of the invisible Church, it had been right to have said called out of the world, but speaking of the visible Church, Idols are the most proper contradistinct term to the living God, and Idolatry that which onely causeth a divorce between God and a visible Church; and obstinate prophanenesse, which is opposite to the professed subjection, mentioned in the description. And though some converted should have been Jews or Athiests, &c. that never were Idolaters, yet my description takes them in, for I mean a separation or call both privatively and negatively, priatively, if they have been Idolaters, negatively, though they never were, i. e. there must be a disclaiming of Idols nega­tively, though there never were a positive worshipping of them. As if a neuter who never struck in of any side, shall side with one opposite, there must be a disclaiming of the other oppo­site.

An Objection much to this purpose, reverend M. Norton hath, In Respons. ad totum Quaestionum Syllogem. p. 115. where­by he would inferre. That a Synod is not a Church; his words are these, N [...]s [...] catus cujus membrorum vocatio non habet [...]mundum terminum immediatum a [...]p [...]o, & Christum terminum im­mediatum ad quem, habet sanctè vocatos pro proximâ materiâ. At omnis Synodus est talis [...] cujus membrorum vocatio non habet terminum i [...]e [...]tum a quo, &c. Materia Synodi sunt pij & do­cti viri, membrae Ecclesiae. But with due respect unto him, I conceive, he little considered how much this argument strikes at all the Churches in New-England, which are made up of members, not immediatly called out of the world, but of members of our Churches in Old England, and by Gods Mi­nisters here converted, and sealed with the seal of the Cove­nant.

A second exception against it is, Because a Church may be a Church, though they fall to some Idolatry, as the ten Tribes [Page 11] were owned by God as his people though Idolaters.

I answer, there were 7000. in Israel in the worst times, that lived latent among the Idolaters, who never bowed the knee to Baal, nor kissed him, and God might own the people for their sakes, being the better part, though the lesse. Secondly, though God doth not divorce a Church for all Idolatry, yet they de­serve it. And at last came forth the sentence of Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah against the ten Tribes for it, Hos. 1.6.9. Thirdly, I answer, it may be verè Ecclesia (as is said of the Church of Rome by some) but not vera & pura: and it was needful for me, as near as I could, to give a description of a true Church. But I will not contend with any about this description, you may take a more comprehensive description. A visible Church may be described to be a company of those that own or do professe the doctrine of Christ. Or such as professe the true Religion.

The third term to be opened is, Sect. 3. Catholike, universal or Oecu­menical. The word Catholike is frequently given to such Church­es as hold the true doctrine of the Apostles, and in that sense it is the same with Apostolical, as it is opposed to heretical, and so we finde it frequently used in Eusebius, Socrates and S [...]zo­men. So Damasus is called Bishop of the Catholike Church at Rome, and Aurelius of the Catholike Church at Carthage, and Callinicus of the Catholike Church at Peleusium. And the Councel of Nice cals the Bishops of the Orthodox Churches, Bishops of the Catholike and Apostolical Church. And in that sense I suppose M. Ellis intends it in the title of his book which he cals Vindiciae Catholicae, a found or Orthodox vindication. For if he means by it A general vindication against all that as­sert a Church-Catholike visible, he is mistaken therein also; for M. Rutherford hath written professedly of my question in both the branches of it, that there is a Church-Catholike visible, and that it is the prime Church: though I confesse I knew not of it when I printed my Thesis. But this signification doth not fully comprehend my meaning of the word. Secondly, Catholike is taken for an office in the Church, next under a Patriarch, that was as his Vicar general, and is called in Latine Rationalis: See Salmas. de primat. Pap. p 21 [...]. Thirdly, Catholike, univer­sal or general is taken for a logical second notion, abstracted by [Page 12] the minde of man comprehending divers different species under it. Fourthly, It is taken in the same sense that we use to take Oecumenical, that which is or may be all over the world. The first and last sense are only pertinent to this Question, viz. the Orthodox Church over all the earth, and especially this latter, and therefore now I have inserted the word Oecumenical into the question.

And in both these senses Augustine takes it, who saith, the Church is called Catholike, Quia universaliter perfecta est, & in nullo claudicat, & per totum orbem diffusa est. Aug. de Gen. ad l [...]t. cap. 1.

We are to know that the Church of God admits of several distinctions from several accidents. As in reference to the times wherein the Church hath existed, or doth exist, it is distributed into the Church under the Old Testament, and the Church under the New; And this again is distributed into the primitive and successive: So in regard of the places where the Church doth exist, or persons of whom it consisteth, it receiveth the distin­ction of universal and particular. Now in this question, univer­sal is meant principally in regard of persons and places, and not in regard of time. The Church Catholike existing on earth at the same time, is compared with particular Churches existing at the same time also.

What the uni­versal visible Church is. The Ʋniversal visible Church, is the whole company of vi­sible beleevers throughout the whole world. Now where­as M. Ellis vind. p. 52. saith, this definition of the Church Catholike reacheth not the subject of my question, but contains what is of all hands confessed. I answer, I aimed at no more in the first part of my question, but to prove that there is a Church Catholike visible, which he saith is of all hands confessed, and then I have as much as I desi­red, namely, the subject of my question granted. But I will fur­ther adde that which M. Ellis thinketh wanting to make it per­tinent to this question, viz. That this company is one visible Kingdom of Christ on earth. The Evangelical Church, which is so often called by Christ, the Kingdom of heaven, several men give several descriptions thereof. I shall set down some of their sentences.

[Page 13] ‘Ecclesia Dei vivi est columna & firmamentum veritatis, toto orbe terrarum diff [...]sa, pr [...]pter Evangelium quod praedica­tur, sicut dicit Apostolus, in omni creatura quae sub coelo est. Aug.’

‘Sancta Ecclesia nos sumus, sed non sic dico nos, quasi ecce qui hic sumus, qui me modo auditis, sed quot quot sunt Christiani fi­deles in universo terrarunt orbe, quoniam a solis ortu us (que) ad occa­sum laudatur nomen Domini. Sic se habet Ecclesia Catholica mater nostra, Aug. Serm. 99. Adhuc habet Ecclesia quo crescat donec illud impleatur, Dominabitur a mari us (que) ad mare. Aug. in Matth.’

‘Dissemina [...]a est Ecclesia super omnem terram. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 11.’

‘Non altera Romana urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis aestimanda, Gallia & Bithinia, & Persis, & Oriens, & India, & omnes barbarae ge [...]tes, nationes, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si autho­ritas quaeritur, Orbis major est urbe. Jerom. ad Evan­ [...]r.’

‘Distincti per Orbem Ecclesiarum conventus, unam Catholicam faciunt Ecclesiam. Beda in 1 Pet. 2.’

‘Catholica Ecclesia est illa quae diffusa est per universum orbem. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 18.’

‘Quum unus sit Deus, una fides, unus Dei & hominum me­diator Jesus Christus, unicum Ecclesiae caput, consequitur necessariò unam quo (que) esse Ecclesiam. Bezae conf. fid. cap. 5. art. 2.’

‘Saepe Ecclesiae nomine universam hominum multitudinem in orbe diffusam designamus, quae unum se Deum & Christum co­lere profitetur. Calv. Iustit l. 4. c. 1. s. 7.’

‘Est Congregatio omnium per orbem universum qui consenti­fide Evangelica. Bulling.’

‘Est caetus hominum Christum, suum regem, sacerdotem, & prophetum profitentium. Keckerm.’

‘In novo Testamento, vocamus Ecclesiam pro omnibus qui Christo nomen dederunt. Zuingl.’

‘Ʋniversa multitudo Christianorum quae se fidelem censet, simul num fidelis populus, una Ecclesia dicitur. Idem.’

[Page 14] ‘Ecclesia significat totam illam omnium multitudinem qua generatim ex vocatione, & professione externa astimatur. Trelc.’

‘Ecclesia Catholica ex hominibus unius temporis, est Caetus eorum omnium, qui doctrinam Evangelij de Jesu Christo in carne jam manifestato per universum mundum profitentur. Dicitur [...], Heb. 2.5. i. e. mundus ille futurus, quem prae­dixerant prophetae, & priore adventu Christi inchoatus, &c. Po­lani Syntag. l. 7. c. 7.’

‘Statuimus Ecclesiam quandam vniversalem externam per totum orbem dispersam, nobis in sacris literis describi, quae vi­sibili quadam politia unicum Ecclesiasticum Organicum corpus constituit, sub quo omnes Ecclesiae particulares Classicales, Pro­vinciales & Nationales tanquam partes totius continentur. A­pollon. p. 29.’

‘Ʋbicun (que) & quandocun (que) fuerint homines Apostolicâ fide in­formati, Christianam Electorum rem-publicam constituunt, eti­am fi dispersi in omnes orbis partes. Sic Antoninus Philosophus civem Romanum dixit esse, quicun (que) Romanis legibus viveret. Ita quicunque Christiani [...] legibus moribus (que) vivis, ubicun (que) sit nihil interest, civis est Christianus, & ad publicum de regendâ civitate Dei consilium adhibendus, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae disciplina Ca­tholica sit. Ram de Eccles.’

Against these testimonies M. E. saith pag. 5. that I bring the description of the visible Church out of several Authours, none of which, except Apollonius and Ramus, take it in my sense.

Ans. They all imply a Church Catholike, and that to be vi­sible, and this Church Catholike visible, to be one, which is all I brought them for.

And whereas he seeks to blast Apollonius because he was pre-engaged, I answer, It is more then I know, he is still alive, and may answer for himself. And against Pet. Ramus he alledgeth a clause out of Beza's ep. before Aristotles Organ. But I could cite much more in his commendation out of others, but I write not to commend men, valere quantum valere potest, I am sure I have cause to blesse God for him.

Sometimes, saith Bifield, Church signifieth a company of men [Page 15] in one city or Province, that did outwardly professe the true re­ligion, 1 Cor. 11.18, 22. And so usually in the writings of Di­vines, the company throughout the world, so professing, is cal­led the visible Church, Bifield. on Art. 9.

Catholike in the most evident sense agreeth to the Church now under the Gospel, since the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, and yet in some sense it may agree to the Church from the beginning. Idem.

For particular Churches, either single or combined, either National, Provincial, Classical, or Congregational, it is not belong­ing to this question to discusse the Queries about them; and therefore I shall only set down some descriptions of them posi­tively, as they are usually taken by others, and give you my pre­sent apprehensions of them.

A National Church is where all the visible, publike, What a Natio­nal Church is. religious Assemblies of a Nation, being parts of the Church Catholike, li­ving under one politick, civil government, are by the profossion of the same faith, and communion in the same worship and govern­ment, united into one body Ecclesiastick, or Ecclesiastical Re-pub­like. Two things (as I conceive) are required to make a Na­tional Church. First, National agreement in the same faith and worship. Secondly, National union in one Ecclesiastical body, in the same community of Ecclesiastical government. The Churches in Foance and the Netherlands have the same faith and worship, and kinde of government, but they are not in the same National community thereof. See Apollonius consid. cap. 3. Assert. 2. ‘Asserimus Ecclesiam visibilem in sacra Scriptura de­scriptam, non tantum fuisse Parochialem seu particularem, sed esse etiam Ecclesiam quandam Nationalem unius gentis aut reg­ni, quae constat ex diversis & multis Ecclesijs Parochialibus, uno regimine Ecclesiastico junctis, & mutuâ quadam commu­nione & societate Ecclesiasticâ visibili inter se devinctis.’ See clear proofs for National Churches under the Gospel, Isa, 55.5. Thou shalt call a Nation which thou knewest not, and Nations which knew not thee, shall run unto thee. It is spoken of Christ under the Gospel. And there is set down both Gods call of a Nation, and a Nations answer to that call. And these two things are sufficient to make a Church. Also Isa. 19.24, 25. In that day [Page 16] shall Israel be a third with Egypt, and with Assyria, even a bles­sing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall blesse, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. It is a prophecy of the times under the Gospel, where Aegypt and Assyria are pro­mised to be called in, to be Churches as well as Israel, and are preferred in order before Israel, however it is clear those three Nations are owned, and blessed by God as three sister Churches. Also Psa. 72.11, 17. All Kings shall fall down before him, all Nations shall serve him. All Nations shall call him blessed, i. e. Christ. Mat. 21.43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Rom. 10.19. I will provoke you to jealousie by them that are no people, and by a foolish Nation will I anger you, i. e. God choosing the Gentile Nations, and giving them the priviledges of the Jews, it should anger the Jews, and provoke them to jealousie, Isa. 65.1. I said, behold me, behold me, to a nation that was not called by my name. The Commission of the Apostles was to go teach and baptize all Nations (not Congregations only) i. e. some of all Nations, if they received the Christian faith; and the whole Nations, if the whole received it, Mic. 4.2. Many Nations shall come and say, Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and he will teach us his waies, and we will walk in his paths. Isa. 52.15. He shall sprinkle many Nations, i. e. with his grace, Jer. 4.2. The Nations shall blesse themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. And Rom. 4.17. Abraham is said to be a father of many Nations in a spiritual sense, as well as a carnal. In thee shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. He is said to be the father of us all, Rev. 11.15. The kingdoms of this world are be­come the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. The Ecclesiasti­cal polities in converted kingdoms, are said to be commensu­rable to the civil. Rev. 21.24. The Nations of them that are sa­ved shall walk in the light of it, i. e. of the new Jerusalem. Zac. 2.11. Many Nations shall be joyned unto the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. Whereby we see the current of the Scri­pture runs that God not only would convert Congregations out of several Nations, but the whole Nations, which also he performed, and many whole Nations joyned themselves to the [Page 17] Lord, and made Christian Kingdoms or Common-wealths, though they proceeded not from the loins of one man, as the Israelites did, which some make the ground of the National Church of the Jews: yet we know there were proselytes of all Nations that were members of that Church, and had right to all the Ordinances as well as the Israelites, and servants that came not out of Abrahams loins.

And by the same reason when a part of a National Church shall joyn in particular consociation and community in a City or Province, or Classis, they may receive denomination from thence: the one containing a greater part of the Church Ca­tholike, the other a lesse.

For the Church Catholike being a similar body retains the name Church, in what parts, parcels, or quantities soever it be divided into, for convenient community, until it be brought in minimum quod sic, as the Philosophers say, i. e. into the least parts that can enjoy publike communion in Ordinances, which is a particular Congregation. The division of the Church Ca­tholike into particular Congregations, seemeth to me to be no further of divine institution, then as it fitly serveth for order and edification, by cohabitation, for enjoyment of Gods Or­dinances together publikely (as the Jewish Church was divi­ded by Synagogues, for their constant enjoyment of word, prai­er, and discipline, which they could not constantly enjoy, as a National Church, by their National worship thrice in the year) and the same reason will by proportion carry it for Classical, Provincial, and National divisions, for community of a greater part of the Church.

Gersom Bucerus in dissert. de Gub. Eccles. p. 11. hath this de­scription of a particular Church. Nos particularem Ecclesiam intelligimus quem libet credentium caetum in unam vocationem di­vinam, Evangelij praedicatione, sacrarum (que) Institutionum obser­vatione adunatum, ac uni presbyterio subjunctum, sacros verò conventus uno aut pluribus locis agitantem. Nam paraeciarum in quibus convenitur numerus, accidentaria res est, nihil ad Eccle­sia particularis essentiam pertinens. Now this seemeth to me to be a description of a Presbyterial or Classical Church, and so not to divide the Church Catholike into any lesse parts, for the [Page 18] enjoyment of all the usual publike Ordinances, then a Presby­terial, Classical Church: and so, though it be a description of a particular Church indeed, yet not of the least particular Church.

M. Cotton a reverend Minister in N. E. in his Catechism tels us, that a visible Church is a mystical body, whereof Christ is the head, the Members, Saints, called out of the world, and united to­gether into one Congregation, by an holy Covenant, to worship the Lord, and to edifie one another in all his holy Ordinances. But (with due respect to so grave and worthy a man) much of this description seems to me to belong to an invisible Church, and not to a visible. First, because the matter thereof is the mystical body of Christ, consisting only of Saints called (not only from Idols, but) out of the world, and therefore truly godly; but much of the world is in the visible Church.

Secondly, Every Congregation, though it be in some sense of the mystical body of Christ, yet is not the, or a mysticall body of Christ, for Christ hath but one mystical body; it behooveth therefore a particular Church to be defined with reference to the rest of the body, and not to the head only, it being but a part of the body. It would seem strange to define the little toe to be a body made up of flesh, bloud and bone, of such a figure, enformed by the head, without declaring the reference of it to the rest of the body. Or a Corporation in England to be a body politick whereof the King is the head or Soveraign, without mentioning its reference to the rest of the Kingdom, whereof it is but a part, and so the King, the head or gover­nour thereof, but secondarily, it being a part of that Kingdom whereof he was Soveraign. It is true, the Apostle saith, the head of every man is Christ. 1 Cor. 11.3. i. e. they are of the body of Christ. So it may be said of every Congregation, Christ is the head thereof and that it is of his body or kingdom visible Ec­clesiastical, but then we must adde that which the Apostle doth of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 12.27. Now ye are the body of Christ, [...], i. e. members of a part, rendred in the old English Translation: Members for the part in the new, Mem­bers in particular. On which words saith Beza in his large notes [Page 19] upon the place. Nam omnes Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae, diversa sunt unius corporis membra. And the English Annotations upon the Bible, paraphrase it thus. That is, members of this Church of Corinth, which is but a part of the Catholike Christian Church: for all the faithfull wheresoever they are, make the whole body: you Corinthians are not the whole body, but members only, neither all the members, but a part only of them. Paraeus renders it partia­tim, Peter Martyr, Vosestis pars membrorum. Thirdly, I dare not make a particular explicite holy covenant to be the form of a particular Church, as this definition seemeth to do, because I finde no mention of any such Covenant, besides the general imposed on Churches, nor example or warrant for it in all the Scriptures, and therefore cannot account it an Ordinance of God, but a prudential humane device to keep the members together, which in some places and cases may haply be of good use, so it be not urged as an Ordinance of God, and so it be not used to inthral any, and abridge them of liberty of remo­val into other places and Congregations, for their convenience; or urged as the form of a Church. I deny not but mutual con­sent of persons within such a vicinity, to joyn together con­stantly in the Ordinances of God under the inspection of such and such officers, is requisite to a particular Congregation.

But it is the general preceding Covenant sealed by baptism, and not this, that makes them of the body of Christ: they must be conceived to be of the visible body of Christ, before they can be fit members to constitute a particular Congregation; neither is it this particular Covenant that giveth right to the Ordinances of God, but the general, and therefore they must be judged to have right thereto before they be admitted as members of the Congregation. Only this mutual joyn­ing together, and choice of such and such a Pastor or Teach­er or ruling Elders, giveth such Officers a call to take immedi­ate inspection over them, and administer the Ordinances of God belonging to their offices, unto them, to which they had right before their particular consociation, which is but an ac­cidentary thing, and may many waies be dissolved, and yet they not lose their right to Gods Ordinances by that dissolu­tion. Such a consent, joyning, and call of, or submitting to a [Page 20] Presbytery, giveth to those Elders right of exercising of their offices, over, or towards them, rather then over others; and to them, to expect or require the Ordinances of God from those particular Officers, rather then from others.

Fourthly, For the enjoyment of all the Ordinances of God in one Congregation, it seemeth to me very incovenient for some of the Ordinances, and altogether impossible for others. First, It is inconvenient, that a Church consisting of 7.10.20. or 30. should inflict the formidable sentence of excommunication against any person, to cast him out of communion, not only with themselves, but the whole Church-Catholike visible, and deliver him up to Satan. For if it be inflicted by the votes of the whole Congregation (as some would have it) many of the members being private men, and haply altogether illiterate and unexperienced, through want of age, education, or parts, are not able to understand the nature of the allegations and probations, they may be so intricate, or not able to apply the rule unto the [...]ase, for inflicting of a just censure; and may be in danger to bear particular favour or ill will unto their per­sons, and so apt to be swayed by love, pity or hopes from them, or to be over [...]wed by fears or threatnings, being poor men, servants, children, workmen, tenants: and therefore our brethren for Congregational Churches, have of late, see­ing this inconvenience, debarred the people from votes, and put it into the h [...]d [...] of the Elders only. See M. Cottons keys of the Church.

Yea even the Elders of one Congregation may be in danger of the same temptations, because of particular relations, and their dependance on them for maintenance. But suppose they were [...] as Angels from [...]g [...]tations or infirmities (which they are not) yet the weight masse and solemnity of the censure would require to be performed by a Colledge of Elders of a combined P [...]bytery, that so it being not passed by the votes of 3. or 4. only, but by the joint advice, consent and au­thority of a combined Presbytery, may be the more dreadful to the party, and be the better accepted and submitted unto, without be [...] burning and grudge against the particular Elders, or fears of revenge. Yet I [...] not power in the Elders of the [Page 21] particular Congregation, with the consent of the Congregation, to exercise even that sentence upon an offendor, if there be a notorious clear cause: but I speak in regard of conveniency, in respect of the Elders, or the cause, or the person on whom it is to be inflicted, who may be of civil eminency and de­gree, &c.

It is worthy of note which Zanchy saith in this case. In prae­cept. 4. p. 388. Si Ecclesia aliqua exigua sit, & non multis eru­ditis hominibus constans, non deb [...]t excommunicationem ferre, nisi vicinioribus consultis Ecclesijs. Profectò neque Chirurgus, si sit timens Dei & prudens, scindit alicui manum ant brachium, nisi audiat prius vicinorum etiam periorum medicorum judicium at (que) sententiam.

Secondly, It is impossible for one Congregation to enjoy all the Ordinances of God within themselves. First, Synods and Councels are acknowledged to be an Ordinance of God, and particularly by that reverend Divine M. Cotton himself, and he groundeth it on Act. 15. And though some of our brethren for Congregational Churches wave that place, yet grant the thing, and are members of one at this time; and this Ordinance all men will grant, cannot be had in one Congregation, but some­times requires the help of a whole Province, Kingdom, yea many Kingdoms. Yea secondly, The Ordinances that more nearly and particularly concern a particular Congregation cannot be per­formed by that alone. For how can a Congregation, of private Christians try the sufficiency of an Elder, to be elected over them, to labour in word and doctrine? and if they have a tri­ed man among them, who shall give him imposition of hands, which belongeth only unto Elders of the same kinde to per­form? Neither have our brethren of Congregational Churches (whatever their judgement is herein) ever dared (as far as I have heard) to permit private members to impose hands on their Elders, but alwaies desired Elders of other Congregati­ons to do it, and therefore they cannot have this Ordinance within themselves. And though this seemeth to some a thing of small moment, yea, but a complement, yet it is an Ordi­nance of God. The truth is, election is but a nomination of a man which they think fit to be invested with, and put into such [Page 22] an office, and to whom so invested they are willing to submit themselves in the Lord, but that giveth no power at all to exe­cute the office, nor doth it invest him with it, for that is given and done by Ordination, and imposition of hands, which they cannot give because they are but private Christians out of of­fice, and the lesse ought to be blessed of the greater. And the Apostle Heb. 6.12. reckoneth it up amongst the principles of Religion, and part of the foundation. Which place Hen. Jacob urgeth vehemently to overthrow the lawfulnesse and essence of all the Ministers of the Church of England, because (saith he) they have erred in the foundation, not having right, and due imposition of hands of the Presbytery: though by his leave, he was mistaken, for all those that imposed their hands on them, were Presbyters. But this dealing is not fair, to hold imposi­tion of hands a part of the foundation, that so they may over­throw the Ministery of the Church of England; and then make it but a complement, that they may establish their own. Now this impossibility befals a Church, either in the beginning of it, and first constitution, or may at other times by mortality of El­ders, and will be frequent, yea, constant in small Congregati­ons, where there is but one or two preaching Elders, as is the case of most, if not all Congregations.

M. Norton a reverend Minister in N. E. in his answer to Apol­lonius, hath a description of a particular Church, much like this. Ecclesia particularis, est caeius fidelium visibili vinculo mutui con­sensus politicè unitus, ad incedendum in fide & observantiâ Evan­gelij, juxta ordinem seu politiam Evangelij▪ p. 22. But I see no­thing in the description but is applicable to the Church-Catho­like. For they are the company of beleevers, and they are po­litically united together, under Christ a political head, and they are united together by a visible bond of voluntary consent to yeeld outward subjection to the government of Christ. See all these particulars yeelded by M. Hooker, Survey, p. 3. His own words I shall cite, Chap. 2. Sect. 1. And M. Norton himself, Resp. p. 50. acknowledgeth thus much, Omnes Ecclesiae uniuntur po­liticè sub eodem capite. 2. Ʋniuntur eâdem formâ Politias & cul­tus. 3. Ʋniuntur relatione sororum politicarum, & hac unione communi s [...]datur communio Ecclesiarum inter se.

[Page 23]And because it is not rationally probable that the Churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, or the seven Churches of Asia were meerly Congregational, but rather Pres­byterial, as hath been by the Reverend Assembly, the London Ministers, and divers others abundantly evidenced; it seem­eth difficult to me to finde in the New Testament an expresse Instance or example of a Congregational Church, standing and continuing so by it self. The Church of Cenchrea mentioned Rom. 16 1. is the most probable, because of the conceived smal­nesse of the place, yet it is not certain, for it was a port Town, 8. miles from Corinth, as H [...]lyoke tels us, and Gualter in Rom. 16. saith it was Oppidum Corinthiorum navium statione celeber­rimum, & ideò frequens valdè & populosum.

The clearest evidence is from 1 Cor. 14.14. for a particu­lar Congregational Church. Let your women keep silence in the CHURCHES, which word (Churches) seems to import several Congregations meeting in several places, to enjoy publike Or­dinances by the Corinthians (your women) and these Congre­gations are called Churches, and yet were all one combi­ned Church of Corinth, often spoken of in the singular number.

But this dispute belongs no [...] to this question, yet the pre­sent difference of opinions and practices have caused me a little to dilate upon this subject, beyond the explication of the term. And I understand by particular Churches, any, or all the fore­mentioned Churches, whether National, Provincial, Pres­byterial, Classical, or Congregational; and this last princi­pally; for those that have first moved this question, mean prin­cipally, if not solely, the Congregational Church, because (as I suppose) they hold no other particular Churches but such.

The fourth term to be opened is, What is meant by Prima, Sect. 4. vel Secundaria & Orta. This distinction, or at least in these terms, is not ancient; for M. Parker in his Politeia Eccles. was the first that sprung it, as far as I know. Primum in Logick is defined to be Quod est suae Originis: Ortum, quod oritur a primo. Secundarium is properly that which is next after the first in order, for it is an ordinal. I do not mean strictly, next imme­diatly, [Page 24] but in the largest sense, for that which hath not the first right or first consideration, but a Posterior. In the Question, Primum, or first, is meant, that which hath the priority in consi­deration. Whether in our apprehension of Churches we are to begin at the Church-Catholike, and descend to particular Churches, or begin at the particular, and ascend to the Church Chatholike? which notion is first in distinct knowledge, whe­ther Ecclesia Ʋniversalis, aut Particularis? Whether the na­ture, priviledges and Ordinances, belong first to the Church Catholike? and secondarily to the particular Churches: I do not mean (as M. Ellis supposeth) that the power of Ordinan­ces go by way of discention or derivation of power from the Church-Catholike, indispensation of Ordinances, but in con­sideration: for I acknowledge power to be given immediatly to every particular Church therein, yet under regulation of a greater part of Church-Officers, in case of male-administrati­on. The properties and power of water is primarily given to the whole element of water, but is immediatly, yet secondarily in the particular parcels thereof.

But the Catholike Church is the primary in a threefold re­spect. First, as the Orthodox Catholike Church is a means or instrument by the Ordinances, Ministery and members thereof, in the several parts and places thereof, to convert, adde, and bring in more new members thereunto; and in continually conquering out of Satans and Antichrists Kingdom, and leaven­ing the world with the doctrine of Christ. Secondly, as the Church-Catholike affords matters and members, to make up or constitute the particular Congregations, which consist only of the members of the Catholike Church, gathered up from any place of the world into particular vicinities. Thirdly, in regard the Ordinances and priviledges of the Church, are primarily intended and given by Christ, by one Charter unto the whole Church, and to particular Churches secondarily, as parts there­of. And so they partake of the benefits and priviledges of the Church, not because they are members of the particular Chur­ches, though there they have the immediate opportunity, but of the Church-Catholike. As a Corporation already constitu­ted by Charter, receiveth in free men continually, and giveth [Page 25] freedome to new members which come any way to have right thereto, and those members have right to the priviledges of the City, not because they are of such a street, or ward, or company, but because they are tree of the City.

So that though I have retained the terms of M. Parkers di­stinction, prima and Orta sive secundaria, yet my question differs much from his. For he compares the particular Churches who delegate and send members or commissioners to constitute a Classis or Synod, with such a ministerial Church, a Church of Officers so constituted, for some especial ends, pro tempore, which some call a representative Church: and I confesse with him that such a Church may well put on the notion of Ecclesia Orta, and the particular Churches out of which these members are delegated, may in some sense (in reference unto them) put on the notion of Ecclesiae prima. Yet I do not conceive that those particular Churches give either the office, or the power in actu primo, whereby those delegated Commissioners do act when they are met, but by such delegation they do evocate and call forth the exercise of that power which Christ hath annexed to their office habitually, in actum secundum, to act pro hic & nunc, for the good of all those Churches so sending, which acts of theirs binde the delegating Churches to submissi­on in the Lord. But in my Question the whole Church Catho­like visible is compared with the particular Churches, and they are considered as parts thereof.

CHAP. II. Proofs by Scripture that there is a Church-Catholike visible.

NOw I have opened the terms of my Question, I finde two Questions in stead of one, and whether of them is the most difficult I cannot tell. Whereas the subject of every Question useth to be taken for granted, and the predicate only to be proved, I finde the subject of my Question exceedingly questi­oned [Page 26] and opposed, Chap. 2. and that by some of our own Divines, and therefore though my first aim in undertaking the Question was to clear, the Predicate, yet I must crave leave to confirm the subject, or else whatsoever I shall say of the Predicate will be as a house built on the sand, or a Castle in the air; for if there be no universal visible Church, then it is not capable of being either Prima or secundaria.

In handling both these Questions, I shall follow my wont­ed method. I preferre one Divine Testimony before ten argu­ments, and one good argument before ten humane testimo­nies.

Sect. 1.First then, Whether there be a Church-Catholike visible?

I know that our Divines in answer to the Pontificians, do de­ny the Church-Catholike to be visible, as Zanchy, Gerard, Whi­takers, Chamier, and Ames against Bellarmine, and Sadeel against Turrianus, and against the Monks Confession of faith, and D. Willet in his Synops.

For they restraining the signification of the word Church, to the better part of the Church, the Elect only, and considering them in respect of their internal communion with Christ their head, and not their external communion one with another by Ordinances, did deny the Church-Catholike to be visible. Nec a quovis impio, nec pio videri potest, saith Whitaker. And if the word Church be taken in that sense, it is most certainly true, it must needs be invisible, But there is also an external com­munion (as hath been shewed before) which the visible mem­bers have, both with Christ and one with another, which is vi­sible, and makes the enjoyers thereof visible one to another, and to all others also, viz. their praying one with another and for another, and their hearing the Word, and receiving the Lords-Supper together as occasion is offered, and their recei­ving all those as visible members of the visible mystical King­dom and body of Christ, that are admitted in any part of the Church by baptism, and the avoiding of such as are any where excommunicated, and the receiving again into communion those that are any where absolved.

So that there is an external visible Kingdom of Christ, as well as an internal and invisible, and the elect are of the visible King­dom [Page 27] as well as of the invisible; they are as Ezechiels wheels, a wheel in the midst of a wheel.

It is true which reverend M. Hooker puts me in minde of, that these 4. Questions between the Pontificians and our Di­vines: are distinct. Ʋtrum Ecclesia sit visibilis? Ʋtrum Ecclesia visibilis potest deficere? An sit semper frequen [...] & gloriosa? Ʋtrum Ecclesia opus habet visibili monarchâ & summo Judice? But they are rather marshalled so by our Divines in their answers, then distinguished by themselves; for they often confound visible, conspicuous, glorious, manifest specious, splendid, magnifical, and flourishing together, yet the Church is visible when latent under persecutions, and is deprived of the other properties, for all the members even then are not invisible members of Christ. Cameron granteth that these properties may betide the visible Church, but not alwaies (and so say some of the Papists also) and that when they do betide the Church, they rather shew Quid sit Ecclesia, quam quae sit: that it cannot be discerned which is the true Church by these accidents of perpetual clarity. Cameron de Conspic. Eccl.

The Pontificians notion of the Church Catholike is very ab­surd, for they hold the name Church-Catholike to belong to one Church, viz. the Church of Rome: and that being the Church-Catholike, and comprizing the universality of the Church in it self, all that will be members of the Church-Catholike must submit unto them and be members of that. Of which Tylen. in Syn [...]g. saith well, Orbem urbi inclu­dunt.

And the necessity which they make that this one visible Church should be under one visible universal head on earth, viz. the Pope, as Christs vicar general, is as absurd: and therefore they are worthily confuted by our Divines.

But to deny an external Kingdome or Church of Christ upon earth: or to deny the visibility or perceptibility of it: or the unity of it, or the univesality of it under the Gospel (is as I con­ceive) as absurd on the other side. To the particulars I shall speak more fully in following Chapters. I finde reverend M. Hooker in his Survey of Church-Discipline, par. 1. pag. 3. ac­knowledging Christ a political head by his especial guidance in [Page 28] ‘means and dispensations of his Ordinances, as well as a mysti­cal by spiritual influence: and the Church a political body as well as a mystical. The political body or Church-visible (saith he) results out of that relation, which is betwixt the profes­sors of the faith, when by voluntary consent they yeeld out­ward subjection to that government of Christ which in his word he hath prescribed, and as an external head exerciseth by his Word, Spirit, and Discipline, by his Ordinances and Officers over them, who have yeelded themselves subjects to his headship and supream authority. And pag. 25. The visible Church is truly stiled and judged by Scripture light to be the visible body of Christ, over whom he is a head by political go­vernment and guidance, which he lends thereunto, 1 Cor. 12.12. And that it is a visible politick body, appears quite through the whole Chapter, but especially ver. 27, 28. Be­cause in that Church God set Orders and Officers, Some Apo­stles, Teachers, Helpers, Governments. The like to this Eph. 4.12.13. Again p. 16. The Church is the visible Kingdom in which Christ reigns by the scepter of his word and Ordinances, and execution of Discipline.’

The testimony cited out of Ames by me was this, Congrega­tiones ille particulares, sunt quasi partes simulares Ecclesiae Catho­lica, atque adeò & nomen, & naturam ejus participan [...]. And further he saith, Illi qui pro [...]essione [...]ntum sunt fideles, dum rema­ [...]ene in illa societ [...], sunt membra illius Ecclesia, sicut etiam Ec­clesia Catholice, quo ad statum exter [...]m, Ames. medul. l. 1. c. 22. Sect. 11.

And in his Bellarminus euer [...]atus he saith, Nos fotemur Eccle­siam militantem visibilem esse quo ad formam accidentalem & ex­teruam, insuit partibus, & singulatim & conjunctim, &c. Here I am taxed by M. Ellis vind. p 53. for citing this authour for me who is known to be against me. But I answer, I dealt candidly with D. Ames, acknowledging him to be against a Church-Ca­tholike visible in some sense, and yet not against it in some o­ther sense, [...] expresse words declare. Neither doth he reject i [...] terminis, an universal visible Church in my sense, as M. Ellis af­firme, but my position stands good for ought that I finde in D. A­ [...], though I [...] consent to his judgement in all things. [Page 29] But let M. Ellis observe that Ames doth not hold the Church which is mystically one, to be a genus, or one generically, sed quasi species specialissima, vel Individuum, quia nullas habet species propriè dictas. Dicitur igitur Cat [...]olica, non ut [...], genus, aut generale aliquid significat, sed ut denotat aliquid significat, sed ut denotut aliquid integraliter universale (ut quum dicimus Or­bis universus) quia complectitur fideles omnium gentium, omnium locorum, & omnium temporum, Med. l. 1. c. 31. n. 18, 19.

Again cap. 32. n. 5. he saith, Ecclesia particularis, respectu communis illius naturae, qua in omnibus particularibus Ecclesij [...] reperitur, est species Ecclesiae in genere, sed respectu Ecclesia Ca­tholicae, quae habet rationem integri, est membrum ex aggregati­one variorum membrorum singularium compositum, atque respectu ipsorum est etiam integrum. Which is as much as in this part of the question I contended for viz. that the Church-Catholike in regard of the external and accidental form, is an integral, and not a genus. But M. Ellis makes the Church-Catholike one only in regard of the internal essential form, and not in regard of any external form, wherein he expresly crosseth Ames. And there­fore I retort it upon him again, that he citeth a man for him, which is expresly against him. The external form is that which is visible, and if the Church-Catholike be one in the external accidental form, it must needs be integrally and visibly one.

But I come to Scripture proofs, which are the most sure, Sect. 2. because they are a divine testimony. And first I shall shew you that an Oc­cumenical universal Church was frequently foretold in Scri­pture, Psa. 22.27. All the ends of the world, shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship be fore him. Which comprehends all places, all the ends of the earth, and all persons that should be converted, all the kindreds of the Nations: and by worshipping is meant embracing the true religion, and performance of religious duties. So Psa. 72.8. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. It is a prophecy concerning Christ in the times of the Gospel: where he is set forth by his Kingly office; and the extent of his Kingdom is set out to be to the ends of the earth. This is his external political Kingdom, because it is set out by the external prayers and prayses and gifts that should [Page 30] be tendred unto him by his Subjects, and by the judgement, peace, and flourishing estate that he shall bestow upon them. So Psa. 86.9. All Nations whom thou hast made, shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorifie thy name. This is a prophecy like the former, So Isa. 2.2, 3, 4. It shall come to passe in the last daies, that the mountain of the Lords house shall be e­stablished on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hils, and all Nations shall flow unto it, and many people shall go and say, Come ye, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his waies, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and he shall judge among the Nations, and rebuke many people, &c. Where is set down Christs call of all the Nations, and the time of this call, in the last daies, i. e. the times under the Gospel, as the Apostle Act. 2.17. expounds the like phrase in Joel 2.28. And here is the means of the call, by the Law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem: and the answer to this call, All Nations shall flow unto it: and there is Christs executing his propheti­cal office by publike teaching them in his house, by his Ambassa­dours, and his Kingly office in judging and rebuking. So Isa. 25.6.

So Daniel 7.14. There was given unto him (Christ) Do­minion and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. And in the New Testament Matt. 28.9. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. Rom. 15.11, 12. Rev. 14.6. But because these places will be turned off with this answer, that some of all Nations should embrace the Gospel, and be turned unto the Lord, not the whole Nations: I answer, that experience hath proved it true of multitudes of great Na­tions, that wholly did embrace the Gospel, and submitted un­to it. Neither can any of these places be avoided (as some plead) by the general Kingdom of Christ, which is given him over all Nations, whereby he is head over all things to the Church, Eph. 1.2. For it is clear they are meant of that King­dom wherein are prayers, praises, gifts, worship, service, and attendance upon Gods Ordinances, flowing unto Christ, wor­shipping before him, and glorifying his name, as the several [Page 31] texts expresse; and these things are proper to the visible Church. So also Zech. 14.9. And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one, which is clearly meant of one religion and way of worship of God in Christ.

But secondly, Sect. 3. I will give you places of Scripture where the word Church is applied both indefinitely and generally, which cannot be understood of any particular Churches. See first Act. 8.3. Saul made havock of the Church. To which may be added that of Gal. 1.13. I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it. I shewed before that this must needs be a visible Church, for they could not else have been persecuted; persecution is a vi­sible opposition of a visible Church. And certainly Saul could not discern who were of the invisible company, but persecuted promiscuously all that were that way. Neither was it a particular Church, for this persecution was in Jerusalem, and in every Sy­nagogue, and it reached to Damascus, and even to strange cities, Act. 26.11. So that by Church here is meant an indefinite num­ber of visible Churches or Congregations, which were in no o­ther community but profession of the same faith, and an inde­finite is equivalent to a general: which axiome although it should not be stretched according to the old rule, Omne indefinitum potest esse infinitum, it being without limits, yet it is true in suo genere, it is as large as a general. But this we may safely say, that by the same reason that the word Church would reach all those Churches, it would reach all the Churches in the world.

Reverend M. Hooker excepteth against these two places, and affirms that the word Church is taken here by a Synechdoche for the particular Church of Ierusalem, and not all that neither, but only such Christians as forsook Moses ceremonial Law, and not the Christian Jewish Church. Surv. c. 15. p. 269. Because saith he, his Commission was to pursue such as he found of that way.

The answer to this exception will lie in the meaning of these words, all that he found of that way, whether by that way, be meant the forsaking the ceremonial Law, or confessing Christ to be the Messiah: If the former, then Paul would have found [Page 32] but little work in Ierusalem, for the Jewish Christians did ge­nerally cleave to the ceremonial Law. As the Elders told Paul Act. 21.20. Thou seest how many myriads of the Jews do believe, and they are all zealous of the Law, and therefore he need­ed not persecute them for neglect thereof, for they were zeal­ous therein, yea, the Apostles themselves observed that in Ieru­salem a long time. But the persecution was such, as that they were all scattered abroad except the Apostles; and therefore it was for Christianism that he persecuted them. It was to cause them to blaspheme, as Paul himself expounds it: now though reducing of them to the ceremonial Law had been an errour, yet it was not a blasphemy, for then the Apostles them­selves should have lived in blasphemy. Surely it was to cause them to blaspheme the Lord Iesus Christ, and deny him to be the Messiah. It is most likely that Sauls Commission was according the former decree of the chief Priests, Ioh. 9.22. That if any did confesse that he was Christ, he should be put out of the Synagogue. And this appears by what Ananias saith to Christ concerning Paul. Act. 9.14. Here he hath authority from the chief Priests to binde all that call on thy name. And vers. 2. If he found any that way; Not all of Ierusalem, or if he found any of Ierusalem that were fled thither, but any Jews; for the Gentiles had not yet received the Gospel. For Chap. 10. Peter was charged for eating with Cornelius and his company, that were Gentiles. And they that were scattered abroad by Saul, preached the Go­spel to none but to the Iews only, Act. 11.19. And some of those whom Saul persecuted were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, Act. 11.20. But it was all that call on thy name, not all that had forsa­ken the ceremonial Law, for that very few Jews as yet had done, if any at all. And this was the reason, as I conceive, that the commission given to Saul by the chief Priests, teached the Jews at Damascus, and other cities, because they were not fal­len off from the ceremonial Law, but kept fellowship with the Jewish Church at Ierusalem, and came up to the feasts still, and so were under their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and liable to their censure, and they could write to the rulers of those Syna­gogues to see them punished.

Also it is said upon the conversion of Saul, Act. 9.31. Then [Page 33] had the Churches rest in all Iudea, and Galilee, and Samaria. which yet were but some parts of the Church, (in the singular number) which he persecuted. Now if Saul had persecuted only the members of the Church of Ierusalem, which had for­saken Moses law, then they might have had rest before, for all him, for they should not have been within his commission: but he persecuted them also. So our brethren themselves expound it. Except. p. 17. Also it is said Act. 12.1. that Herod stretch­ed forth his hands to vex certain of the Church, and he killed Iames, and attached Peter. Now this was a visible Church, be­cause a Church liable to visible persecution; and an Organical Church, because the persecution was against the Officers; and the Catholike Church: for it is not said, Certain of the Church of Ierusalem, but indefinitely, The Church: and the two persons named were not Officers or members of the Church of Ierusa­lem, but Officers of the whole Church, being Apostles.

Also it is said Act. 2.47. God added to the Church daily such as should be saved Or, saved men, as some render it. Not that all should be saved, or were saved men that were added unto it, for there were many hypocrites added, but those that should be saved, or were sanctified, were added. Which Church was not a particular Congregational Church, but the Catholike.

Reverend M. Hooker excepteth against this, and saith, that ‘it was not the Catholike Church, but the Apostolical Chri­stian Church now erected, and not the whole company of beleevers in the whole world, for such a company they never saw nor knew, and therefore could not be added to them.’ Surv. c. 15. p. 270.

Answ. It is true indeed, it wa [...] to the Apostolical Christian Church, but not to any particular Congregational Church. For first, no man by conversion is added unto, or made a member of a or the particular Church where he was converted, but is made a member of the Catholike society of Christians by con­version, and then joins himself unto some particular society of them.

Secondly, This Apostolical Christian Church was not a Con­gregational Church, for those 120 (suppose them the 12 and [Page 34] 70 and some others) were many of them men of Galilee, and resided at Ierusalem but for a time, per accidens, by command, until they were further endued with the holy Ghost. And those 3000 that were added to them, Act. 2.41. were men out of e­very nation under heaven, ve. 5. and their particular countries, named, ver. 9, 10, 11. And this is our brethrens own exposition, in their exceptions to the proofs from the Church of Ierusalem, p. 16. Where they say ‘they were not setled dwellers at Ie­rusalem, but strangers, commorants of the 10 Tribes which were dispersed, and were but sojourners at Ierusalem, co­ming up to the feast, having their wives, and children, and families at home, to whom they used after a time to return. And that this continuing stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, was but only while they were there at Ieru­salem. Yea, some of them were of Iudea, ver. 9. and so of the countrey round about, and that of them might be Church­es erected in their proper dwellings, is rationally suppose­able.’

And the proof M. Hooker giveth (to shew it was not the Church-Catholike) from Act. 2.42. They continued stedfastly ( [...]) in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship; makes much against a Congregational Church, as I conceive. For the Apostles were not Congregational Elders to Jerusalem, but ge­neral Officers of the Church-Catholike by their Commission. So that this communion of theirs with the Apostles, was not a particular Church-communion, but a Catholike communion of Catholike members (not reduced into particular Congregati­ons) with Catholike Officers. Neither might the Apostles joyn as particular Elders of the Church of Jerusalem. For how could they binde themselves by an holy Covenant to the constant per­formance, or enjoyment of all the Ordinances of God, to or with them, seeing their charge was to go over all the world; yet such a Covenant our Brethren say, is requisite in a particu­lar Congregation. Neither as yet were there any particular Elders of the particular Church of Jerusalem constituted, nor do we finde it expressed how long after. If it had been said, that they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, with the Elders of Jerusalem, it had carried some probability. [Page 35] Moreover, it could not be the communion of a particular Church, because they had the Lords Supper in several compa­nies. Breaking bread from house to house. Gods providence or­dered it so that the Christian Church should be (as I may say) at the very birth of it, Catholike, in regard of Officers and members, before any reduction into particular societies under particular Officers. It was so, potentially, from the giving of the Apostles commission, and now it is actually in the members as well as Officers, before their number could make up Con­gregations in several countries.

‘Yea, but (saith he) it is not to the whole company of beleevers in the whole world, for such a company they never saw nor knew, and therefore could not be added to them.’ p. 270.

Answ. It is not requisite they should see or know them all by face, but know that there was, or was to be such a company which was already begun. It is like every member of the Church of Ierusalem, did never see or know all the myriads that were of that Church, nor do every member of the great­est Congregation in London, know all the members thereof. A forreigner that is naturalized by Parliament, and so added to this Kingdom, did never see nor know all the whole King­dom.

Again 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Iews, nor to the Gen­tiles, nor to the Church of God. Where the word Church cannot signifie the Elect only, nor any particular Congregation or King­dom, but indefinitely it reacheth the whole body though in never so remote parts.

‘M. Hooker excepteth against this proof, because (saith he) the Church here spoken of, is contra-distinct to the Jews, and there­fore cannot comprehend the whole company of beleevers through the whole world, because some beleevers were of the Jews. Surv. c. 15. p. 270.’

Answ. It is true, I finde Beza in his large notes upon the place, interpreting the Jews here spoken of, to be the beleeving Jews, and the Gentiles to be the beleeving Gentiles. Partibus subijcit totum. But then he crosseth M. Hooker in making the Church an integrum, and Jews and Gentiles to be the integrant parts. Yet [Page 36] he adds as the more probable meaning, Nisi malimus istud Iu­dais & Graecis de extrancis intelligere, quorum etiam nobis sit ha­benda ratio, &c.

And all others that I have met withall interpret the words of the unbeleeving Jews and Gentiles in opposition to Christi­ans. Or else of the beleeving Jews and Gentiles making one Church, but most in the first sense. So Calvin, Iudaeos & Gentes nominat, non tantum quia duobus illis generibus constabat Dei Ec­clesia, sed ut doceat nos omnibus etiam alionis esse debitores, ut eos si fieri potest lucrifaciamus. So Paraeus on the vers. Also Amb. Thomas Aqu. Goran, and the English Annotations on the place. And the reason divers of them render is, because the un­beleeving Jews (abhorting Idols) might be beat off from Christ by seeing Christians eating things sacrificed to Idols: (which is the particular offence here mentioned by the Apostle) and the unbeleeving Gentiles might be confirmed in their Idolatry thereby: and the beleevers both of Jews and Gentiles take of­fence at it.

‘Again (saith M. Hooker) that Church is here meant, whom a man may offend by his practice in the particulars mentioned: but he cannot offend the whole company of believers, through the whole world: because a scandal must be seen or known certainly, &c.’

Answ. All indefinite negative precepts (as against murder, adultery, theft, &c.) as they are general for the time, binding semper & ad semper, so concerning place and persons; though no one man is ever like to have opportunity or possibility to commit them in every place and upon every person. So is this prohibition.

Some might give offence in one place, some in another, and some one in many places, in those travelling times; and the whole was liable to offence, though haply not by one man, and therefore the object is set down indefinitely to compre­hend the whole. Yea, the word comprizeth not the Church Entitive, but Organical and combined, for they may so be of­fended, and we are not to affront or offend them: the greater the part of the whole body is, and the more compleated, the greater respect is to be had to it, that we give no offence there­unto.

[Page 37]Also Gal. 4.26. But Ierusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. By Ierusalem is meant a Church, because it is that which brings forth children to God, which sometime may be desolate and in sorrow, because of the paucity and dis­persion of them, sometime is bidden to rejoyce for the multi­tude and prosperity of them, as vers. 27. It [...]s also an Evangeli­cal Church freed from the ceremonies of the Law, because it is called Ierusalem, answering to Ierusalem that was in Pauls time, and was in bondage with her children, vers. 25. i. e. to the Church of the Jews that were under the ceremonial Law, and would not forsake it, which was soon after destroied. The A­postle changeth the manner of this speech from the person of Sarah, who was the type of the Evangelical Covenant, to Ieru­salem, which is the Church wherein the Evangelical doctrine and Covenant is preached, and this Ierusalem is the seed of Sarah, i. e. the Evangelical Church is the seed and offspring of the E­vangelical Covenant. This Evangelical Church is called Ierusa­lem and Sion in Heb. 12.22. which text is parallel to this: and Rev. 21.1, 2. the New Ierusalem. The legal ceremonial service did beget all under it to an external bondage, and brought them up under bondage; especially hypocrites which were not led by the Law to Christ, but rather hindred from him, they were in external and internal bondage. It cannot be the Church Tri­umphant, for that is not the mother of the Church militant, that hath no Orrdinances to beget children. And though it be called Ierusalem which is above, yet that is meant because it hath its Original from heaven: as Rev. 21. the New Jerusa­lem is said to come down from heaven; and we are said to be begotten from above. 2. Because their conversation is in hea­ven, Phil. 3.20. 3. Because they shall in the end be brought thi­ther. It cannot be the invisible Church as so considered, but must be a visible organical Church, because it doth no other­wise become a mother of children, but by the use of Ordinan­ces and keys committed to her. It is by the preaching of the word, that children are begotten in her womb, the seed is the word: and by the same word as milk, and the use of the Sa­craments, they are nourished in their mothers house, and as a mother she educates and rules them by discipline. And this [Page 38] cannot be a particular Church, but must be the general, because the Apostle saith it is the mother of us all; the Apostle puts in himself and all beleevers. And the 27 vers. makes it more plain, because the Apostle confirms and explains himself by a quotation out of Isa, 54. f. 2, 3. which sheweth the calling in of the Gentiles to be of this Church. And thus all the protestant Expositours that I have met with, expound it. Calvin on the place saith, Caelestem vocat, non qua calo sit inclusa, non quae sit quaerenda extra mundum; est enim diffusa Ecclesia per totum or­bem, & in terra peregrinatur. Luther also saith, This heavenly Ierusalem which is above, is the Church, i. e. the faithful disper­sed throughout the whole world, which have one and the same Gospel, faith, Christ, holy Ghost, and Sacraments.—It is the Church which is now in the world, and not the Triumphant Church.—To be the mother of us all, it is necessary that this our mother should be on earth among men, as also her gene­ration is.—This spiritual Jerusalem which took her beginning in corporeal Jerusalem, hath not any certain place, but is dis­persed throughout the whole world. This free mother is the Church it self, the spouse of Christ, of whom we are all gen­dred. So Musculus, Perkins, Baldwin, and Bullinger, Lo­quitur de Ecclesia in terris ex omnibus gentibus collecta. It is an­other body which is correspondent to Sarah, viz. the Christi­an Church. Beza and Calvin on Hebr. 12.22. a text parallel to this hath these words, Caelestem Ierusalem intelligit, quae per totum mundum extruenda erat, quemadmodum Angelus apud Zachariam funiculum ejus ab Oriente usque in Occidentem ex­tendit.

Again Eph. 3.10. To the intent that unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church, the manifold wisedom of God. This Church was not a particular Congregatian, neither was it the Church of the elect, neither doth Beza so expound it (as is alledged) for he speaks here­upon of the government of it sub variatâ Oeconomiâ: neither was the Church of the Gentiles only (which yet is more then one Congregation) neither can the circumstances carry it so beyond control, as is alledged, because of the mysteries here spoken of, that ‘ were kept secret since the beginning of the world, [Page 39] and the multifarious wisedom which was now made known by the Churches, but were before made known to the Church of the Jews, as M. Hooker conceives, p. 271.’ For the mysteries revealed in the New Testament, were never known to the Jews before. Eye never saw them, nor ear heard them, nor entred it into the heart of man to conceive of them. But he that is least in the kingdom of the Gospel, knows more then Iohn the Baptist. But it was the Church-Catholike under the Gospel, whereof Paul was made a Minister, as it is vers. 7. It is that body of Christ, the Church, whereof Paul was made a Minister, as himself saith more fully, Col. 1.24, 25. which must needs be the external, vi­sible, organical, Catholike Church of Christ, consisting of Jew and Gentile.

Again it is said in 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in the Church, Sect. 4. first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers. The Church here spoken of, is not the Church Triumphant, for that hath no officers but Christ the head, there shall be no Pastors and Teachers, quà such, yet such are in this Church vers. 8. neither shall there be any gifts of healing, tongues, miracles, Deacons, or ruling Elders. Neither is it the Church as invisible, consisting of the elect only: for the invisible Church quâ invisible, hath no Officers neither.

For though intentionally they are indeed given for the good of the Elect, yet they are set in the visible Church. For both the ordinary and extraordinary Officers were visible messen­gers; and some of them but visible beleevers only, for Iudas had obtained part in the Apostleship and ministry, and was sent to preach and work miracles: and many Prophets were not of the invisible number: for many shall say, Lord, Lord, we have prophecied in thy name. &c. and yet shall not be saved. But to be sure they were sent to afford the Saints visible communion in Ordinances.

Again, This is not meant of the Church entitive, which is a similar, and (as I may say) an homogeneal body, every mem­ber as a member being equal, and of the same capacity: but it is meant of the Church Organical, an heterogeneal, dissimilar body, because here are set down the Officers. I mean dissimi­lar and heterogeneal in regard of the integral parts, viz. the se­veral [Page 40] Congregations, because they all have or ought to have the same kinde of Officers and members, as so many flocks of sheep under several shepherds. Therefore the several parti­cular Churches are called by some, an Epitome of the great bo­dy: now the Epitome hath no other parts then the great body hath. Neither is here meant a particular Church, but all colle­ctively, that were within the bounds of the Apostles commis­sion, which was the Church in the whole world, Go teach all nations, &c. and all the Churches which have teachers over them, which all Churches in the world have, or ought to have, and yet all these are called but one Church, one body, vers. 20. And this whole is one Organical body, v. 12. As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Rom. 12.4, 5.

M. Hooker hath two Expositions of, or answers to this place. First, that the Church here meant is totum univer­sale, existing and determinined in its actings by the particu­lars.

Answ. That cannot be, for genus quâ genus can have no of­ficers, seeing it is a second notion abstracted only in the minde: therefore the Church quâ totum universale is no existing po­litie: if it hath Officers it must be considered as an integrum ex­istens.

And as for totum genenericum existens, it is nothing else (as I conceive) but integrum similare. For genus existeth not as genus, but only under distinct specifical forms, and is abstracted from the species or individuals by the understanding. Now that which hath no existence of its own, can have no ex­isting Officers. Omne conporeum existens, vel est integrum, vel membrum.

Neither will it help the cause at all to say, that Apostles, Pro­phets, Evangelists, were extraordinary temporary officers. First, here are ordinary Officers inserted also, given to the same Church, as Teachers, ruling-Elders, Deacons. Secondly, a genus admits of no variations in regard of time or place, or any other accidents: nothing extraordinary can betide a genus, but an integrum or existing being. Genus, ut est aeternae veritatis, sic est [Page 41] aeternae identitatis. Genus is abstractum quid, non concretum, but the Church-Catholike is concretum quid, & constatum, & ag­gregatum ex membris, non ex speciebus: as shall be shewed more fully afterwards.

His second Exposition is, that the Apostle points at one parti­cular, but includeth all particulars, by a parity and proportion of reason.

Answ. This cannot be; for this Church here meant is the po­litical body of Christ, as M. Hooker himself expounds it, as I shewed before. Now all the members of a particular Church (as suppose Corinth) are but members of a part of that body, as I shewed before.

Secondly, God did not set all these in every particular Church. Had every particular Congregation Apostles, Prophets, miracles, gifts of healing, diversities of tongues? yea, take the constant Of­ficer, the teacher, and ordinarily, one Congregation hath, not teachers, but only one teacher: therefore this parity of reason cannot hold, except all these Officers were in the plural num­ber in every Congregation. And if the Apostles, Prophets, E­vangelists, were Officers of every particular Congregation, quâ particular, then all those incongruities which our brethren bring against Presbyterial government; of choice, ordination, main­tenance, honour, from the particular Congregations to them; and their constant teaching, watching over, and ruling of them, fall directly upon these Officers. I suppose many Congregati­ons never had all these kindes of Officers among them. If it be meant distributively, some to one, some to another, then it should have been said Churches, not Church.

This place being a main fort that stood in M. Ellis's way, he laies his main battety against it: and gives many answers there­unto, which yet are not subordinate or subservient one to ano­ther, nor yet consistent one with another: but if any one will serve the turn to batter it down, it matters not (it seems) what become of the rest. He parallels this place with Eph. 4.4, 5. And saith, that one body or Church here and there spoken of, is meant in the same sense that One faith, One Baptism is, viz. one in kinde: and as there are many single faiths, hopes, baptisms, though one in kinde, so there is one body in kinde, [Page 42] but many singular bodies. vind. p. 34. But M. Ellis might have seen, that if he had run his parallel a little further, he had run over shoes and boots too. For there it is said, that there is One Spirit, one Lord Jesus, one God and Father, not in kinde, but in number; and why may not the Church, in which there is one individual doctrine of faith, and body of laws, and into which there is one manner of inrowlment by baptism, and in which only there is hope of salvation, be one numerically also: especially considering that as the head, the Lord Jesus Christ, is one in number; so his body the Church can be but one in num­ber also: For Christ hath not more bodies, in the same respect, then one.

But even his granting of a mystical onenesse in Essence, drives him to ‘grant willingly, that this doth imply an union visible also, as much as may stand with the institution of Christ, and the edi­fication of the Church, p. 34.’ And I think the Presbyterians de­sire no more.

Also he saith, ‘the Church is one as the worship and govern­ment is one, viz. for nature and kinde, in the substantials of it, or that general platform of it, Mat. 18. &c. but as the Church is not one visible policy or corporation in number, so neither in outward government of it, vind. 35.’

Answ. The Presbyterians do acknowledge many distinct particular corporations of particular Churches, exercising go­vernment actually and constantly by their own Officers. But as this onenesse in kinde of worship and government, giveth every private Christian, whose constant actual exercise of publike worship is in one Congregation, an habitual right to worship God, and communicate in any (though never so far remote) Congregation, if occasion serve: and makes him liable to re­proofs and suspension there: if there be known cause; why shall not the Officers also whose constant actual exercise is but in one Congregation, have the like priviledge to exercise their office in any remote Congregation upon an occasion, or call to it?

But there were two Objections vind. p. 35. which played so hard upon him, that they beat him from that battery, and therefore he betakes himself to another, mounted much higher. [Page 43] ‘I grant (saith he) the Apostle speaks of the Church, whether visible or invisible, universal or particular, but not of it in these respects, but mystically and totally, as comprehending those in heaven also, and this sense I will stick unto. pag. 35. Now in this body, or this Church, as Eph. 36. or in this fami­ly in heaven and earth, as vers. 15 He hath set some Apostles, some Pastors. Though they have exercise of their functions only, in that part which is on earth, and in that part of it on earth which is visibles yet they are placed in the whole, pag. 36.’

But here M. Ellis grants more then was desired. I fear this opinion will prove but a novel opinion: and he will have but few fellows to stand by him in managing this piece of battery. For as it expresly crosseth D. Ames before-cited, who saith, the Church-Catholike is one in regard of its external and acci­dental state, and not internal and essential: so it crosseth him­self, who holdeth that the Officers of a particular Church are Officers only in their severall Churches, vind. p. 8. therefore not set in the Church Triumphant. Certainly there they are where they were set, but they are in the Church visible militant only: the Church Triumphant hath no Officers. This opinion will make all the Ministers notable Non-residents, who never come at the place where they were set, all their life time. It were a happy turn for the Ministers if they were all placed in the Church Triumphant as well as militant: I am sure many of them will never come there. The Saints in heaven have no hand in the election of Officers here below, which by his arguing they ought to have, as well as the Church-Catholike in the election of every particular Officer. vind. p. 40. The Church in heaven have neither word, Sacraments, nor discipline, which are count­ed the notes of the Church where the Ministery is placed. The Ministers preach not to them, pray not with them, have no ex­ternal communion with them, watch not over them, neither admonish nor censure them, not perform any part of their mi­nisterial office to them. Nay, the Officers are not so much as placed in the invisible Church on earth; for as invisible it hath no Officers, but as visible only. It is true they are set for the good of the invisible Church, and for the perfecting of the [Page 44] Triumphant, but they are set only in the visible, and they are altogether visible, and many of them only visible, and yet are true Ministers. Are the gifts of tongues, and of healing, and Deacons, set in the whole Church Triumphant, as well as Mili­tant?

Are all that are baptized into one body, baptized into the Triumphant as well as militant? I think you will not say so, But how are we flown from a particular, visible, congregatio­nal Church, to the Triumphant on a sudden, from one extream to another? Remember that of the Poet Ne si dimissior ibis, Ʋnda graves pennas, si celsior, ignis adurat. Inter utrumque vola. Medio tutissimus ibis. It is clear the Apostle speaks of that body wherein is suffering, and rejoycing one with another. But Abra­ham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledgeth us not.

It is contrary to re [...]on it self, that the Officers reckoned up in 1 Cor. 12.28. and Eph. 4.11. should be set in the Church es­sentially taken; for discipline is not essential to the Church, but for the [...]in [...]esse or well being of it. Considering also that by those Officers the Church becometh political. It were a para­dox to say that a King, Judges, Justices, and Sherifs and Laws, &c. are given to a Kingdom essentially, and not as it is a po­ [...]i [...]; for they are the very formalis ratio, and sinews of the politie thereof; without which it might indeed have an essence, but no politie. Our brethren for Congregational Churches hold that there may be a Church entitive or essential, before they choose any Officer, else they were in no capacity to choose them; how then can Officers aggree to them essentially? But it is contrary to sense to say they are set in the Church Trium­phant.

But fearing that he cannot keep this battery, he retreats to a third, and that is a double one. In the general he saith, ‘should I grant (which I do not) that the Apostle is to be understood of the Church on earth, yet he speaks as well of in particular Church as of the general. And to avoid the dirt of this Fort or A [...]b [...] (is he ta [...] it) viz. 1 Cor. 12.28. He brings in two significations of the word Apostle: which worth alone. (saith he) is the ground of the Objection. And saith, if we take the word for such Officers as were sent out [Page 45] with commission from any Church upon special occasion, which is the literal signification of the word, and is so taken, 1 Cor. 8.23. of Barnabas, and Phil. 2.25. of Epapbroditum; so the Argument hence were voided.’

Answ. But there is not the least probability that the Apostle in setting down the Officers of the Church, both extraordinary and ordinary, should set down occasional messengers first, before Prophets and Teachers.

And in Ephes. 4.11. keeping the same Order, should pre­ferre them before Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers. And leave out in both places the highest office in the Church, viz. Apostleship, especially considering that the Apostle there doth not set down the Officers [...]aptim, promiscously, but ad­deth an ordinal numeral with them, first Apostles, secundarily Prophets.

But again, ‘If it be taken properly, in that he applieth his speech particularly, though not exclusively, to the Corinthi­ans: ye are the body of Christ (to wit, ye are a particular body) and members in particular, and so Chap. 3.21, 22. All are yours, whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephar, or life or death, all are yours, and ye (Corinthians) Christs. Where all are the whole Churches, and each Churches in particular, as their occasions require; each in their order (He might also have said, and each particular member.) So that the sense is (saith he) 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 external society (among themselves) As some gene­ral Officers make not England and Scotland one King­dom.’

Answ. M Ellis goes upon a mistake in all his book. The Presbyterians say not that the Church-Catholike visible is one external, constant, actual society, but habitual; or in actu pri­mo: or constantly and actually, in actu secundo sive exercite, the regiment is exercised in the particular Churches or vicini­ties: yet hath the whole Church, or some great parts of it: some common interests that may require to be handled in Sy­nods and Councels, by their combined or delegated Officers [Page 46] occasionally: and those Officers therein, act not as private men, but as Officers, and may exert their indefinite habitual power annexed to their office, for the good of the whole, or of so great a part of the Church-Catholike as did delegate them.

And as for the parallelling Apostles and Prophets in this case with life and death, it is not equal: for God did not set life and death as Officers in the Church, but they are general ac­cidents to the whole world, over-ruled by God for the good of his people. All things work together for the good of them that love him.

But in that he grants the word Church to extend to Corin­thians and Ephesians, &c. he must grant it to comprehend all the Churches as well as them, and that they all are one Church habitually, having then some general Officers over them, viz. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and Teachers, and the same A­postle, the same Prophet, and the same Teacher (if need re­quired) in any of them.

But fearing he could not keep that battery, he retreats to a fourth, and saith, ‘that though by Church were meant the Church-Catholike visible, yet it follows not 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 self.’ pag. 37.

Answ. it is true, it was not Christs minde that the extraor­dinary office of Apostleship should continue, there were to be no more such men of extraordinary gifts, and divine immediate mission, of an infallible spirit, that had actual regiment over the Churches of the whole world, without any delegation from others, but by immediate commission from Christ. But how comes that which was an integrum in the Apostles daies, to be now sublimated into it genus, and lose the integrality, and so prove a second notion, existing only in intellectu nostro? Did it cease to be one body as soon as the Apostles were all dead? seeing the same doctrine, worship laws, discipline, enrowl­ment by baptism, confirmation and communion in the Lords Supper continued still: and the liberty of all the members of the whole Church to communicate in these, in any place of the [Page 47] world, where they become (though but occasionally) conti­nue still. And by the same reason the habitual power in actu primo which the Officers have to dispense the Ordinances of God, may be drawn forth in any part of the Church, in actum secundum, upon an occasion and call, according to their measure, which the Apostles had habitually and actually, every where, both in actu primo & secundo, extraordinarily.

Yea, but (saith he) the Churches were not one in them­selves, but one in the Apostles, and that by accident, as England and Scotland were one in the King, because he governed both; Israel and Judah in David: the whole world one in Nebuchad­nezzar. But they are not therefore one, considered in them­selves. Vind. p. 37.

Answ. I grant, the Church was but accidentally and tempo­rarily one in regard of the Apostles, but integrally one in it self. It was not one, because that they were set over it, but it was one in it self integrally, because Christ is set over it, and there­fore they by commission from Christ, were set over it extraor­dinarily, for the present good and necessity thereof. An Em­pire being made one under one Emperour, hath imperial laws and constitutions, which being divided under divers governours it loseth again, and ceaseth to be an Empire, but the Church hath the same laws under the same head that it had then, and ever shall have. The world was one Empire under Darius by im­perial laws, not because the three Presidents were set o­ver it, neither did it cease to be so by their death or ceasing. So &c.

But fifthly, saith he, though we grant, that while the Apo­stles were living, there was one body of Officers over the whole Church, and so in respect of them the Church might be said to be one governed body, yet it was never one governing body: for whilest the Apostles lived, the universal governing power was committed to the Apostles only, and not with them to any other Officers or Churches; no not to all the Churches together, but they with their Officers were all in subjection to them.

Answ. I acknowledge the Church-Catholike was never one governing body: although M. Ellis is pleased to set down that [Page 48] expression in capital letters, in the frontispiece of his book, and upon the top of every page, and in divers other places, as the opinion of the Presbyterians. But where doth he finde any such expression in their writings? It may more truly be affirmed to be the opinion of some of our brethren of the Congre­gational way, who put government into the body of the Congregation (whether M. Ellis be of that opinion or no, I cannot say) and so they are a particular governing body, and if all the Churches in the world were of that way (as certain­ly they desire) and these Churches might in any sense be called one Church (as is confest by all that they may) then they must needs be one governing body. But as they are now, they not only govern their own body, but passe the censure of Non-communion against all persons, nay whole Churches, if they judge there be cause.

But the Presbyterians hold that governments belong to the Organs, i. e. the Officers of the Church, not to the body. It is for good of the body, but belongs not to the body to exercise. The Church-Catholike is the subject in quo exercetur, or cui da­tur, non ad utendum, sed ad fruendum.

Neither are the Officers of the Church-Catholike one con­stant collective governing body actually, but habitually; for constantly and actually they are distributed into several Congre­gations for the exercise of government there. But if the neces­sity of the whole (when it could be) or of any great part of the body, call the Officers of many particular Churches toge­ther (which may be by themselves or their Commissioners) then can they exercise their office collectively conjunctim, yet only according to the word of God. And this M. Ellis grant­eth in effect p. 7.8. only he saith their power being met, is only consultatory and suasory, not obligatory: it is the acting of offi­cers, but not as Officers: but I suppose he cannot think, that consultatory and suasory power, is sufficient to cure the Church of the malady of obstinate hereticks, whose mouths (saith the Apostle) must be stopped. And though the universal, constant, actual power of government was given to the Apostles only, yet we see they did joyn with the particular Elders in the govern­ment of their Churches, when they were among them: and did [Page 49] also joyn them with themselves in making decrees to binde the Churches. Act. 15.6. and Act. 16.4.

But fearing lest he had granted something too much in his former answer, he plucks away part of it in his sixt, and saith, that the Apostles were not one joint Ministery. For besides that each had intire power; some had one part committed to them, and some another, Thomas sortitus est Parthiam, An­dreas Scythiam Johannes Asiam, &c.

Answ. The Apostles did first act in Jerusalem as one joint combined ministery: and did afterward disperse themselves in­to several parts of the world, according to their commission, yet retained their power of uniting and acting together jointly without any delegation or commission from any Churches, and this power of theirs no ordinary Ministers lay claim to. And though the planting and watering of Churches required this dispersion, and several lots voluntarily, yet were they fixed in no Congregation, as Elders are.

Seventhly, He denyeth the consequence of a Church-Catho­like visible, from that place, and that he proves by a parallel, supposing such like words had been said of the whole world for civil government: his words are these; If it follow not, when we say God hath set in the world, some Emperors, some Kings, some Princes, some inferiour Officers and Magistrates, there­fore the world is but one governing Kingdom, and all parti­cular Kingdoms do but govern in the right of the Kingdom of the world in common; the Officers whereof are the Kings of the several Kingdoms, &c. 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 general 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, &c.

Answ. He hath not paralleled the question rightly, but it should run thus. Suppose there were one Emperour over all the Kingdoms of the earth, and he should set down one form of government and enrowlment for freedom in the whole world, for such as will be his subjects, and should first set 12 [Page 50] Presidents over the whole world, to abide so for their life time, as extaordinary Officers, and for ordinary standing Offi­cers, should set in the several Provinces or Kingdoms, several Officers that should rule under him or them, in their several places: and yet appoint, that as every free member of the whole, though his fixed habitation be in one place, yet is free of the whole habitually, and upon occasion can make use of it, to trade freely in any place: so the several governours, though ordinarily, fixedly and actually, they constantly govern their own Provinces, yet upon occasion of difference, danger, or for the good of the whole, or any great part of the same, they shall have power to convene, either all, if it may be, or some of them by way of delegation, to act for the good of the whole, or so many Provinces as the matter concerns, and their delega­tion is for. Whether would not this prove the world one in­tire Empire, and body politick habitually? And so is the case of the Church-Catholike.

But take earthly monarchies as they have been on earth, and we finde that the several kingdoms of the Empires did enjoy their several liberties, with respect had to the whole, that no­thing should be prejudicial to the Empire, that the Emperour should have no damage, Dan. 6.2. And yet in reference to the Emperour, and some certain common laws, they were one monarchy. Because the Emperour could send messengers and Officers of any countrey, and commands to them all, and all were to take care in their places for the whole (though haply there was no general convention of all Officers) and to keep as much as lay in them neighbour Kingdoms from rebelling, even where they had no ordinary jurisdiction, and to subdue them to the Emperour if they did rebel, and yet not retain or­dinary power over them. Now these things agree to this spi­ritual monarchy the Church; yea, and much more. For they are all one in the head, one in all the laws, and in one form of government; and ought all to do what they do in reference to the whole; as to admit every where into the whole by bap­tism, to eject out of the whole by excommunication, to keep any neighbour Church from defection, and to reduce them if fallen off, though they have no ordinary jurisdiction over them. [Page 51] Christ can send a Minister out of any Kingdom into any, not only occasionally, pro tempore, as a messenger, but settle him there as an Officer, and call back or remove him any whither else. And therefore the Church-Catholike is one Kingdom in general, and yet particular rights and liberties of particular Churches be preserved, so far as may stand with the good of the whole.

There is one Objection which M. Hooker in Surv. c. 15. p. 273. hath against this proof in this text, which is of some difficulty, vix. That Church where Deacons are set is not an unlimi­ted Church: But ordinary Deacons were set in the same Church wherein the Apostles were set, as in the place, 1 Corinth. 12. it is affirmed jointly and indifferently of them both. Therefore that Church doth not argue an unlimited power.

Answ. It is not affirmed that the Church-Catholike hath an unlimited power, but unlimited extent of the power gi­ven them by Christ, in regard of place within the compasse of the Christian world; and so I conceive M. Hookers mean­ing is.

But to the Objection itself, First I premise, that Deacons were not primarily set in a particular Congregational Church, but 7 of them were at the first institution of the office set in the Church of Jerusalem over Jews and Grecians, where there were many Congregations, and therefore a Classical, Presby­terial Church divided into many Congregations necessarily, at least for some Ordinances (as the Lords Supper, &c.) yet governed by one common Presbytery, and yet alwaies called one Church. But whether their Officers were fixed in the seve­ral Congregations or no, I know not, neither do I think it can be proved.

Secondly, The subject about which their office was exerci­sed, was not the Ordinances of worship or discipline, as the other offices were, but about alm [...], which in their own nature are or ought to be, and were then, voluntary. And in regard those alms come not by divine dispensation, as the immediate gift of Christ to the Church, though they be commanded indeed by Christ, but out of mens purses by contribution, being a money [Page 52] matter, in which the Congregation hath, or had propriety, there may be something said for the limitation of that office in their act of ordinary distribution to the members of that single or combi­ned Church contributing, that it may be performed according to the will of the donors, to whom also the Deacons are to render an account.

Thirdly, I desire the manner of the Apostles speech in set­ting down Deacons and governours, may be considered, not adding an ordinal numeral unto it, as to Apostles, Prophets and Teachers, but [...] and [...] deinde: and 2 ^ly. interposing 2 extraordinary endowments of miracles, and gifts of heal­ing: and 3. the change of speech from the concrete to the ab­stract, helps, governments. Which though they imply men by whom they are to be exercised, viz. helpers and governours, yet are not so set down: what the meaning of the holy Ghost is herein I cannot affirm, but I conceive that the office of A­postles, Prophets, Teachers, is of somewhat more large extent then the other two, because they were executed as well without the Church (though set in it) as within it, viz. among hea­thens for their conversion: And in Ecclesia constituendâ, the other in constitutâ only: and the exerting of the Deacons office not so usually and frequently out of the limits of their particu­lar Churches, as theirs that are intrusted with the preaching of the word: nor yet their call thereunto so facil as the o­thers: for to the exerting of government there is required a vo­luntary combination of many instituted Churches, and for di­stribution to other Churches there is required a more then ordi­nary necessity, and the consent of the particular Church contri­buting: but no such solemn call is required to the preaching the word in any other Church or Churches.

But fourthly, more directly to the Objection: Though alms, which is the subject of the Deacons office, be not reckoned a­mong the Ordinances given by Christ, but are the gift of par­ticular men in particular Congregations, as the rest of them: yet the necessity, command, and distribution of them, may ex­tend further then the particular Church, and in that regard the office of Deacons, which is to collect and distribute, ex­tends it self equally. We are bidden to do good to all, but e­specially [Page 53] to the houshold of faith (i. e. as we have occasion and ability) which is as extensive as the Church-Catholike. Any forreign Church may stand in need of our contribution and di­stribution. And even the Law of our land enjoyneth, that if any Congregation cannot maintain their poor, there should be help by collections from other neighbouring Congregations. And the maimed souldiers of the whole County are maintained by constant collection from every town in the County, and there are County Treasurers that receive it, which are (as it were) County-Deacons. And if a great Town be visited with the plague, or suffer losses by fire, &c. it is frequent to make collections for them in many Countries. Yea, for whole Coun­ties, as the whole Kingdom, hath lately done for Lancashire; yea, for a whole Kingdom, as for our own Kingdom under war; yea, for forreign Kingdoms, as England, yea, and the Nether­lands (though under another civil regiment) have done for Ireland. And we reade what the Churches of Asia did for the Churches of Jerusalem. And we have had contribution to re­deem captivated Christians under the Turk, and not only of our own Nation, but other Nations, sometimes Grecians. Now though these contributions and collections run among us in another channel, viz. through the hands of Church-wardens, Overseers, Constables, Collectors, yet this is the proper work of the Deacons; and therefore that office in regard of the extent of their possible object, may well be said to be habitually Ca­tholike, or given to the Church-Catholike, though their constant distribution should be limited to their own Congregations.

Another proof is from 1 Tim. 3.15. Sect. 5. These things I write unto thee, that thou maist know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. This Church must be the visible Church where he and others must exist, and converse together, and carry themselves in mutual duties. Also it must be an organi­cal Church, for the Epistle containeth directions about Bishops and Deacons, yea, even in the context. Neither can the dire­ctions be solely concerning Ephesus; for they are written to Timothy an Evangelist, the limits of whose office are commen­surable to the Apostles, though under them. Neither do they [Page 54] concern Ephesus in any especially manner, but all Churches where ever Timothy should come. Therefore not to it particu­larly. For he prescribeth canons concerning publike praier: and the habit and carriage of women in the Church: concerning the office of Bishops and Deacons: concerning the censuring and reproof of all degrees; the Ordination and maintenance of Elders: the choice and provision for widows: concerning the duties of servants: and a charge to rich men, not of Ephe­sus particularly or only, but every where. Neither did they concern Ephesus primarily; for the Officers were already set in that Church; Paul found Elders there Act. 20.17. in his visitation of them, and had lived there three years, vers. 31. as himself acknowledgeth. Primarily therefore these canons concern the whole Church. The manner also of the Apostles speech is to be attended; he doth not say the Churches, houses, pillars, grounds, to be ordered pari rattoni; but in the singular number house, church, pillar, ground, [...], as if there were but one Church, one house (whereof Ephesus was but one room, and that already furnished) one seat, one large pillar, that hath the same truth written on every side of it, which holdeth it forth unto others, both Jews and Gentiles, within the Church and without, more forensi. And as Timothy being an Evangelist conversed with many Churches, so it is like did the members of the Church of Ephesus. The English Annotations on this place are these. "As the Catholike Church is, as it were, "the whole house of God; so every particular Church as this of Ephesus was, in which Timothy resided, was a part thereof, and by a Synecdoche (totius) may be called the house of God, &c. The words also of the following verse will lend us some light, Great is the mystery of go [...]linesse: God manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, beleeved on in the world, received up into glory. This is the truth supported by this seat, and holden forth by this pillar. Doth this concern Ephesus solely, or particularly, or primarily? Is there not a larger subject expressed, viz. Gen­tiles and the believing world? All these are the family and houshold of God, Eph. 2.19. and 3.15.

Again, it is the Catholike visible Church that is so often in [Page 55] Scripture called the Kingdom of God, Mat. 4.26, 30. And the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 13.24, 31, 33, 47. Christ cals them not Kingdoms but the Kingdom. And compares this Kingdom to a field of wheat mingled with tares, This must be the Church vi­sible in this world, because it is where the sower ordinarily soweth his seed visibly and audibly, vers. 8. which is the preach­ing of the word. And because here are good and bad, wheat and tares, and the tares visibly discerned after the wheat. And it is the Catholike Church, for Christ himself expounds it so, the field is the world, not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, Joh. 3.16. and 17.11, 15. And this must be the Christian world; for the other is a field of tares only, where there could be no danger of plucking up of wheat, because none grew there. They shall fever the wicked from among the just. And in this field, particular Churches are but as particular rid­ges, enjoying the same tillage, seed, fencing, watering. It is a barn floor with wheat and chaffe. It is a draw net, gathering together good and bad. It is a marriage, where wise and foolish virgins, some had oil, and some only lamps of profession, It is a feast where some had wedding garments, some had none. Now these things cannot be spoken solely, or primarily of any particular Congregation, but they agree to the Church-Catholike visible, this Kingdom is here spoken of as one; and to particular Churches as parts thereof: and this is also an organical body, therefore called a Kingdom. Here are servants sowing and viewing this field, proffering to weed it. And this weeding must be by Ecclesia­stical censures, not the civil sword; they were not so void of reason as to go ask whether they should kill all the world be­sides the godly, with a civil sword: then these tares must be members of the Church, else they were not capable to be cast out, if never in. Here were fishermen (officers) that cast this net: and servants that invited these guests, every where in high waies and hedges, Luk. 14.23. indefinitely, without respect of Countrey or Town.

That which is objected against this by M. Hooker is, ‘that the Kingdom of heaven beside other significations, as the King­dom of glory, &c. it doth by a metonymy imply the word of the Kingdom, and the dispensation and administration [Page 56] of the Gospel in the Churches, and the special things ap­pertaining thereunto. And citeth these parables for that sense.’

Answ. I deny not the several significations of those words, the Kingdom of heaven, in [...]everal places. But they cannot sig­nifie so in the fore-ceited places. For it is said, the Angels shall gather out of his (Christs) Kingdom, all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them, &c. can this be meant of the word or Gospel? Is there any thing that offends therein, or doth iniquity that shall be cast, &c.? Is there any tares, any chaff, any rubbish there? Or can it be meant of the dis­pensation thereof? Should sinful or erroneous dispensations of Gods Ordinances be suffered to the end of the world, for fear of plucking up good dispensations? Why do we then endea­vour a reformation? Doth not Paul say false teachers mouths must be stopped, and wisheth such cut off?

It is clear the texts speak of a Kingdom consisting of per­sons, the tares, chaffe, rubbish, foolish virgins, and evil guests, are the children of the wicked one, man that offend, and doe ini­quity, that shall be gathered out of Christs Kingdom, therefore they were in it. And the wheat, good fish, wise virgins, and good guests, are the children of the Kingdom, without respect to any particularities, of Town or Countrey, much lesse of any Congregation.

And when we say, Thy Kingdom come, we pray not only for the conversion of the elect, nor only for the coming of the Kingdom of glory, but also for the Church-Catholike visible, that it might be enlarged, and have freedom and purity of Ordinances, which are things that concern it as a visible, organical Kingdom, because the dispensations thereof are by Officers.

Again in 1 Cor. 15.24. it is said, Then shall Christ deliver up the Kingdom to God his Father. This is not the natural or es­sential Kingdom, which he hath with the Father and holy Ghost as God: for that he shall never deliver up. Neither is it the Kingdom of grace which he by his Spirit exerciseth in the hearts of the Elect, for that shall continue for ever, and be more per­fect in heaven. For the Kingdom of grace here, and of glory [Page 57] afterward, differ only gradis communionis, as Ames tels us; here the degree is imperfect, then it shall be perfect, both in graces and joyes. But it is the Kingdom exercised in the visible Church-Catholike, in the Ordinances of worship and discipline, wherein our communion is mediate with God, which shall then cease. For as the Evangelical external service and man­ner of communion with God, thrust out the legal and cere­monial: so shall the heavenly immediate, thrust out the Evan­gelical.

But this Kingdom (saith M. Hooker) cannot be the Catho­like visible Church, because that consisting of sound-hearted Christians and false-hearted hypocrites, these are not delivered up into the hand of the Father, that he might be all in all to them. Surv. p. 276.

Answ. I do not conceive by Kingdom to be meant the chil­dren of the Kingdom, but the external donative regiment of Christ over his visible Church-Catholike dispensed by Ordinan­ces and Officers here below, which shall then cease. And ‘though the Ordinances (as he alledgeth) are distinct from the Kingdom in sense and signification.’ Yet they strongly ar­gue a Kingdom constituted and governed by them: as the Kings laws argue a King and Kingdom. As from helps and govern­ments, 1 Cor. 12.28. we gather the consequence of helpers and governours, as officers in the Church: so from the external laws of this Kingdom, we necessarily conclude there is such a Kingdom, commensurable to the extent of these laws, and that external, Organical and Catholike, which is spoken of Isa. 9.6. And the 25. ver. makes it plain, for he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet: which reigning relates to professed Subjects as well as professed enemies; and these Subjects com­prehended in a Kingdom.

Again Heb. 12.28. Wherefore we receiving a Kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God ac­ceptably, with reverence and godly fear. This Kingdom cannot be meant of the internal Kingdom of grace in the heart, for that was also exercised by Christ in his peoples hearts, under the old Testament, but it is meant of the external, unalterable, per­petual Ordinances of worship and government, which differ­ed [Page 58] from those under the Law: else the Apostles antithesis of the Church under the Law, and the Church under the Gospel, had not been good, which are the things he compares in that place. Externals under the Law are opposed to externals un­der the Gospel. It cannot be meant of the Kingdom of glory, for they had not yet received that. And it is plain he speaks of a Kingdom wherein we may now serve God acceptably, with re­verence and godly fear. Now these Ordinances of worship and discipline being Catholike or universal, and relating to a King­dom, and therefore set down under the name of a kingdom, by a Metonymy of the subject for the adjunct, the Kingdom for the Ordinances of the Kingdom, do strongly argue the being of the Kingdom. Can we conceive that the holy Ghost would chuse to use such a metonymy of the subject, where there is no such subject? It is true (as is alledged) the unalterablenesse lyeth in the adjunct Ordinances, i. e. in regard of God, who will not alter them: and that the subject or kingdom may be moved and shaken by persecutions or heresies, and so may the Ordinances also, and have been we know; but that kinde of alteration, moving, or shaking, is not meant in the text, nei­ther was intended by me. I have the rather mentioned this text, because I finde one of our brethren for Congregational Churches, viz. M. William Sedgwick, giving this Exposition of it in a Sermon of his in print, which was preached before divers members of the House of Commons.

Sect. 6.Again 1 Cor. 5.12. The Apostle saith, what have I to doe to judge those that are without? The preposition or adverb [...], I desire to know what it doth relate unto, Is it not meant [...], without the Church? And can we think that that Church was the Church of Corinth only? Had Paul nothing to do to judge any that were out of the Church of Corinth, when he was an Apostle all over the Christian world? This could not be meant of the invisible company only: what? had Paul nothing to do to censure any but invisible members? Why did he then excommunicate Hymenaeus, Philetus, Phigellus, Hermo­genes and Alexander? And saith, I would they were cut off that trouble you. Also it must be meant of an Organical body, because here are censures mentioned as belonging to all within. [Page 59] And therefore it must be meant of the Church-Catholike visible Organical: What have I to do to judge those that are not brought into the Church? They are not under my power or cognizance, but belong only to the civil Magistrate.

And we usually speak of the Countreys that are within the Pale of the Church, and those that are without. And we have an axiome, Extra Ecclesiam non est salus; which cannot be meant of any particular Congregation in the world, but is true of the Church-Catholike visible, typified by the Ark of Noah, without which ordinarily and visibly there is no hope of salvati­on. Extra ejus gremium non est speranda peccatorum remissio. Calv. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. S. 4.

Again, Eph. 4.4, 5. The Apostle proveth the Church to be but one by divers Arguments, First, saith he, There is one body of Christ, which is therefore called, Eph. 3.6. [...], both of Jews and Gentiles, i. e. the same body. And this an Organical body, because Paul addeth, ver. 7. whereof I was made a Mini­ster. Secondly, there is but one spirit in that whole body, which is as one soul in one body. Thirdly, there is but one hope of their calling. Fourthly, There is but one Lord, or King over the whole Church. Fifthly, There is but one faith, i. e. One religion, do­ctrine, worship, the same Commands and Statutes for all. Sixthly, There is but one Baptism, to admit into this Church. Now if the whole world were under one King, and governed by one Law, and all one body, and all capable of the same priviledges, and all made Denizons by the same way of enrowl­ment, it would make but one Empire; yet so it is with all the Christians and Churches in the world; they have the same King, Law, Word, Sacraments of admission and nutrition, which they visibly subject themselves unto and receive, therefore they are all one visibly Church. Upon this text, ver. 12. Beza in his large Annotations hath this note. ‘Being the Church is to be considered, either as a Communalty of a sacred Common-wealth, or as a spiritual Temple, or as a mystical body, the mi­nistery of the word ought likewise to be referred to these three heads, &c.’ All which 3. considerations shew the unity and integrality of the whole.

And that this is meant of the visible Church, and not invi­sible [Page 60] or Triumphant, as M. Ellis conceiveth, appeareth, because it is the Church to whom Officers are given, ver. 11. to be edi­fied, ver. 12, 13. compacted together by joints, ver. 16. of whom mutual duties both religious and civil are required, for such are set down in that Chapter, and the following. And so M. Hoo­ker understands it, Surv. p. 3, where he cites this text for the political body or Church visible of Christ, ruled by the dona­tive, delegated power of Christ, and that visibly by his Ordi­nances and officers. It is therefore the militant visible Church which holdeth forth the truth, Phil. 2.16. contending for it, Jude 3. Into which the thief may possibly enter. Joh. 10. Act. 20.29, 30.

Again Christ saith, Mat. 16.18. On this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Was this a particular Congregation? No surely, but the Church Ca­tholike, for any particular Church may be prevailed against, but the whole shall not, The place is meant of a Church future, to be built, which Christ then intended to set up, which was the Evangelical Catholike Church, consisting of Jews and Gen­tiles as one body, and not Catholike (as some take it) for the Church past, present, and to come, for those already in hea­ven are out of gunne-shot of assault, but it is meant de Ec­clesia vivorum, de militante, de Ecclesia quam Christus erat aedi­ficaturus.

Object. O but this place is meant only of the Church in­visible, for they that are only visible may be prevailed a­gainst?

Answ. It is true, that any particular meerly visible member may be prevailed against, yet all shall not; and even the invi­sible members which cannot be prevailed against (so many as are left in any, though never so general and fierce persecution) shall remain as visible. For Ecclesia nunquam definit esse visi­bilis. Therefore Satan or men shall never so far prevail, as to cut off all visible members. And though heresies should come that deceive all but the elect (which is not supposable) yet as long as the Elect are not deceived, there remaineth a Church Catholike visible, still in their visibility. But it cannot be af­firmed that all are invisible members that are left, or hold [Page 61] out in the hottest persecutions, or subtlest heresies: strong en­lightnings and covictions, and struglings of conscience, and other by-ends may do much. Latent members may not be invi­sible.

But the reasons which induce me to think that this text is meant of the Church visible, are these; two I finde in the con­text. First, because this Church is built upon this visible or au­dible profession, that Christ is the sonne of God, which Peter made; The rock there spoken of, is not an indefinite Messiah to come, for so the Church from the beginning of the world was built on that work: but the profession and doctrine that the Messiah is already come, that this Jesus is the Messiah, and this Jesus the Messiah is the sonne of God. It is the con­fessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, 1 Joh. 4.2, 3. And the beleeving that I am he (saith Christ) Joh. 8.24. And therefore the Jews that believed before in an indefinite Messiah to come, were upon their conversion to the Christian faith built upon this rock, and by a new Sacrament admitted into this Christi­an Church, as well as the Gentiles.

Secondly, Because Christ immediatly in the next verse affixeth officers to this Church, by promising the keys of the Kingdom of heaven unto Peter (and not to him only but to the rest also, as appears in other places) which keys are an Ensign of office in that Church which Christ would build.

Thirdly, Because the admission into this Evangelical Church was upon a visible profession of their belief of this doctrine, and a visible receiving of a visible external badg of bap­tisme.

Fourthly, Because this Church is assaulted by visible adversa­ries, viz. persecutors and hereticks, and that visibly: and though they shall never wholly prevail against it, yet visibly waste great part of it many times.

And M. Hooker himself acknowledgeth that he doth incline to this judgement of this text, viz. that it is the visible Church that is there meant. Surv. c. 15. p. 278.

Only he objecteth against a reason which I brought of it, which was to this purpose. If all the visible members should fail, then all the invisible must needs fail also, for none are in­visible [Page 62] (in the Church I mean) but must be visible also. His Objection against this is, because an invisible member may be justly excommunicated, and so cast out of all the visible Church­es in the world, and so be no visible member, and yet re­main an invisible member still, for that membership cannot be lost.

Answ. It is very doubtful to me how far excommunication casteth a man out of the visible Church; it debars him indeed from the Lords Supper, because it is a seal; and from familiar intimate society with Gods people, because he is an infected member, and so doth a notorious sinne, though the man be not excommunicated. But I conceive it cuts him not off to­tally from the visible Church; For first, the seal of baptism re­maineth on him, and therefore is not iterated at his readmissi­on. Secondly, he is admitted to hearing the word, and prayer, and conference with Gods people. He is a diseased leprous member under censure, shut from the most intimate actual com­munion, until he be cured and cleansed. That which is done to him is under consideration of discipline, as to a member now diseased, in order to cure, not as to one that is damned, or to one that is under the sinne against the holy Ghost, as Julian the Apostate was. And if any godly person through weaknesse of judgement concerning Churches not rightly gathered, refuse to be baptized (as M. Hooker suggesteth) he is indeed no com­pleat member in that regard, but he being converted by visi­ble means, and making visible profession, he is an incompleat visible member of the Church-Catholike Entitive.

Again, Excommunication in 3 Ep. Joh. ver. 10. is called cast­ing out of the Church, What Church is that? It cannot be the invisible Church, for all the censures in the world cannot cast a man out of that, if once he be in; therefore it is the visible Church. Then I would know whether a man truly excom­municated in one Church or Congregation, is not thereby ex­communicated from brotherly fellowship with all Congre­gations, yea, and Christians not gathered yet into Congrega­tions? Or whether the delivering up to Satan, by the Officers of a particular Congregation, be only within the bounds of one Congregation, or in reference to their members only; [Page 63] so that if he remove out of such a circle or circuit of ground to another, or from those members to others, he be out of Satans bonds again, and may communicate there de jure?

‘This M. Hooker saith, is per Synecdochen generis pro Specie, that particular Church where Diotrephes usurped prehemi­nence is understood. For when a person is justly excommu­nicated from the Congregation in which he was, it follows of necessity that all that fellowship he might enjoy by ver­tue of communion of Churches, must of that necessity be de­nied unto him, and he justly deprived thereof, because in the vertue of his fellowship with one, he gained fellowship with others.’

Answ. Whether the word Church be there properly, or per Synecdochen generis, or Synecdochen Integri, I shall not now enquire but refer it to a Chapter by it self, in which shall be enquired whether the Church-Catholike be a genus or integrum. But I question much whether a mans fellowship with one Con­gregation be the ground whereby he gaineth fellowship and communion with others. For then how came the Apostles and Evangelists by right of communion with any Churches, seeing they were fixed members of none? And how could the 120. and 3000. converted by Peter have right of communion, and breaking bread together, before any Congregations were set up or setled? Therefore I conceive the primary right to com­munion is gained by being of the visible body, not by being of this or that Congregation, By being within the general Cove­nant, not by any particular Covenant. And I conceive, that Baptism and Excommunication run parallel herein; for as by Baptism a man is admitted externally into the whole visible body, and then may have fellowship with any part of the bo­dy: so by Excommunication a man is cast out from commu­nion with the whole, and therefore may communicate with no part. This is Apollonius his assertion. Sicut per Excommuni­cationem legitimam excommunicatus non tantum ex hac vel illa particulari Ecclesia ejicitur, sed ubicunque terrarum ligatur, & ex communione fraeternâ universalis Ecclesiae exeluditur. Mat. 18.17, 18. Ita & per Sacramentum Baptismi, & sacrae Eucha­ristiae, [Page 64] homini communio Ecclesiastica, Chap. 3. non tantùm in particulari, sed & universali Ecclesiâ obsignatur. Confid. quarund. contro. c. 2. Art. 3.

And though the power of Excommunication lyeth in the par­ticular Congregation, where a person enjoies his membership under the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, as M. Hooker saith, yet the Officers of that particular Church dispense that censure in re­ference to the whole body, whereof he that is so censured was a member, as well as of that Congregation, for being cast out of that, let him be or go where he will, he is under the King­dom of Satan, and all Churches should look at him as a Trai­tour against Christ, and so deal with him as one uncapable of Church-communion. Surv. c. 15.

So on the contrary, though Baptism be administred in a par­ticular Congregation, yet a man so admitted in any Congrega­tion, ought to be counted a subject to Christ, and not to be denied fellowship in any other Congregation, being a member of the visible body, except he some way forfeit his right. So that both admission into, and ejection out of the Church, though performed by Officers in a particular Congregation, yet relate first to the whole body.

CHAP. III. Proofs by Arguments and Reason that there is a Church-Catholike visible.

Sect. 1.THe first Argument is from Gods donation unto Christ, and it stands thus. If the donation of a Kingdom by God the Father unto Jesus Christ be universal and Oecumenical, then his Kingdom (which is his Church) is also universal and Oecume­nical. But the donation was of an universal Oecumenical King­dom: Therefore there is such an universal Oecumenical King­dom or Church.

The major proposition is clear: for whatsoever God the Fa­ther gave or promised unto Jesus Christ, that he performed. The [Page 65] minor or assumption is proved out of divers places of Scripture. As Psa. 2.8. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine in­heritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Which is spoken of the donative Kingdome of Christ given to him at his asking, and not the essential or natural Kingdom as God, Psal. 72.8. He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. Where is mentioned the exter­nal worship and offerings given unto him. The like promise we finde Isa. 49.6. It is a light thing that thou shouldest raise up the Tribes of Iacob, I will give thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that thou maist be my salvation to the ends of the earth. Also Dan. 7 14. And there was given unto him (Christ) dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve him, his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his King­dom that which shall not be destroyed: Which is meant of the do­native Kingdom given to Christ incarnate at his ascention, an­swering to Eph. 4.8. where the officers of his Kingdom are set down. And to Phil. 2 9. This is not only the internal Kingdom in the heart, for that he exercised from the beginning, but al­so an external Kingdom, or Church politie over all nations, after the ruine of the four Monarchies, which should be exer­cised over those Kingdoms which formerly were subject to those Monarchies: which Kingdom is that little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which became a great moun­tain and filled the whole earth, which the God of heaven should set up visibly in the stead of those Monarchies. Dan. 2.44. not in a civil power of this world, but in spiritual and divine Ordinances, which all Kingdoms that should be converted to the Christian faith should submit themselves unto. And this one mountain filling the whole earth, must needs be one Church-Catholike visible, submitting visibly to Christ. 2. If Gods in­tention in sending Christ, and the tenour of Gods donation, and exhibition of Christ, and redemption by Christ in his re­vealed will, be general to the whole world, then the visible Church is to be Catholike. But the former is true, and therefore so is the latter. I mean by general, Generibus singulorum, non sin­gulis generum.

The donation of Christ and redemption by him was not to [Page 66] the Jews only (as the Jews conceived) but to the whole world. Ioh. 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world. Joh. 3.16. God so loved the world (not the Jews only) that he gave his only begotten sonne, that whosoever belee­veth in him should not perish but have everlasting life, i. e. that whosoever in any part of the world, of what nation soever, should beleeve, should have everlasting life, That the world through him might be saved, vers. 17. The Antithesis is not be­tween the elect and reprobate, that whosoever of the elect be­leeve, as the Arminians make our sense of the words to runne ridiculously (though I confesse the elect only do truly beleeve) but it is between the Iew and the rest of the world. So Ioh. 4.42. Ioh. 6.33.51. 2 Cor. 5.19. 1 Ioh. 2.2. a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 Ioh. 4.14. The Saviour of the world.

Now though many of the benefits purchased by Christ for his elect be spiritual and invisible, and obtained only by the in­visible company, yet Christ himself and his death were visible, his righteousnesse visibly performed, his active and passive obedi­ence were visible, and multitude of benefits that the external Catholike Church receive thereby are visible.

3. If the Gospel of the Kingdom, the seed and means of con­verting and bringing in (not only of the invisible company, but) the visible Church, be Catholike, and universally preach­ed and received, then the Church so converted and visibly brought in, is Catholike also. But the Gospel is a general gift, and is scattered like seed indefinitely in all the world, and work­eth a visible conversion of the whole world, in Scripture phrase. Therefore the Church is Catholike also. The major is clear of it self. The minor is proved Mat. 24.14. This Gospel of the King­dom shall be preached in all the world, for a witnesse unto all Nations, Mar. 14.9. Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, &c. Rom. 10.18. Col. 1.6. The Gospel is come unto you, as it is to all the world, and bringeth forth fruit. Also Tit. 2.11. appeared unto all men.

4. If the Charter whereby the Church is constituted, be Catholike, then the Church constituted thereby is one Catho­like body: But the Charter constituting the Church is Catholike. Therefore, &c.

[Page 67]The major is clear of it self, One charter makes one polity. The minor will appear by those places of Scripture wherein the right of all Nations indefinitely is set down. Mat. 28.19. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. Mar. 16.15. Ioh. 3.16. Eph. 3.6. That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and [...] of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, whereof I was made a Minister. When the partition wall was broken down between Jew and Gentile (and then the Church began to be Catholike) what second limits did God set unto his Church? none, except men would sever themselves by re­jection of the Gospel, but external vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church, and that was universal. If there be any particular Charter by which any particular Church was constituted beside the gene­ral, let that be produced, I know none. For if there were, then that particular visible Church could never fail, or else a Gospel Charter must be lost. But all particular Churches hold their priviledges by the general Covenant applied to them­selves, as all the twelve Tribes did theirs by the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed. And all the several promi­ses, which are as appendices to the Covenant, are made to the whole Church-Catholike, and commensurable therewith, respe­ctively, without any respect to any particular Congregation or membership therein.

5. If there be Officers of a Church-Catholike visible, Sect. 2. then there is a Church-Catholike visible. But there are Officers of a Church-Catholike visible. Therefore, &c. The major cannot be denied. The minor appears by the donation of the Ministery to the Church-Catholike visible, Ma [...]. 28.19. Go teach all Nat­ons, baptizing them, &c. They are not circumscribed or limited to any one place, but are sent into the whole world to all Na­tions, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apo­stles, secundarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, Eph. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastours and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ. These two last places M. Hooker himself confesseth to be meant of the external, political body and Kingdom of Christ. Now [Page 68] these extraordinary Officers, Prophets, Evangelists, were Offi­cers of the Church-Catholike visible; for they had no limits of place, but were over all the Churches, and yet are said not to be set in the Churches, but in the Church.

And this is granted by some of our brethren for Congrega­tional Churches, that they were Catholike Officers, and there­fore did not baptize in reference unto particular Congregati­ons. And this M. Cartwright also in his Catechism acknowled­geth. The Apostles are usually called [...] universal Judges.

M. Hooker in answer to this argument, Surv. c. 15. pag. 272. First, mistakes my words and meaning, for whereas I proved the universality of their office from the unlimitednesse of it, he conceives it of having no limits in their works, and so set down, but I meant no limits in regard of places. And then he saith the reason of their unlimitednesse arose from their com­mission, because it was general, being immediatly called by God to preach to all nations, and they had vertually all Church-pow­er in them, but this did not issue nextly from the Church in which they were firstly set.

Answ. I confesse it did arise from their commission, which commission being general, made them general Officers, for what more can be required to make a general Officer but a ge­neral commission? it did not issue nextly from the Church, I confesse, neither doth the power of any particular Minister, but his power is given him by Christ, and not from the people, but is annexed unto his office; only the exercise thereof is drawn forth by the people, pro hic & nunc, and so the necessity of the whole Church drew forth their Apostolical Office into execution, and the necessity of a greater part of the Church may draw forth the exercise of any particular Ministers office beyond the limits of his Congregation occasionally.

6. If there be a general, external vocation, wherewith all Christians are called, and a general external Covenant where­into all Christians voluntarily and externally enter, and are therein bound up in an unity, then there is a general external Catholike Church. But there is such an external general visible vocation, and external individual visible general Covenant, &c. [Page 69] Therefore, &c. I mean by general, Catholike, Universal, Oecu­menical, in regard (not only of kinde, but) of places.

The major appears by evidence of reason and experience; for one Covenant with one King in any extent of compasse makes it one Kingdom. So &c.

The minor appears as evidently: For first, there is but one external general vocation divine, distinct from all other parti­cular vocations, not only civil bu [...] Ecclesiastical, which is usually called our general calling: and this is external, else none but in­visible beleevers were members of the visible Church, which is that we speak of.

And there is one individual expresse external Covenant, not only on Gods part. Act. 2.39. The promise is to you and to your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Which is an external Covenant and call relating to bap­tism, which they were invited to in the former verse, yet not excluding the inward Covenant or call, but oft separated from the inward, and yet the right to baptism remain in for [...] Eccle­siae. But also it is one external visible Covenant on mens part, which all Christians as Christians enter into, by their professed acceptance, and expresse restipulation, and promised subjecti­on and obedience: though not altogether in one place, or at one time.

7. If the initial visible seal, admittance and enrowlment, be Catholike and O [...]cumenical, then so as the Kingdom into which members are so initiated: But the initial seal, admission and en­rowlment by baptism is Catholike. Therefore, &c.

The major is clear without control, be that takes up his free­dom into a whole Corporation or Kingdom, is free of the whole, and in every part thereof, and hath right to all the general privi­ledges and immunities thereof.

The minor also appears, both by [...]he patent for Baptism, Go baptize all Nations, And by the consequences and priviledges thereof, they that are baptized in any Church are accounted visible subjects of Christs Kingdom in all places of the Chri­stian world, no new baptism is required of them upon any removal: and also by the tenor thereof, for they are not baptized into the particular Congregation, but into the whole [Page 70] visible body, and into the general Covenant, not into any par­ticular Covenant.

8. If there be an external Catholike union of fraternity be­tween all visible Christians in the whole world, there is one ex­ternal visible Catholike Church. But there is one external Ca­tholike union of fraternity between all visible Christians in the whole world. Therefore, &c.

The consequence of the major appears, because this fraternal union ariseth from the unity of the Church, which is constituted by one Covenant, into which they are all entred visibly. They are not made brethren by being invisible believers only, or in the same respect for then only invisible believers were bre­thren, in the Scripture sense. If any one that is called a bro­ther, be a drunkard, railer, extortioner, &c. 1 Corinth. 5.11. Now few true believers are fornicators, idolaters, drunkards; therefore this brotherhood is in regard of a visible profession and membership.

The minor appears, because whereever the Apostles came if they found any visible believers they are said to finde bre­thren, Act. 28.14. And it is the most usual term, that the Christians were called by, both in the Acts of the Apo­stles, and in the Epistles; not because they were of one par­ticular Congregation, but because of the Church-Catholike, which are also called the houshold of faith. Doe good unto all (i. e. though heathens) but especially to the houshold of faith. Gal. 6.10. The houshold is commmensurable to the enter­tainment of the faith. Not the invisible members only, for they could not be known as such, but all the visible members.

9. If the same individual systeme or body of external laws, under one command, whereby all Churches equally should walk and be governed, be Catholike, then the Church is Catholike. But there is the same individual systeme or body of external laws under one command, whereby, &c. Therefore, &c.

The major is proved by evidence of reason, and experience of all bodies politick.

The minor is undeniable. For the same individual systeme expressed in the Gospel totidem verbis governs and guides the whole Catholike Church, It cannot be said the same in kinde [Page 71] only, but the same for matter, manner, end, method, and expresse words: unlesse we can say the several copies are several species, and then we in England have so many species of laws as there be copies printed of our laws. Neither is it the law written in the heart, and put in the inward parts; but the external systeme gi­ven to the Church as a body politick. Neither is it the moral law quâ moral, but that in the hand of a Mediatour, with other positive laws added thereto.

Neither is this subjection unto these external laws arbitrary by the concurrent consent of divers Churches out of custome, or because of the equity and conveniency of them, vi materiae, as divers Kingdoms now use the civil laws, or for intercourse with forreign Churches; but by vertue of the command of the authour of them. Neither have particular Churches any muni­cipal laws divine of their own superadded to distinguish them, as England and Scotland have, but are wholly ruled by this Ca­tholike systeme.

10. If there be a Catholike external communion, intercourse, and communication between all the members, and in all the particular Churches in the world, in worship, doctrine, and sign or seal of confirmation, nutrition, or commemoration of the same redemption visibly wrought by the same visible Sa­viour; then all those members or Churches, having this external communion, intercourse and communication, are one Catholike Church: But there is such a communion, &c. Therefore, &c.

The consequence appears, because communion ariseth from membership; there is an union presumed, before there can be a communion admitted, especially in the Lords Sup [...]er, which is a seal, and if an union, then a membership, for thereby they are made of the body: and if the communion be visible and ex­ternal, then so is the union from whence it floweth, for qualis effectus talis est causa. And though there may be an admittance of a heathen to be present at the word, singing, praier, yet it is not an admittance into fellowship, for then we should have spiritual fellowship with idolaters; they may come and see what fellow­ship Christians enjoy with Christ, and one with another, but they are not admitted into that fellowship while heathens and idola­ters, [Page 72] but after conversion professed subjection and believing. Af­ter the 3000. were converted by Peter, and were baptized, they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and praier, Act. 2.41, 42. And yet were not of one particular Church, not as our brethren themselves tell us, as I shewed before, therefore as members in general. And nothing is more usual then for members of one Congregation to joyn in the fellowship of the word read and preached, in singing and prayer with members of divers Congregations to­gether, as at lectures or other occasions, and frequently also at the Lords table, even among our brethren in New-England, members of far distant Congregations do communicate occasi­onally. Also all the visible Churches on earth pray publikely, and give thanks, and on occasion may fast for the welfare of the whole Church on earth.

As for the evasion which some of our brethren have, that this communion of strangers with them is by vertue of a parti­cular, present, transient membership with them; I conceive it of no force, nor warranted in the word of God. Then should those men be members of two Churches at once, then ought they to contribute to that Minister, then ought that Minister to take the charge of them, then (by some of our brethrens posi­tions) should the whole Congregation have a hand in their admission. Also if there be any Ecclesiastical admissions or censures or transactions, or contributions that concern that particular Congregation, they also ought being members to have their vote and consent and hand therein. And then by the same reason all that came to a lecture which is a Church-fellowship in divine Ordinances of singing, praier, preach­ing, and blessing the people, must so many times turn mem­bers of that Congregation, where such a meeting is. And then is it a dangerous thing to hear a lecture in a Con­gregation where the Minister or people are corrupt, for we thereby make our selves members of that Congregation, and so put our selves under that Pastour and those Elders for the present, and thereby give our allowance of them. It is not a sub [...]tane, occasional meeting, that can make a per­son a member of a Congregation, but constancy, quoad in­tentionem [Page 73] saltem, saith Ames in medul [...]a, lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 21. And for communion of Churches, I shall speak of it afterward. And by this that hath been said, I suppose the minor is cleared also.

11. If the censure of excommunication of a person in one Congregation cuts him off from the Church-Catholike visible in regard of communion, which formerly he had right unto, then is there a Church-Catholike visible▪ But excommunication doth so, &c. Therefore, &c.

The consequence appears, because the ejection (being a cast­ing out of the body) cannot extend it self beyond the body, but ejection is general, therefore so [...]s the body. The priva­tion cannot extend it self beyond the habit: if therefore the extent of the depriving censure be Catholike, the habitual body is so also. There is not only a potentiality of right to communi­cate every where, while a man is a member, but an habitual right, not rising from courtesie, but from membership, not particular membership, for then none could communicate but particular members, but from a general habitual membership, to which the communion belongeth. So farre as the expulsion or disfranchisement reach, so far the Corporation reacheth, and as the particular ward or street (where such a man dwelt) lo­seth a particular member, so the who [...]e Corporation loseth a member of the whole. So is it in this spiritual Corporation of the Church-Catholike visible. There is not only an habitual fit­nesse and capacity lost, but an habitual general right lost, du­ring the censure. The man is said to lose a member, when the hand loseth a finger, therefore the finger was a member of the whole man, as well as of the han [...] in particular. So is this case of excommunication.

12. If there be parts and members of the Church-Catholike visible there, then there is a whole Church Catholike visible: but there are parts and members, &c. Therefore &c.

The consequence is undeniable, for whole and parts are re­lata. Pars est quae continetur a t [...]to, membrum ab integro. The minor is proved also, because particular Congregations and particular Christian families and persons are parts and mem­bers of the Church-Catholike visible. Either they are parts and [Page 74] members, or they are none, and so out of the body, and with­out in the Apostles sense. If no members, then no right to Or­dinances, for right ariseth from membership, membership from qualifications. The same relation that particular believing per­sons bear to a Christian family, and which Christian families bear to a Congregation, the same relation by proportion doe particular Congregations bear to the whole Church-Catholike or any great part thereof. But particular persons are members of families, and particular families of Congregations, and therefore Congregations are members of the whole body of the Church Catholike visible. The family is consisted of the persons, the Congregation of the families, and the Church-Catholike vi­sible, or any great part thereof, of the particular Congregations. A Genus cannot be said to consist of species, but to give essence to species. Animal rationale, or humanity, doth not consist of particular men, but exist in particular men. But whether the Church-Catholike be a genus or an integrum, or both, I shall handle in the next Chapter.

Sect. 4.I might urge also the several metaphors whereby the Scri­pture setteth out the whole number of visible believers under an unity. As Rev. 12.1. by a woman cloathed with the Sun, (the righteousnesse of Christ) and the Moon (all terrestrial things) under her feet: or cloathed with the Sun, the purity of doctrine, and the moon (as some interpret it) discipline under her feet: or, as some others expound it, Idolatry, whereof Diana the Moon was chief and most general: or by Moon some under­stand the legal ceremonial service which was guided much by the Moon, under her feet, i.e. now abolished. So M. Mede. Now this was a visible Church, because it is said to be seen, and is opposed either to the Jewish Church that had these ceremo­nies formerly on her back, or to the Jewish Christian Church, which could not for a long time cast them off; but this Christian Church did. Surely it was not a particular Congregation that John saw, nor is it meant of divers particular Congregations, for then it should have been women, not a woman, therefore it was the Church-Catholike visible bound up in an unity.

Also Joh. 10.16. It is set out by one sheep-fold. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and [Page 75] there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. Which is by all interpret­ed of the union of Jew and Gentile, which are the two inte­grant parts of the Church-Catholike. And though by sheep should be meant the elect, yet they are considered as visible, be­cause brought into a fold in this world, and such a fold as the thief may enter possibly into, as it is in the former verses, yea, and the wolf also, Act. 20.19. Beza noteth upon that place in John, that by sheepfold is not meant the flock it self, but some­thing that holds them together, and makes them one flock. Ca­merarius on the place, Est Indicium Ecclesiae sanctae Catholicae in toto Orbe terrarum, &c. And Salmasius, Ʋt una est Eccle­sia, ita unus est grex Christi, vel unum Ovile. Portiones gregis illius, sunt greges civitatum particulare [...]. Hinc grex & Eccle­sia idem sunt, tam in generali, quam speciali notione. Salmas. ap­parat. 263.

Also it is called the body of Christ, Rom. 12.5. As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one mem­bers one of another. This was not meant of the particular Church of Rome, for the Apostle puts in himself into this body, who had as then never come at Rome, therefore it is the Church-Ca­tholike there spoken of, whereof Paul was both a member, and a Minister. And this body is a visible body, because it is Organi­cal, and organical because the Apostle thereupon reckons up the several offices in the Church, as teaching, exhorting, giving, ru­ling, shewing mercy, which some compute to be an exact distri­bution of Church-Offices. So called also 1 Cor 10.17. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 4 4. Also the house of God, as I shewed before, 1 Tim. 3.15. And a great house 2 Tim. 2.20. which sets out the Church-Catholike. Now had these places been meant of par­ticular Congregations, then they should have been called bo­dies, houses, sheep-folds. But as many members in a body hinder not the unity of the whole, and many Towns in a Kingdome, and many houses in a city, and many rooms in a house, or in the Ark, hinder not the unity thereof; so many particular Con­gregations hinder not the unity of the Church-Catholike. Est una sola Christi Ecclesia, quae ob idetiam dicitur Catholica Parti­culares Ecclesiae non sunt impedimento quin una sit Ecclesia. Zanch. de Ecclesia.

[Page 76] Chap. 4. My Dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mo­ther, Can. 6.9. She is the Lilly among the thorns, Can. 2.2. which is the Church militant. She is called the Spouse of Christ, Cant. 4.8, 9, 10. Again, Cant. 6.4. Thou art beautiful O my love as Tir­zah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners. These things are spoken of the Church militant: and though some things here mentioned be spoken in regard of the invisible com­pany only, the better part, yet to them as visible, and as terri­ble by discipline. And 2 Thes. 2.4. It is said of Antichrist, that he as God sitteth in the temple of God By Temple is meant the Church of God, and this a visible Church, yet no particular Congrega­tion, but the general Church-Catholike, or at least the great­est part of it, for it is said, Rev. 13.3. All the world wondred after the beast. And Rev. 17.1. She is said to sit upon many waters, which are as is expounded, vers. 15. Peoples, and multitudes, and Nations, and tongues. And Rev. 18.3. It is said that All Nations have drunk of the wine of her fornication, and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her.

Yea, the holy Ghost chooseth to joyn many particular Church­es together by Nouns collective, Nouns of multitude in the sin­gular number. Remarkable is that 1 Pet. 5.2. where writing to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithinia, he cals them all one flock, Feed the flock of God which is among you. And from this place M. Bayns granteth that all the Churches of the world may be called Oecumenical. Bayns Diocles. Tryal. p. 12. conclus. 1. And so Act. 20. To the Elders of Ephesus. The Churches of Galatia are compared to one lump. Gal. 5.5.

CHAP. IV. That the Church-Catholike visible is one Integral, or totum Integrale.

NOw because I see it is much stumbled at, that I made the Church-Catholike to be Totum integrale, and because it [Page 77] will let much light into the Question in hand, I shall endeavour to prove that the Church-Catholike visible is an integral, or to­tum integrale.

And first negatively, that it is not a Genus. First, Sect. 1. a Genus is made or drawn per abstractionem Logicam (vel metaphysicam, as M. Ellis conceiveth:) but an Integral is made or constituted per conjunctionem sive appositionem physicam, vel politicam. Now the Church-Catholike visible is not made or drawn by logical or metaphysical abstraction, but by political conjunction, com­bination or apposition of the parts and members thereof. So Ames. medul. lib. 1. cap. 33. Sect. [...]8. Sicut per fidem Ec­clesia habet statum essentialem, & per combinationem, integra­lem, sic etiam per ministerium habet Organicum quendam statum.

2. A Genus hath no existence of its own, but so hath the Church-Catholike visible, viz. Per combinationem, sive ag­gregationem. No genus can be capable of combination or aggregation, for that is an accident belonging to an inte­gral.

3. It appears by the definition of a genus both according to the Ramists and Aristotelians. The Ramists say, Genus est totum partibus essentiale. The genus is essential to its parts, i. e. spe­cies. But Integrum est totum cui partes sunt essentiales vel inte­grales. Now the several Churches are integrant to the Church-Catholike visible, they make and constitute the Oecumenical by aggregation.

And according to the Aristotelians, Genus est totum quod de pluribus specie differentibus potest praedicari in quid. Now this cannot agree to the Church-Catholike or Oecumenical, for the particular Churches do not differ specie [...], by any specifical forms, but only by accidental and numerical differences. Unlesse you will say that Individua sunt species, which as it is generally de­nied, so it is most unlikely in similar bodies of all others. And if the single Churches be Individua, then at the most the Oecu­menical can be but a species, yea, species insima. So Ames med. c. 31. s. 18. Ecclesia haec (viz. Ca [...]h.) est mystica ratione una, non genericè, sed quasi species specialissima, vel individuum, quia nullas habet species propriè dictas. And yet I acknowledge he [Page 78] saith, c. 32. s. 5. Ecclesia particularis respectu communis illius na­turae quae in omnibus Ecclesi [...]s particularibus reperitur, est species Ecclesiae in genere, sed respectu Ecclesiae Catholicae quae habet ra­tionem integri, est membrum ex aggregatione variorum membr [...] ­rum singularium compositum, at (que) adeo respectu ipsorum est etiam integrum.

A similar totum differs much from an universal, similarity of parts doth not at all hinder integrality, but universality is of another nature, being an abstract second notion. Society or polity is a Genus, and is divided or rather distinguished into ci­vil and Ecclesiastical: now indeed civil polity hath distinct species, viz. monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, and mixed: but Ecclesiastical polity hath none of Gods appointment. In­deed there is Papal, Prelatical, and Presbyterial, but the former are humane, the last (as I conceive) divine. I confesse also this last is in dispute whether it be combined or independent, but this distinction our ignorance hath brought forth, there is but one by Gods institution. It is true also, that some mem­bers are invisible, and some visible only, but the invisible have their external communion in Ordinances quà visible; as they are under Ecclesiastical polity they are all considered as visible: but this distinction makes not two species of Churches or po­lities, for as invisible members they have no officers, but as visible.

I acknowledge there may by the minde of man, a community of nature be abstracted from any similar bodies, and so conse­quently from the similarity of Congregations, but whether that be sufficient to make a genus, where there are no distinct specifi­cal differences under it, I shall leave to the Logicians to dispute it out. And to make this totum genericum existens, is beyond my apprehension, seeing genus being a second notion existeth not, but in intellectu nostro: habet fundamentum in rebus, non existentiam. For as it doth exist it is an integral, and loseth its abstract nature, wherein the universality doth consist. That which existeth in the Individual is not totum, but pars essentialis individui. As it is abstracted by the minde, and relateth to the Genus, it is but symbolum causae materialis, as it is existing in the Individual, it is ipsa causa materialis Individui. And there­fore [Page 79] though it be said that tota natura Generis conservatur in una specie, and by this rule in uno individuo, it must be funda­mentaliter only, non formaliter, for there is no such universality formally in specie, & multò minus in Individuo. As the nature of a flock is not reserved in one sheep, or a corporation in one man, to use M. Hookers own words. Sur. cap. 15. pag. 261. One Church also may be more pure then another, and larger then another, but these accidents vary not the species.

But 2. I shall prove the Oecumenical Church is an Integral. Sect. 2. First, because it hath an existence of its own, which no Genus hath. And this existence appears because it hath an external form and state which no Genus can have. This Ames confesseth, as I shew­ed before, yea, the Church Catholike visible had an existence be­fore it was divided into particular societies, in the beginning of it, in the Apostles daies, as I shewed before, and that not as En­titive only, but under the general Officers, with whom they did communicate, in doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and praier.

2. Because the several and singular Churches do constitute and make up the Oecumenical, as members of it, now mem­brum & integrum sunt relata. A genus hath no members. The particular Churches are integrant to the whole, and the whole results out of them. Hence Salmasius hath this passage, Ʋni­versum Ecclesiae corpus in majora membra divisum. Apparat. 285. Every particular Congragation contains part of the matter and part of the form of the whole, I mean with Ames in respect of the external state of it. But a Genus hath no external state. Quod habet partes extra partes est Tetum integrale, sed Ecclesia universalis visibilis habet partes extra partes; Ergo. The mayor is the very definition of totum integrale. The minor is clear, for the particular Churches are different one from another & sitis & ordine, & singulae suâ praedi [...]ae sunt quantitate, & non se invicem permeant. They are not only distinct in consideration, but in existence, and exist one besides another as Towns in a Kingdom.

3. Nay, it appears further to be an integral, because it is made up not only of the particular Congregations, but of in­dividual Christians, not only such as are particular members of particular Congregations, but such as are not members of [Page 80] any particular Congregation, as I suppose all Christians are not fixed members, nor can be, as I could give divers instances, as in regard of habitation, perigrination, banishment, want of opportunity, scrupulosity. If such be not members of the Church-Catholike because not fixed, then the Apostles themselves and Evangelists were none, for they were not fixed: but we finde that they were not only members, but officers, and so related to the body as organical. A Corporation or City consisteth not only of streets, wards, and companies, but of persons within their liberties though dwelling alone. Now if the Church-Ca­tholike be a genus, it cannot be abstracted from them both, if it be abstracted from particular Congregations, and so be a genus of societies and polities, then it doth not contain such as are not in any societies or polities: if it be abstracted from them as particular unfixed members, then it is no genus of particular Churches, for they are none, nor of any. But as the Church is an integrum it may be made up of both, and result out of both.

4. That which hath inherent accidents and adjuncts existing in it, as its own, that is an integral, for a genus is not capable of them: But the Church-Catholike visible hath accidents inhaering, adhaering, and betiding unto it and existing in it. Therefore it is an integral.

The major is undeniable. The minor appeareth by instance. Beauty, strength, offensive, defensive, purity, terriblenesse with banners ( viz. of discipline) conspicuity, order, visibility, &c. are accidents that may and sometimes have been, and some of them are still existing in the whole Church, as belonging to the whole: therefore it is an integral.

Again, That which is capable of being majus and minus, i. e. is sometimes greater and sometimes lesse in extent, that is an integral, but so is the Church-Catholike or Oecumenical. The consequence is clear, because a Genus can neither be greater or lesse then it ever was. Animal was as great a Genus when there were but two men, and a few beasts in the world, as it is now there are many millions: for the greatnesse of the genus is not measured by continuous or discreet quantity; but the nearer Ens it is, and the further from Individuals, the great­er the Genus is, i. e. the more comprehensive; and the further [Page 81] remote from Ens, and the nearer the Individuals, the lesse the Genus is, i. e. the lesse comprehensive. But the Oecumenical Church is measured by quantity continuous in regard of place wherein it is, and discrete in regard of number of the Churches and members thereof: sometimes the bounds thereof are en­larged, and sometimes streightned. There is an augmentation by addition of members, a diminution by substraction, and the whole resulteth out of the aggregation of the parts, not by local contiguity alwaies, but by political, Ecclesiastical, habitual consociation and union in the same external profession, subjecti­on, and fraternity.

Again, that totum which is mutable and fluxile, is an integral, for a Genus is immutable, constant, permanent, aeternae veritatis, But the Church Oecumenical is very mutable and fluxile, some­time flourishing, sometime under persecution: sometimes con­spicuous, sometimes it may be laten [...]: sometimes more pure, sometimes more corrupt: sometimes it hath more beauty and strength, and sometimes lesse: and though this be in the parts and members, the particular Churches, yet it may be in the whole, and the beauty and strength of the parts of a natural or civil body is the beauty and strength of the whole man, City, Kingdom: every member hath his own beauty and strength, and out of them all resulteth the beauty and strength of the whole.

Again, That totum which is measured by time and place, is an integral: for Genus which is a notion is capable of neither of them; but so is the Church Oecumenical: Hence we divide the Church into primitive and successive. From the time of John the Baptist the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, Mat. 11.12. Sometime the Church hath been planted in the Eastern parts of the world, and now is more Westerly, and is in likelihood still going more Westward. We use to limit the Church within the pale thereof, though potentially, in regard of permission, and (haply) promise, it may be actually over the whole earth. Amplitudo & vetustas sunt accidentia Ecclesiae visibilis. See Ca­meron de conspic. Ecclesiae.

5. That Totum whereinto there is admission, Sect. 3. wherein there is nutrition and edification, and out of which there is ejection, that [Page 82] is an integral: But there is admission into the Church-Catho­like visible by Baptism, nutrition and edification by the other external Ordinances, and ejection out of it by excommunicati­on: Therefore it is an Integral. For a Genus is capable of none of these. Indeed if you consider this society in reference to o­ther societies or religions, it is a distinct kinde, in regard of the Authour, laws, qualifications of members; but in reference unto its members it is an integral: If this be all that is meant by totum genericum existens, it may passe without any dammage to this question. So the several companies in London are distinct from other companies, yet in reference to their own members they are integrals, and in reference to the whole they are parts.

6. That society which hath not only a head or governour in heaven, of the same nature as man: but Officers on earth, which are indefinitely and habitually Officers to the whole, that is an integral: but so hath the Oecumenical Church, therefore it is an integral. A Genus is not capable of Officers: But the Church-Catholike had once (by M. Ellis's own confession) a­ctual, universal Officers, and was then one governed body: and still the Officers are indefinitely and habitually Officers to the whole, as shall be proved in Chap. 7. And the visibility of the head in Chap. 5. Sect 6.

7. That which hath actions and operations of its own, that is an integral, for a Genus is not capable thereof, but the Church-Catholike or Oecumenical hath or may have actions, operations and effects of its own. Therefore, &c.

The minor, upon which all the weight of this argument lyeth, is proved thus. The Church-Catholike visible may by their de­legates meet in a general Councel, about the affairs that con­cern the whole, and though their power therein were but only consultative and suasive (as M. Ellis grants) yet it is an act of the whole, as the acts of a Kingdom represented in Parliament are said to be national acts; but I conceive they may do more, even make decrees, as well as the Synod, Act. 15. They may confute and suppresse general heresies and disorders. Yea, and the whole Church-Catholike may yield consent, submission and obedience thereunto, as their acts, finding them agreeable [Page 83] to the word of God. Sect. 4. There may be a general humiliation of the whole Church-Catholike visible, or a general thanksgiving, as occasion may be offered. There may be a general contestation with the same hereticks, and renouncing of their errours, a ge­neral suffering under, and conflict with, and conquest over the same adversaries, as suppose Antichrist, and Triumphing over them. See Rev. 19. the 7. first verses, All Gods servants both small and great are called to it. I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thundrings, saying, Allelujah. This was not the act of a particular Congregation, but of the Church Catholike, and yet all these are vers. 8. bound up in an unity, and they are cal­led the Lambs wife, and unto her was granted, &c. The Church-Catholike visible also conquereth and subdueth spiritually the rest of the world, and bringeth them into external subjection to Christ, and leaveneth them with the doctrine of Christ, and uniteth them to themselves in this spiritual society, so that they become [...] one body. And though this be done by parti­cular members and Churches, yet that hinders it not from be­ing the act of the whole, as when an army of souldiers of one Kingdom conquer neighbour Kingdoms, and adde them to their own (as the Romans did all the world) it is accounted the action of the whole nation, or a national act: so is this case though the conquest differ in kinde. And this may serve for an answer to M. Hookers query, Surv. c. 16. p. 256. 259. ‘Whether the Church-Catholike can be considered as distinct from the particular Churches (not by separation of the whole from the parts, but) in apprehension, by presenting some distinct Officer, act, or operation, which do not pertain to the parti­cular Churches.’ For as there is a head and King of the whole, as visible, and one systeme of laws, and habitual, indefinite Officers of the whole, so you see there are acts and operations of the whole, both by their delegates, and by themselves, which though they be performed by particular persons belonging (ha­ply) to particular Churches (as the souldiers making up an army belong to several Towns) yet do not perform them as particular members of the particular Churches, but of the whole, neither do they convert into the particular Churches, [Page 84] but into the whole: as such souldiers fight not as members of such a Town, but of such a Kingdom, and conquer not to en­large their several Towns, but the Kingdom in general. And for constant actual Officers, and distinct services, such as the na­tional Church of the Jews had, because they could meet toge­ther three times every year, and oftner upon occasion, they can­not be expected in the Oecumenical body, it being too large for such constant meetings.

If the Church-Catholike can bring forth sons, then it can perform operations: But it can bring forth sons. This M. Ellis himself confesseth by consequence, for in the close of his Epi­stle Dedicatory before his vindiciae Catholicae, he subscribes him­self a sonne of the Church. What other Church can he mean but the Catholike? If he meaneth the particular Church whereof he is Pastour, he is not a son but a father, and governour of that: and then he should more properly have said, Sonne of a Church, not Sonne of the Church, for there be more Churches then this, unlesse he meant the by way of eminency. He cannot mean of the Church of England, for he denies all National Churches, therefore it must be of the Church-Catholike, and yet he denies that there is any such thing visible, and that which he doth acknowledge he makes a Genus; which is a second no­tion without existence, and then, as himself confesseth, Non ex­istentis nulla sunt operationes. The species or Individuals cannot be sonnes of the Genus. And therefore he should more safely have subscribed himself a member or Minister of the Church; and yet that must have proved the Church-Catholike: or of a Church, and then he might have meant his own.

8. It will appear by the several appellations which are given to the Church-Catholike in Scripture. For in Scripture it is called a Body, yea, [...] one and the same body, which hath one head or governour, which hath constant influence into that body: even into those that are only visible members in common works, and into the invisible members in saving works, and governs both by external laws. Now a Genus, though it hath subordinate species, yet is no body, nor hath any head or go­vernour, nor any influence given unto it, neither is it govern­ed by any external laws, for then it must exist. Yea, the Church-Catholike [Page 85] visible is called a body fitly joyned together and com­pacted, Sect. 3. by that which every joint supplyeth. Eph. 4.16. which ap­pears to be the external, political Kingdom of Christ, as M. Hoo­ker cals it, and applyeth this Chapter, because here are the Officers reckoned up, yea, the extraordinary general Officers. Ʋbi omnes partes existunt simul compactae, ibi totum integrale ex­istit; Sed omnes partes Ecclesiae Catholicae visibilis existunt simul compactae. Ergo totum integrale totius Ecclesiae Catholicae visibilis existit. This M. Hooker saith is true of a Totum genericum exi­stens, but not that all particular Congregations do exist aggre­gated together, as members of the Catholike, p. 268. But how a Genus can be a body, and the particular species fitly joyned together and compacted, by that which every joint supplyeth, I cannot understand. The relation between a Genus and spe­cies cannot be compared to joynts compacting and joyning a body together, but most properly relateth to the union of an integrum.

Also it is called a Kingdom, as I shewed before. The King­dom of his dear sonne, Col. 1.13. The Gospel is called the Gospel of the Kingdom, Mat. 4.23. And the word of the Kingdom, Mat. 13.19. And such as are only visible members are called the chil­dren of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. And this Kingdom hath a King and Laws and Officers in it; now a Kingdom or society is no Genus, but an Integral. It is also called a Tabernacle, Revel. 21.3. which was a thing coupled together with tenons, soc­kets, loops, and taches, and so an integral, no Genus, nor could signifie any. It is called also an house or building, 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church which is the house of God. 1 Cor. 3.9. Ye are Gods building, Eph. 2.21. In whom all the building fitly fram­ed together, &c. which is the Catholike Church visible consisting of Jews and Gentiles, built on the visible foundation of the Apo­stles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone. And a houshold, Gal. 6.10.

Also it is called a Temple in the fore-cited Eph. 2.21. 1 Cor. 3.17. 2 Cor. 6.16. Now the Temple was an Integral. Also it is called a city, and the members thereof Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens. Eph. 2.29. Also an army terrible with banners, Cant. 6.10. Also it is called a sheepfold, a wheat-field, a [Page 86] barn-floor, a dragge-net. a loaf of bread made up of divers grains, 1 Cor. 10.17. Now all these, and many more appellations have no analogy to a Genus, but to an Integrum. Therefore the Church-Catholike visible is an Integrum.

9. It appears to be an Integral from the words which the Scri­pture useth to expresse the Church and union of the members of the Church-Catholike together. As Act. 2.41. There were added about 3000. souls [...]. They were put unto them, as an encrease: now a Genus is not capable of addition by num­bers, but an Integral only. Also Eph. 4.12. The Officers (ge­neral as well as particular) are given to the whole external, political body of Christ (to use M. Hookers own words) for the perfecting of the Saints, [...], ad coag­mentationem sanctorum. It signifyeth properly to make a thing perfect by filling of it up, omnibus numeru absolutum reddere, or as some render it, to set in joint again. All the significations agree only to an Integral. And for the edifying of the body of Christ, [...]. i. e. the building up of the body, relating to the whole Church. This is proper only to an Integral. A word also much like this, and more signifi­cant for the purpose in hand, we have Eph. 2.22. In whom also ye are builded together for an habitation of God, &c. [...], which signifyeth a knitting together in a build­ing. Also vers. 21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple. Here are three words note Inte­grality. First, the whole building [...], 2. fitly framed. [...]: 3. groweth, [...]. So Eph. 4.16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplyeth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh encrease of the body, unto the ed­fying of it self in love, Here are divers words which properly notifie an Integral: 1. [...], the whole body, 2. [...] fitly joyned, congruente proportione constructum vel connex­um. 3. [...], compactum, compacted. 4. by that which every joynt suupplyeth, [...] per omnem com­missuram suppeditationis, vel juncturum subministrationis. 5. [...] in mensura uninscujusque membri. 6. [...], augmentum corporis facit. 7. [...], [Page 87] in aedificationem sui. The like we finde, Col. 2.19. From whom all the body by joints and hands having nourishment, mini­stred and knit together encreaseth with the encrease of God. The words are most of them the same with the former in the Origi­nal. There is 1. a whole body, 2. joints, 3. bands, [...]; and nourishment ministred [...]. 4. knit together. 5. en­creaseth with encrease, [...] And though much spo­ken in these places seem to be applicable to the invisible com­pany, yet to them as visible, receiving edification from their Officers, and having visible communion one with another: and the Apostle speaks indefinitely of the Church under their Officers, without making any difference of kindes of believers. Also Act. 17.34. certain men clave unto him [...] were glued unto him, i e. Paul. And in the Old Testament, Isa. 14 1. The strangers shall be joyned with them (Israel) and they shall cleave unto the house of Jacob. [...] & copulabit se [...] & adhae­rebunt. All which and many more words in Scripture about the Church, shew it to be an integral.

10. If the invisible Church be one body of Christ (as in the primary sense they are) then by the same reason the visible also (as visible) are one body, for the only difference between them (as to this purpose) is in regard of the manner of com­munion; the one invisibly and inwardly, the other visibly in outward Ordinances. The invisible are called Christs body in allusion to a natural body more properly; the visible in allusion to a political body. The invisible Church are only in reference to Christ their head and fellow-invisible members, but have no Officers under Christ ( quà invisible:) the visible are one in re­ference to Christ their professed King, and his written laws, and fellow-visible members, and indefinite Officers under Christ. The invisible body might with better reason be called a Genus, because their unity is only in the head, and in one kinde of na­ture, and in spiritual relation to invisible brethren; and therefore if they be called one body: then much more the visible Church, whole union is in King, laws, the same qualifications, and external relation to visible brethren, under indefinite Officers.

M. Hooker takes much pains in Surv. c. 15. to prove that the Church-Catholike visible cannot be an Integral. To which I [Page 88] shall answer under the several heads as they come in the Thesis.

His main Argument is because that an Integrum resulting out of the members, is Symbolum effecti, and so is in consideration after the members whereof it is constituted, and out of which it doth result, and so that crosseth the second part or predicate of the Question. This I shall refer to the second part of the Question.

Secondly, That it will then require one visible head over it. This I shall refer to that Objection in Chap. 5. Sect. 6.

Sect. 4.Thirdly, That which he objects against the visibility of the Church-Catholike I shall refer to the next Chapter. Cha. 5.

An Objection may be raised here, That the Church-Catholike may by persecutions, wars, &c. be brought into a narrow room, and haply to one Congregation.

Answ. It is possible, yet all the essence and priviledges of the Church-Catholike visible are contracted and reserved therein, and from them conveyed and derived ministerially to those whom they shall convert, and so shall dilate it self again.

To this M. Ellis replyeth first, with little better then a scoff. ‘We see (saith he) what straights this large conceit of the uni­versal visible Church doth drive unto.’ Vind. pag. 58. But I let that passe. He answers secondly, that this answer implyeth that the Church-Catholike is a species, and the particular Churches the severals of it: this confoundeth universal and particular.

But how doth this imply it? Suppose a city should by pesti­lence or fire, &c. be brought to the tenth of the buildings and men that sometime it had; yet retaining the same Charter and Officers, and priviledges, it is still the same city, though not so great as before: and must this imply that the city as a genus or uni­versal, and the particular streets the species or particulars under it? no, but the city was the integral, and they the parts: it is now mutilated and maimed, but it may be reedifyed, and grow populous again: and so may the Church though much wasted. Nay it implyeth that it is not a genus, for that cannot be contracted nor dilated, for it is a notion not existing, as M. Ellis himself con­fesseth. Vind. pag. 58.

M. Hooker also Surv. [...]60, 261. hath an Objection much to the [Page 89] same purpose, and to that the same answer shall serve.

But he further objects, That this contracted Church extends not it self to all persons and places, as was said of the Church-Ca­tholike before.

Answ. Actually the Church-Catholike did never so extend it self when at largest, but potentially in regard there is liberty for all to accept it and enjoy those priviledges, and so there is still left.

O but this Congregation may fail, the Catholike cannot.

Answ. The whole may in it self, but is kept by Gods power and promise, at least some remnants of it. For it cannot wholly fail.

O but an Integrum cannot be reserved in a member of it.

Answ. It cannot be so large an Integrum, nor every way the same, yet the whole being similar, though great part be taken away, yet the remainer is an integral to the parts that are left, though but a member to what was formerly.

I shall here also consider a little that notion whereby he would seem to untie the knot of this difficulty, p. 259. and 260.

‘That only (saith he) which put fair colours upon this false conceit, is the misapprehension of some particular ex­amples, viz. when they say, that any portion of water divi­ded, every part of it is water, and hath the name and nature of it. The answer is, that the predication or affirmation of it is not by vertue of that division of a portion of water that is made, as Integri in membra: but because the nature is pre­served in the least portion of it, and thence this predication, this water is water, is made good, because a Genus and Speci­es are there preserved and attended, going along with the di­vision of Integri in membra. For when we say Haec aqua est a­qua, the Arguments are Genus and Species.’

Answ. That it is an essential predication it cannot be deni­ed, but this doth not necessarily make them genus and species, for there is an essential predication of species infima on all the Individuals, as well as of the genus on the species, but there is a great difference between the species and Individuals; for the species exist not, and therefore cannot be brought into an in­tegral, but the individuals may: as we see many great integrals [Page 90] of water in the sea and rivers, &c. which contain many indivi­duals in one integral, but not many species: as may be shewed both in natural and political bodies.

It is true, the predication is not by vertue of that division of Integri in membra, but because the form of water, to which the properties of water do belong, is retained in the particular parts or members. And so every visible beleever is called a Christian, and a member of Christs visible Kingdom, because the form ( viz. visible beleeving) common to all Christians and all members, is found in him: and every particular Church is called a Church, because the form common to all Churches is found in it: to which forms all the priviledges and properties and promises of a Christian or of a Church, as members of the whole body, do belong.

Now hence ariseth another Question more likely to decide the controversie, viz. whence this right in this common nature doth arise? whether from its self or by vertue of a Covenant? If by vertue of a Covenant, then whether by a Covenant between man and man, or between God and man? If by vertue of a Co­venant between man and man, such as is the Covenant of parti­cular Congregations (which our brethren make the form there­of) which the particular members enter into: then none that want particular membership, or are not invested thereinto by that par­ticular Covenant, can have any right to any priviledges or promi­ses of the Church. Then the Apostles, Evangelists, &c. either wanted right to the Ordinances, priviledges and promises, or had their right by vertue of some particular member­ship of, and covenant with the Church of Jerusalem, or some other particular Churches; but we reade of no such thing.

Then how can a man converted from heathenism have right to Baptism, which is a priviledge of the Church, and an Ordi­nance of God, seeing he is no member of, nor in Covenant with any Congregation, neither can be until baptized, as I conceive, See Qu. 2. S. 4.

If this right come by the general visible covenant between God and all visible beleevers, and all these visible beleevers by this general visible Covenant are made an external body and [Page 91] kingdom of Christ, then all these priviledges, and promises be­longing to visible beleevers are given first to the whole body, and secondarily to the members thereof. The being a member for a particular Congregation giveth only opportunity of enjoy­ing the priviledges of the external body, but not the actual im­mediate right thereunto, for that they had before any such ad­mittance or combination by vertue of their being visible be­leevers,, and so being members of the body, in the general ex­ternal Covenant. No man will say, that this particular drop of water is cold and moist, because it is a part or member of this particular pond or river, but because it is a part of the ele­ment of water, unto which primarily those properties do belong, and yet the element of water is not united into one body, by any Covenant, as the whole Church is.

But if this be true that haec aqua est aqua, be genus and species, then it followeth that there are so many species of water as there be drops in the whole element of water, and so by consequence a hundred thousand species of water in every pail-full: and as ma­ny species of wine as there are drops of wine, and so many spe­cies of milk as there are drops of milk, for it may be said of every drop of water, wine, or milk, they are water, wine, or milk.

Can the variation only of situation, or accidents vary the spe­cies? This man is a man, there is genus and species. 2. This man is an English man, there should be another subalternal species. 3. This English is a Suffolk man, there should be another inferi­our species. 4. This Suffolk man is of such a particular hundred, there should be another inferiour species. 5. This man is of such a Town in that hundred, as suppose Ipswich, there is another inferiour species. 6. This Ipswich man is of such a Parish, there is another species. 7. This man of such a Parish is of such a street in the Parish, there is another inferiour species. 8. This man is of such a Family in such a street, there in another inferiour spe­cies. The like descention may be made of particular Churches. By this reason man will prove a very large Genus, that hath so many subalternal species under him, and many more may be made by the same reason. Yea, the same man will vary his species as oft as he varieth his place. I conceive this propo­sition [Page 92] Haec aqua est aqua, will at best be but species infima & indi­viduum: and the like of hic homo est homo: but the predication of this man by the several particular divisions and subdivisions of the Kingdom will prove denominatio adjunctae personae à sub­jectis: and this division of a Kingdom into more particular parts, will rather prove a division of integri in membra then generis in species,

But suppose this should be granted (which Logicians will not) yet it must also be granted, that as there may be such se­cond notions of this man, or this Church, raised by logical ab­straction, so there must needs be an integrality resulting out of physical contiguity, or political conjunction and aggregation of places, persons and Churches.

But let it be supposed that by logical abstraction we may draw a notion of a genus from the similarity of all Churches, or community of nature in all Churches, though the Churches dif­fer not from each other by any essential, different, specifical forms, but only accidentally, as individuals: yet also it must be granted that by the unity of the Covenant and Charter wherein they are all bound up in an unity, and by political combination which necessarily followeth thereupon, we may raise an inte­grality, for they are all members of the Church-militant, of Christs external Kingdom on earth, and so they become really and necessarily members of a political integrum. And on this Integral were the priviledges of the Church bestowed primari­ly, and on particular visible Churches but secondarily, as mem­bers of the whole body. Let it be granted that these priviled­ges are bestowed by God upon such a sort of men, so and so qualified ( viz. visible beleevers) and from their similarity of disposition, may be drawn a community of nature or dispositi­on, yet the priviledges of the Church do not accrue unto them, because so and so qualified, but by vertue of that one external, individual Covenant of God, made unto such qualified persons, by which external Covenant they are made externally one ha­bitual, external, visible body.

And if the same company of men so qualified can make a Genus by abstraction (though there be no specifical distinct subalternal forms) and yet be an Integral because of the exter­nal [Page 93] visible Covenant under one head, into which they are all entred, which is the fountain of all their priviledges, I shall yield the Church Catholike visible to be a Genus, as well as an Integrum: and call it with Ames, Ʋniversaliter Integrale. But if such an use can be made of that logical tenet, that Individu­als are species, (which yet most Logicians do deny) that those individuals cannot be political members of one greater body, I fear it will prove more prejudicial to policy, then beneficial to Logick.

Again, that which M. Hooker makes peculiar to an Integral, from that which we call totum universale is, that what belongs to this, doth not belong to all its members, Sur. c. 15. p. 256. Is true only of Integrum dissimil [...]re, for it is not true of Integrum si­milare, for as a whole pinte of water doth moisten and cool, so doth every drop in its measure and proportion. And so it is peculiar only to a dissimilar Integral.

I shall note also two things in that Chapter wherein M. Sect. 5. Hoo­ker mistaketh my meaning. First, in the seventh proposition which he collects out of my Thesis set down, p [...] 52, Every par­ticular Church partaketh of part of the matter, and part of the form of the whole. Which p. 261. he makes use of again [...] and renders it thus, Ecclesia Catholica gives part of the matter and part of the form to all particular Churches. But my meaning was, it doth consist of part of the matter, and part of the form of the whole: as a room in an house consisteth of, and so (in that sense) may be said to partake of part of the matter, and part of the form of the whole, not as a species, but as a member of the house.

A second mistake of my meaning is, that he conceiveth I ac­counted the Jewish Church the Catholike Church, because I de­fined the Church-Catholike to be the Whole company of beleevers in the whole world. p. 263. And thereupon undertakes to prove that the Church was in populo Israelitio [...], and not in populo Ca­tholìco. But this never came into my thoughts; but I acknow­ledge the Jews to be a national Church. But my description of the Church-Catholike was of the Church as it is now, since the partition wall is broken down, for then it became Catho­like. I conceive there were beleevers of the sonnes of Keturah, [Page 94] that did not partake of all the priviledges of the Jewish Church, except they became proselytes. It is the Evangel [...]cal Catholike Church which my Question is about; into which the Jews them­selves, being converted, were admitted by a new initial seal, viz. Baptism, and did not stand in it by their former national mem­bership, but received a Catholike membership by baptism.

And hereupon he undertakes to make out my method of con­veyance of the right of Church-priviledges to crosse Gods me­thod. He sets down my method thus. First, when a man is con­verted to the profession of the Gospel, and so becomes a visible beleever, he is then a member of the Church-Catholike. 2. He hath by this profession and membership with the Church-Ca­tholike right unto all Church-priviledges, 3. He then becomes a member of a particular Church, but hath no right to Church-priviledges because of that, but because of his former member­ship with the Church-Catholike.

I shall own this method rightly understood, though they were not my words, but only collected out of them. I conceive that a man of any Nation converted to be a visible beleever, is a mem­ber of the Church-Catholike entitive, being within the gene­ral external Covenant: and hereby hath right to all Church-priviledges, that belong to the whole Church, and that his par­ticular membership which he comes to next, doth not afford him his right but opportunity only.

But when M. Hooker comes to shew how this crosseth Gods method, he only sheweth that it crosseth the method that God used in the national Church of the Jews, which being in popu­lo Israelitico must needs differ from the method in populo Ca­tholico. A person being a visible beleever must join himself to the Jewish Church before he can partake of their priviledges, because the priviledges by Gods Covenant were so given, but now the Covenant is Catholike, it is sufficient to be in the ge­neral Covenant to make a man have right to the priviledges of the Covenant; opporunity indeed cometh by joyning him­self with some particular Congregations, where the Ordinances are administred, or some particular priviledges, but not the ge­neral.

For my part therefore I conceive and conclude, that the [Page 95] Church-Catholike visible is Totumintegrale, and the particular Churches are partes similares, or members thereof and parcels thereof. As the Jewish Synagogues were of the Jewish Church, though with some more priviledge for both Sacaaments. And therefore Jam. 2.2. the Apostle calleth a Christian Assembly a Synagogue, in the Greek. If there come into your Synagogue a man with a gold ring. And Heb. 10.23. The Apostle cals their assembling in Christian Congregations [...], a coming together into a Synagogue. So, Tylenus in Syntag. de Eccl. dis. 1 Thes. 3. Quamvis Ecclesiae nomen usitatius sit pro Christiano caetu, quàm Synagogae; tamen ne hanc quid [...]m appellationem re­spuit Scriptura. Cum enim utrius (que) Testamenti Ecclesia, una e­ademque sit, secundum essentiam; uno eodemque nomine utrumque populum indigitare nihil vetat. Neither am I averse from the o­pinion of such who make the several Synagogues of the Jews several depending Churches; for they had there the word read and preached, and praier, and there they kept daies of humili­ation, and there they had their Officers of the Synagogue, and the dispensation of discipline, even of excommunication, Joh. 9.22. Only the censures were with liberty of appeals, in case of male administration. And they are called by the Psalmist, the houses of God, Psal. 83.12. And the Apostles separated not from them any where, until they persecuted them.

Totum essentiale sive genericum doth not comprise the form of the species in it self, but giveth the matter or common na­ture to the species, but the Church-Catholike is made up of the matter and form of the particular Churches conjoined, as a whole house of the particular rooms in it: and the particular Churches have in them, and consist of part of the matter and part of the form of the whole qu [...]ad statum exteruum. And these parts are limited and distinguished from others by prudential limits for convenience of meeting and maintenance, and trans­acting of businesse: and every Christian is or ought to be a member of the Church in whose limits he dwels, being already in the general Covenant by baptism. I do not hold (as M. Hoo­ker conceives from my words) that meer cohabitation divol­veth a Church-membership upon a man, for then a Heathen, Turk or Jew, should be a Church member, if cohabiting with a [Page 96] Church: but I expressed the condition of being baptized, and so in the general Covenant, and then he ought to associate with the Church where God layeth out his habitation, and they ought not to refuse him, except there be sufficient cause of cen­sure. For of any Christians dwelling in any city or Town, where there was a Church, and he not to be a member of that Church, or to be a member of another Church in another Town or City, and reside in his own but per accidens (as some distin­guish) hath neither example nor warrant in the Scripture. And must imply either that he holdeth them not to be a Church and so not of the Kingdom of Christ, or else such a corrupt part that he dares not joyn himself with them. And as a man that comes to dwell in a Town ought not to refuse to be a member of that town, but shall be ruled by the Officers there­of in civil affairs, and if he like not, he may, yea must remove from them, if he will not submit himself; and if he continue with them, he will be liable to punishment or restraint, by those civil Officers, if there be just cause: so I conceive If any pro­fessed subject of Christs Kingdom shall sit down, and cohabit with a Church within the civil limits allotted for such a Congre­gation, he not only ought to associate with them, but the Of­ficers of that Church ought to take the inspection of him, and if he be dangerously hererical or prophane, and thereby dange­rous and offensive, they ought to take care of his cure, and the preservation of the rest of their members, by censuring of him, whether he will or no, in regard of his habitual general mem­bership, and their habitual indefinite office. And though civil prudential limits, wherein a Congregation dwels, give no for­mality to the Church being heterogeneal, yet as the limits of the particular seas, and their names, are from the shoars and lands they are bounded by, though heterogeneal; so may par­ticular Churches well be bounded and denominated by their civil limits. We finde frequently in Scripture, the Church which was at Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Cen­chrea. And so it is in New-Englaad, the several Churches are limited and named by the precincts, and names of the civil divisions of Towns. The Christians of Boston associated toge­ther make the Church of Boston: if there be any not associated, [Page 97] yet it is their duty to joyn, and they ought to be received, except as I said before.

CHAP. V. That the Church-Catholike is visible.

I now proceed to prove the Church-Catholike to be visible, Sect. 1. which is the thing so much denied by many Divines. There is indeed an invisible Church of Christ, and that Catholike, but if you take Catholike for Orthodoxal, and also for universal, and that in the largest sense of all, comprehending all places and all times, both past, present, and to come, some militant, some triumphant, for whose sakes principally Christ died, and the Ordinances were given, and the visible Church was insti­tuted. Which invisible company are only known to God, and are given by the Father to Christ to redeem and save. And these persons though they be visible in their generations, and enjoy visible communion in the visible Church, whereof they are ordinarily visible members, yet besides that they have invi­sible grace, and invisible communion with Christ their head, by faith on their parts and the Spirit on his part, and only these shall be saved: yet that is not the Church that is meant in this question, but the external Church of Christ consisting of true beleevers and hypocrites; in which sense the Scripture oft takes the word Church, I say, the external, political body and kingdom of Christ, as M. Hooker cals it.

The same Church which Valle Messalinus, or Salmasius, A­pollonius, Spanhemius, and Cameron de regimine Ecclesiae, and Polanus de Ecclesia visibili universili, and M. Rutherford, M. Richard Hooker, and M. Parker, and divers others, mean [...]n their tractates of this nature, wherein hypocrites as well as true beleevers are partakers of external Ordinances of worship and discipline. And of this Church it in that Cameron saith, Non negamus simpliciter Ecclesiam esse visibis [...]m, quaestio est quomodo sit visibilis, quatenus, quando, & quibus. Cam. de conspic, Ec. p. 248. [Page 98] And he addeth that this visibility rather sheweth, Quid sit Eccle­sia, quàm quae sit.

Now visible is that which may be seen, Visibile est quod videri potest, i. e. that which hath a capablenesse in it self to be seen: herein it differs from visum, for that is that which is actually seen. Now as Cameron and others of this subject do distinguish, things may be said to be visible either per se & primariò, and so only light and colour are visible, or else per accidens, and so fi­gure, magnitude, motion, and all other things, which we say are visible are seen: a man is not seen per se, but per accidens. The second kinde of visibility is meant in this question, viz. per acci­dens & per effecta, as all other societies are visible.

Secondly, a thing may be said to he visible, either distinctè or confutè. The Church-Catholike is visible in the second sense, which Cameron also granteth, p. 246. And aliquatenus, aliquan­do, & aliquo modo, & aliquibus. p. 247.

Thirdly, a thing may be said to be visible either uno intuitu, & simul; or secundum partes, at several aspects. The first way only one side of a thing can be seen, viz. one plain, and small superfi­cies. The same man cannot be seen at the same view in all his external parts, nor yet the Sun which is most visible. The Church-Catholike cannot be seen uno intuitu, but secundum par­tes, sive membra.

Fourthly, some things are visible only by the eye, and judged of by the common sense; but some other things require an act of the understanding to put those visible parts together, to appre­hend the unity thereof. The unity of a man or a tree the very beast can discern, but the unity of a society or Kingdom, though it be visible, they cannot discern, because they want understand­ing to put the parts together.

And in this last sense the Church-Catholike is said to be visi­ble, as a Kingdom or Empire is: the eye and common sense alone cannot discern the unity of it, but there is requisite an act of the understanding to put the visible parts together in apprehension. No man will deny an Empire to be visible, because he cannot see the union of it with his eyes.

Again, I did not take visible in the strictest sense, visibile est quod radiat per medium, ut luminosum, & coloratum, but for that [Page 99] which is perceptible by any of the senses, yea, to the perceiving of which there is required an act of the understanding also, to conceive of it, and put the parts together, yet not by logical abstraction, but mental apposition and conjunction, as we must do to perceive the unity of a Kingdom. The nearer the parts lie, the more is the visibility; and the further off, the lesse. A Congregation is more visible (in this sense) then a National Church, and a National then the Oecumenical. The more vi­sible the copula or bond is, the more visible the thing is.

Having shewed you what Church-Catholike is visible, and how the Church-Catholike may be said to be visible; I come to prove by arguments that it is visible or perceptible. But in­deed the difficulty lyeth not here, but in the integrality, for if the Church-Catholike be an integral, it will easily appear to be a visible one.

First, If the subject matter, Sect. 2. the persons of whom the Church-Catholike doth consist, be visible, the whole Church is visible also: But they are all visible: Therefore so is the whole Church.

That the whole Church consisteth of men and women who are visible beleevers (not visible as men, but as beleevers also) none will deny. That the visibility of the whole will necessa­rily follow, is as undeniably true, for what makes a thing vi­sible, but the visibility of the materials? The essential forms of the most visible things are not visible, as of a stone, or a man. Nothing can be said to be invisible, whose materials are visible.

Secondly, If the conversion into the whole Church be visible, then the whole Church is visible. But the conversion is visible. Therefore, &c.

That conversion into the visible Church is visible, none can deny. The Apostles made a visible conquest of the world by their preaching. They were charged by Demetrius to have turn­ed the world upside down, Act. 17.6. They turn'd men from Idols, to serve the living and true God, 1 Thes. 1.9. That this conver­sion was not into a particular Congregation, but into the ex­ternal visible body and kingdom of Christ, is as clear; and the gathering them into particular Congregations, and setting El­ders [Page 100] over them was a second work. Chap. 5. And the consequence will follow, for such as the conversion is, such is the Church into which they are converted; visible conversion makes no man a member of the invisible body, but of the visible only, invisible grace is re­quired for that.

Thirdly, If the profession, subjection, obedience, and con­versation of the members of the whole Church be visible, then the whole Church is visible. But they are visible. There­fore, &c.

The assumption none will deny. It is called a professed sub­jection, 2 Cor. 9.13. And Rom. 16.19. Your obedience is come a­broad unto all. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, Mat. 5.16. It is toward God in duties of the first table, and towards men in duties of the second, in cha­rity, chastity, equity, truth, humility, meeknesse. Phil. 1.27. 2 Pet. 3.17. yea, visible to them that are without, 2 Pet. 3.11. Now what reference hath this profession, subjection, obedi­ence, conversation to the particular Congregations? Do they professe, subject themselves to the laws of Christ, and yield obedience thereunto in a godly conversation, because they are members of this or that particular Congregation, or because they are entred into the general Covenant, whereby they are made subjects and members of Christs Kingdom? Is the parti­cular confederation the ground and cause of their profession, subjection, obedience, and godly conversation? Were not these found in them before they were thought meet to be entred in­to the particular confederation? were they not judged to be subjects to Christ, and visible members of his body, and in ex­ternal Covenant, before their admittance? How then could that be the ground thereof? Indeed there are some particular duties and priviledges which relate in an especial manner to the particular Congregation, and a particular unity of a particular Church, as a member of the whole body resulteth therefrom, but not the general duties, priviledges, or mem­bership.

Suppose a man be a freeman of some Corporation, as Ip­swich, though thereby he hath the priviledges of the particular Corporation belonging to him, and particular duties belong­ing [Page 101] to the Corporation are required of him, and he requires and receiveth the priviledge of a subject the execution of the laws of the Kingdom there; yet he must be conceived a mem­ber of the Kingdom, before he can be admitted a free man of the Corporation, and he receives the general priviledges, and performs the general duties, in reference to that, and not in reference to the particular Corporation, and his membership thereof; though he hath the opportunity of enjoying the one, and performance of the other, in that particular society. And yet this doth not make the kingdom a Genus, and the Corpo­ration a species thereof, but the kingdom an integral, and the Corporation a member thereof. So is the case between the whole Church and the particular. Yet with this difference, all the particular Churches are similar patts of the whole Church, so are not all Corporations, nor all villages, they differ some­times in kindes of Officers, sometimes in particular immuni­ties.

Also the similarity of the parts of the whole Church, gives the same denomination to the particular Churches with the whole, the particular Congregation is called a Church as well as the whole, whereas no particular Corporation is called a King­dom: and this is the cause why the particular Churches are deem­ed to be species, whereas indeed they are members of the whole, viz. because of the identity of denomination, but identity of de­nomination or similarity of parts, are not sufficient to make a genus and species, especially where the whole is constituted by an external Covenant.

4. If the Officers which Christ hath given to the whole Church, be visible, then so is the Church. But the Officers are vi­sible. Therefore, &c.

That the Officers are visible none will deny, because they are visibly called, ordained, and execute their office visibly. That visible Officers argue a visible polity, is as clear, such as the Offi­cers are (in respect of visibility or invisibility) such is the King­dom. That the ministry is given to the whole Church, as the Le­vites were to all Israel, and that they are all Officers of the whole habitual, and habitually have power to dispense the Ordinances of Christ in any part of the whole Church upon a call, shall be proved. c. 6. s. 4.

[Page 102]5. If the admittance into the whole Church, and ejection out of it be visible, then the whole Church is visible. But ad­mittance by Baptism, ejection by excommunication are visible. Therefore, &c.

That admittance and ejection being publike acts before the whole Congregation, are visible, none will deny. That such as the admittance or ejection is (in regard of visibility) such is the society or polity, is as clear. That the admittance is into the whole, and ejection out of it, hath been proved already, and shall more fully afterward. Either by Baptism men are admitted into the particular Church, or the whole Church, or no Church: but not into the particular Congregation, no man is baptized into the particular Congregation, it is not the seal of the particular Covenant: therefore it is into the whole or none. If a heathen be converted in a Congregation, first he receives baptism, afterward is admitted a member of the particular con­federation.

Sect. 3.6. If the Doctrine, Laws, Ordinances, Charter, and Covenant of the whole Church, be visible, then so is the whole Church. But they are visible. Therefore, &c.

That the Doctrine, Laws, Ordinances, Charter, and Covenant of the whole Church are visible, none will deny, for they may be seen, read, preached, and heard. That they belong to, and constitute the whole, is as undeniable. Of the same nature that the laws, and charter of a kingdom is (in respect of vi­sibility) of the same nature is the kingdom. Now it is not the invisible law of nature written in the heart, that consti­tutes the visible Church, for the heathens have that, Rom. 2.15. nor is it the invisible law of grace, promised to be writ­ten in Gods peoples hearts, Jer. 31.33. for many members of the visible Church have not that; but it is the visible systeme of laws, and Covenant given by Christ to his visible Church.

And these Laws, Charter, and Covenant are the very co­pula or bond of the external body and kingdom of Christ, and thereby they are bound to worship and discipline. Now where the copula or bond uniting visible parts together, is visi­ble, there the whole is visible, But the copula or bond is visible, [Page 103] Therefore so is the whole. A visible bond cannot unite invisible members.

Against this it is objected by M. Hooker, That divers several kingdoms may be governed by the same laws, and yet remain several kingdoms.

Answ. It is true, it is possible that all the kingdoms of the earth may submit to, and be governed by the same systeme of laws, and many now are by the civil law, and yet remain se­veral. But they arise not from the same fountain, the same King or Governours, nor binde not in subjection and obedience unto the same King, nor to mutual duties of subjects between them­selves as fellow-subjects: but are embraced vi materiae or formae, because found convenient, and receive a several stamp of autho­rity from the several States or Governours, whereby they are obliging in the several kingdoms. But these laws proceed from the same fountain, the same Lord Jesus, the king of the whole, and are obliging from the same authority to all Christians in the whole world, therefore they are one visible Church or king­dom mystical. If the whole Church be a Genus, it is consti­tuted and united together by a visible external Covenant and Laws, which is not consistent with the nature of a Genus as a Genus.

7. If all the administrations and dispensations, and operations of the whole Church be visible, so is the whole Church: But they are all visible. Therefore, &c.

That they are all visible (being publikely done) none will deny.

Obj. But these administrations, dispensations, and operations are acted in the several Congregations, and are not actions of the whole Church.

Ans. So is justice administred at Assizes and Sessions in seve­ral Counties and Corporations, but is it the justice of the whole, because it is administred by the same laws, and by the same au­thority, and is common to all the subjects of the kingdom? A man dwelling in any part of the kingdom being tried at Suffolk Assi­zes may receive his sentence and execution there, if guilty. So all Church-administrations are by the same laws, and upon the same command; and persons of any Church in the world may [Page 104] hear, sing, pray, and communicate any where indefinitely up­on occasion, though constantly the particular members only enjoy those particular administrations from those particular Officers.

I answer further, that the Church-Catholike may act visibly by their delegates (as a Kingdom in a Parliament) in a general Councel, if they can convene: though their power were whol­ly consultatory and suasory (as some pleade) but it is more. All their debates, arguings pro & con, all their advice and decrees are visible: therefore the whole whose delegates they are, is visible also. The invisible Church (as invisible) send none.

8. If it be our duty to joyn our selves visibly to the Church-Catholike, then it is visible: But we ought to joyn our selves to the Church-Catholike. Therefore, &c.

The Assumption none will deny. As soon as the 3000. were converted by Peter, they were added to the Church. Christians may not stand alone independently. Now that must be a visible Church that we must joyn unto, for the invisible is within the visible, and cannot be known. God commands no impossibili­ties. It is true indeed we must joyn to some particular Con­gregation (as a forreigner coming over into England to inha­bit, being naturalized, must dwell in some particular Town) but to that Congregation as a member of the whole, wherein we may enjoy the general priviledges of subjects of Christ first, and the particular priviledges of that Congregation seconda­rily. There is no particular command to joyn to this or that particular Congregation, but the whole; necessity compelleth to choose one. Our particular joyning to this or that Congre­gation is not in obedience to the command, for then, had we joyned to another we had broken a command, therefore that is arbitrary and limited by civil habitation necessarily.

9. If the accidents of the whole Church be visible, then so is the whole Church. But there be visible accidents of the whole Church. Therefore, &c.

An invisible subject hath not visible accidents. But so hath the whole Church, as beauty, strength, order, amplitude, which may encrease or decrease, and these are accidents of the whole [Page 105] arising and resulting from all the parts conjoyned, and made up of the beauty, strength, order, and amplitude of all the parts.

Also there may be general, visible opposition against the whole Church, not because in particular confederation, but the general. These persecutors are visible, their actions are vi­sibly managed, by attachments, prisons, fire and faggot: their effects visible: fines, imprisonments, confiscation, banishment and death: and therefore the object hereof, the whole Church, must needs be visible also. And all this meerly because they be­long to Christ, and have given up their names to him. And be­cause they will not visibly run to the same excesse of riot, or wor­ship the same Idols that they do.

10. If the parts of the whole Church be visible, so is the whole, But the parts of the whole Church are visible. There­fore, &c.

By parts I mean not the particular persons only, but parti­cular Congregations. Now none deny the particular Churches to be visible, neither our brethren for Congregational Churches, nor yet the separation. And Gerard though he will not grant the Church Catholike to be visible, yet saith, Ecclesias particu­lares visibiles esse concedimus, The consequence will necessarily follow, for the visibility of the whole results out of the visibility of the parts. An innumerable number of visible parts cannot make an invisible whole.

Against this M. Ellis vind. 59. alledgeth that it is too lax a medium in so weighty a subject as this is. Sect. 4. ‘There is (saith he) great difference between natural and metaphysical, or civil and politick bodies. For in a natural body all whose parts and mem­bers are actually and naturally joyned together, the whole is vi­sible, because the parts are visible: but in a metaphysical body or totum or whole, that is in Generals, that are by the reason of man drawn from particulars, the case is far otherwise. Peter, James, and John are visible, but manhood which is the universal agreeing to them all, is not visible.’ This being the same with my first Objection I set down in my Thesis, one answer shall serve for both.

Answ. M. Ellis knows I took not the Church-Catholike for [Page 106] a Genus, but an Integral. But let it be supposed a Genus for ar­gument sake, or as M. Hooker cals it, Totum genericum existens, which is something fairer then M. Ellis's grant; for by M. Ellis's reasoning the Church-Catholike should be a Genus drawn by the reason of man, and so existing only in intellectu nostro. I say, suppose the Church-Catholike to be a Genus, and the par­ticular Churches Species, yet this is not sufficient to make the Church-Catholike to be invisible, Will any man say, that Ani­mal est substantia invisibilis, because it existeth only in homine & bruto? Indeed animality in the abstract is invisible, but not a­nimal in concreto: so Ecclesietas (as I may say) is invisible, but Ecclesia is visible. Visibility is an accident belonging pri­marily to a higher Genus then animal, viz. Corpus celoratum, and though every Individual animal is visible, as John and James, yet not quà John or James but as coloured bodies: and if a higher Genus be visible, which is nearer Ens, and further from Individuals, then much more animal. So in this case the Church-Catholike is a society of men, and that M. Ellis denyeth not; now every society of men is visible, and therefore the Church which is a species of society must needs be so also, for the visibi­lity doth not betide it, because it is a particular Congregation, but because it is a society of men, which is a higher Genus: I mean this in a logical consideration.

Then he proceeds to deny a civil body or Corporation, if great, ‘as an Empire, Kingdom, or large city, to be seen in it self, but in the parts.’

Answ. Here he confounds visibile and visum uno intuitu: and by this reasoning he should deny the visibility of the world, or any particular man, for all his parts cannot be seen uno intu­itu. Attamen insaniat qui neget se videre hominem, saith Cameron. Yea, the sun it self should not be visible by this reasoning, because we can see but the surface of it. He could not be ignorant that I did not mean that the Church-Catholike was actually seen uno intuitu.

And whereas I had said the whole is visible, because the parts are so. He saith it is untrue even in the smallest bodies, but where the parts are actually united together, not where they are thousands of miles asunder.

[Page 107] Answ. It is true indeed in natural and artificial bodies, whose being or integrality consisteth in a corporeal continuity, or con­tiguity of parts; for if that continuity or contiguity ceaseth, the integral also ceaseth, except in potentiâ.

But in political bodies joyned together by laws, under one government, it is otherwise; the distance of place hinders not the integrality of the whole, and though it cannot be seen uno intuitu, by the same man at once (unlesse by way of repre­sentation, as in a Parliament or Common-Councel, as M. Ellis saith) nor yet be perceived to be one without some act of the understanding, yet this maketh not the City or Empire invi­sible.

He confesseth the Church-Catholike to be visible in respect of the several parts, and places where they dwell: but this (saith he) is to prevaricate, and to prove that which is not in que­stion. But he might remember that I took visible in the explica­tion of the terms of the question, to be meant in regard of vi­sible communion in holy Ordinances, [...]hough the persons never congregate into one place, to be seen with one mans eye; but in opposition to inward invisible communion. Let him grant but such a visibility of the Church-Catholike as was in any of the four Monarchies, or a civil kingdom, which yet are seen but in their several parts and places, and I contend for no more. I suppose no particular Congregation was ever seen together, in all the members thereof, uno in [...]uitu: and yet is visibly one in regard of the particular confederation, and usual meeting of most of the members. Is not England a visible Kingdom, though seen but in the parts of it? was it not visible before there was a Parliament to represent it, or doth it cease to be visible in the intervals of Parliaments? The visibility of it consisteth in the visibility of the Persons, Corporations, Places, Laws, Govern­ment. So is the case of the Church-Catholike whose Persons, Places, Laws (which are the visible bond) and government are as external and visible as those of the Kingdom, i. e. lyable to sense, and perceivable by sense, though not actually seen by the same man at once.

I desire it might be noted that the Church-Catholike which our Divines speak of in their disputes against the Papists, is not [Page 108] this Church-Catholike which we have now in hand, but that is the whole Church or company of the elect, both past, present, and to come. It is the Church taken in the first sense, in the ex­plication of the terms of the Question, not the external, politi­cal, mixed Church or kingdom of Christ. Neither doth that Church agree with this, but only nominally and equivocally, in that it is called by the same name, but it is not the same in na­ture or sense: and therefore should that and this be used in a syllogism, there would be 4 terms. For that Church is neither external, nor visible, nor existent, nor organical, it hath no Of­ficers, it is no polity: it is not that which M. Hooker cals T [...] ­tum genericum existens: for many of them are already in hea­ven, and the spirits of just men made perfect, many not yet born, many not yet converted.

Now to make that the Genus of the visible, external, political Churches of Christ, were as absurd as to make the vessels of gold to be the Genus of the silver, brazen, pewter, wooden, stony and earthen vessels of a house, or a marble building to be the Genus of all the buildings of other stones, brick and timber. And therefore to dispute from that to this, is not ad idem. I suppose that neither M. Hooker nor M. Ellis meant that Church, no more then I.

If the genus comprehend only invisible members, the species should be only of invisible members also. The genus is of the same nature or predicament with the species, and all that is com­mon to all the species is found in the genus, and fetched from thence. There is nothing in man, but it is in animal, except the specifical form, whereby he differs from a brute, and nothing in animal but it is in man, except its totality or generality, whereby it comprehends man and brute. If homo and brutum be visible living substances, they received it from animal.

The genus giveth essence to the species, and is symbolum cau­sae materialis: but the Church of the Elect giveth not essence, nor matter to the visible Church: for there are many members of this which are not invisible: neither are the elect members of this, quà invisible, but quà existent and visible. The visible and invisible Church are contra distinct branches of a distributi­on ex adjunctis, vel [...] communionis, therefore the one cannot [Page 109] be the genus of the other; for then genus and species should not be of the same general predication or denomination; but the invisible should be genus of the visible; one branch be genus of the other, which is contrary to all Logick.

The invisibility of this genus ariseth not from a separation of the invisible members from the visible, or the sheep from the goats, but ariseth from a mental abstraction; it is the invisibility of a notion, not of the persons: It is not by culling out such as have invisible grace, and leaving the rest; for that which is so cul­led out, is not comprehensive of them both. The Genus drawn by logical, mental abstraction from the most corporeal, visible substances, is as invisible, quà genus, as a genus of incorporeal, in­visible substances.

Either that Church-Catholike which our Divines speak of, is the Genus of particular visible Churches, or it is not. If it be, then it must be an external visible polity (in general notion) which must comprehend all the external, visible, Ecclesiasti­cal Polities on earth; and so hypocrites as well as the elect. The species consist of such matter, and therefore so must the genus, in the notion, I mean: but that they deny of their Church-Catholike visible.

If it be not: then it is not the Church-Catholike which M. Hooker and M. Ellis intend; for they intend a general Church which comprehends in notion all the visible Churches under it. And therefore they differ from our Divines in their meaning of the Church-Catholike, as much as I do; And so joyn not, nor concur with our Divines in the same subject, neither is it adidem.

Now if we make the Church-Catholike an abstract, general notion, comprehending all particular Churches under it as a genus, then we make Christs visible, external Kingdom on earth, only a logical, non-existing notion; and the particular Congre­gations to be the several species of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, all comprehended under one logical, comprehensive notion; and the particular Covenant or confederation of such or such a company between themselves, should constitute a kingdom of Jesus Christ. And so when a man removes from one Congre­gation into another, he should remove out of one species into another: and in the interim be quite out of the kingdom of [Page 110] Christ; because he is out of all the species of Christs kingdom, and a particular member cannot exist under this genus, for it is a genus of Congregations, quà Congregations, and not of single persons. And then it will follow, that many a visible beleever shall be no member of Christs visible external kingdom; or else that after he is a visible existing subject of Christs kingdom, he may choose which species of Christs kingdom he will exist in; and that is as absurd, as if there should be an existing animal, that will choose whether he will be a man or a brute: who se­eth not that there is a visible existence of many a visible belee­ver, who is a subject of Christs visible kingdom, before he be admitted into any of those Congregations, which are (by this opinion accounted) species. Now if we account the particular Churches members of Christs Kingdom, it is not absurd for any subject of Christ, to choose which part of Christs kingdom, or which Ecclesiastical Corporation he will dwell in or adhere unto, for the actual enjoyment of the Priviledges, Laws, and Ordinances of Christs Kingdom: no more then for a subject of a King to choose in what part of the Kingdom he will dwell. The Kingdom of England though a political body, yet contain­eth under, or in it, not only all Corporations and villages, but all single persons, that are subject to the King and Laws, though they be not fixed, and though they want by their unfixednesse the particular priviledges of the particular Towns they might have inhabited, and so the actual opportunity of enjoyment of the benefit of the Laws administred in such Corporations or Coun­ties, yet have an habitual right to the general priviledges, by being subjects: so have unfixed members of Christs external Kingdom, which reacheth single visible subjects as well as com­bined. Nay, a man may better make the kingdom of England a Genus, and all the Corporations and villages species thereof, because they are many of them distinct and different in their con­stitutions, then the Church-Catholike a Genus, and the particular Congregations species, which are of one constitution. And if to­tum genericum existens, can have any sense put upon it, it will agree to the Kingdom of England (or any other kingdom) for it consisteth of a sort of men ( viz. English-men) existing in se­veral Counties and Towns: but as that notion hinders not the [Page 111] integrality of the Kingdom; so no more it will the Church-Ca­tholike visible.

Obj. Yea, Sect. 5. but the Church-Catholike cannot be visible because it wants an existence of its own; and existeth only in the existence of the particular Churches, the members thereof.

Answ. Where there are existing visible members, there must be an existing visible Integral. Omne membrum habet suum in­tegrum.

The same Objection lyeth as well against any aggregative body. A heap of stones may as well be said to exist only in the existence of the particular stones, and a particular Congrega­tion exist in the existence of the particular families, and parti­cular families exist in the particular persons. But if the mem­bers exist quà members, the existence of the integral re­sults out of their conjoyned existence, and so doth the visi­bility.

An army existeth in the several brigades, and regiments, and they are billeted or quartered in distant places, and yet having the same General, the same Laws martial, the same cause, the same enemies, although they should never be drawn up together in one body at one place, yet are they one visible Army. So is the Church-Catholike one, and that visibly (as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter) though there goeth an act of the minde to the perceivance of the unity. It is a po­litical union by the same visible Charter, and laws, and way, under one Commander in chief, and therefore visible, i. e. per­ceivable by sense though not by sense only, the very uniting bond, the laws are visible: yea, the existence of it will more appear, because it hath priviledges belonging thereunto, which particulars have not, or but in part, and at second hand, as hath been shewed in the former Chapt. and shall more fully in the second Question.

This Objection M. Ellis vind. p. 56. undertakes to set down, and marks it in the margin, as if he had cited my words, but mis­seth both my words and sense.

And then fals upon the Answer, and saith, that ‘it amounts not to an answer, for no collected body that is made up of se­veral things, hath its being in these things severally consi­dered [Page 112] and apart, but as united altogether, it is not an heap of stones, if one lie at York, some at London, others in France, Spain, &c.’

I answer, It is true, in bodies made up by physical or artificial aggregation, there must indeed be some contiguity or nearnesse of parts; but in political aggregation (and such M. Ellis ac­knowledgeth, vind. p. 5. l. 38.) it is not necessary. M. Ellis makes the Empire of Germany one by aggregation; and yet hath not (I suppose) cast those several territories one upon another; as the Giants are feigned to throw Pelion upon Ossa; but they ly further distant then at M. Calamies door, and M. Hudsons; as he is pleased to make the allusion, or illusion rather, vin. p. 35. One Kingdom may consist of divers Ilands, if under the same King, and laws, &c. and so may all the Churches in the world be one Church, though farre distant; and visible, though not actually seen, because the persons and places are visible, and the things wherein, and whereby they are conjoyned, as Profession, Laws, Doctrine, Seals, Worship, &c. are external, and so visible. And though an aggregative body is not made up of the several parts considered severally and apart, yet out of the existence, and visibility of them conjoyned, either physically or politically, &c. (according as the thing is) the existence and visibility of the whole will result, as I said before.

And Sir, I cannot but right my self from an injury which in your answer to this Objection, vind. p. 24. you offered me: by intimating bitingly, to delude your reader, and wrong M. Ca­lamy (the licenser of that Thesis) as if he were the Authour of it, or partly the Authour, or at the fairest the inciter thereto. What other construction can these words of you bear? A man-midwife may be father also. And another jerk you give to the same purpose, vind. p. 80. in these words Moses mother was his nurse also. But Sir, that which is mine I am not willing should be charged upon any other; I owned it in print; and to put you and others out of doubt, I assure you that neither M. Ca­lamy nor any other incited me thereto, neither so much as made or altered one sentence in the whole Thesis. Neither was it of such a texture as that you or any man else, should suppose it had any other Authour or Authours, then a mean Countrey-Minister, [Page 113] such as I acknowledge my self to be. You might have known who was the Authour thereof, if you would have been pleased to have come to our company, at the reading of it, as you were lovingly invited, out of desire to enjoy your society, for the learning and piety we conceived to be in you.

Obj. If the Church-Catholike or Oecumenical be one visible Church, it is necessary that they should all meet together at some times.

Answ. It is not at all necessary, neither to the unity, nor yet to the visibility of the Church. It is sufficient that the persons be visible in their several places, and that they be combined together under the same head, by visible laws and profession, under the same visible seal and enrowlment, walk visibly in the same godly conversation before men, pray one for another, as fellow-members, rejoyce in the wel-fare, and mourn for the ill-fare one of another, and contribute assistance one to an­other, as occasion is offered. As therefore it is not need­ful to the unity or visibility of a kingdom or Empire, that they should meet together sometimes: so is it not needful for the whole Church: indeed there may be some conveni­ency in both, ad benè, vel optimum esse, sed non ad esse simpli­citer.

This M. Ellis excepteth against, vin. p. 55. First, he asketh whe­ther ever there were such a kingdom in the world, that the members did not meet sometimes, if it be not a meer visible monarchy, as under Popery. If there be any liberty left to the Subjects, &c.

Answ. Let him shew that ever the four Monarchies did meet together respectively, either in their persons or deputies, or delegates from every Province, yet that hindered not their u­nity nor visibility. And his answer implyeth, that the Ecclesia­stical Monarchy under Popery did never meet. He makes it but a sign of liberty to meet, not a sign of visibility. And for the point of liberty inherent in the subjects as their proper right, distinct from what is derived and given by Christ as their head; there was never any Monarchy so meerly depending on the will of the Monarch, as the Church-visible on Christ, for the Church deriveth all its power from Christ, and hath all its [Page 114] laws given and imposed only by Christ, without any vote of the Churches in the making of them. It is probable that the kingdoms under the four Monarchies had some enjoyment of their municipal laws, only might have some imperial general laws superadded: but it is not so in this, for the whole Church (as a Church) hath no laws, but of Christs arbitrary donati­on. Christians are not subdued by Christ as Englishmen were by William the Conquerour, viz. on condition that he would suf­fer them to enjoy their former rights, and the Laws of Edward the Confessor, but absolutely to receive Laws from him: And yet this can neither be thought tyranny in Christ, nor yet slavery in us, for Christs Laws are more beneficial to us, then any of our own making, and his service is perfect free­dom.

And yet we reade of general Councels of the Church by their delegates, which were as it were a ministerial Church-Catho­like: which in former times of the Church under Christian Emperours were frequent; and there is no intrinsecal let in the Church that they do not meet so still, but only extrin­secal, and extraneous, by reason of the divisions among the ci­vil Governours: but even in our daies a great part of that great body hath met, as in the Synod of Dort, &c. by Commissi­oners.

D. Whitakers and Apollonius acknowledge the meeting, Act. 1. to be a general Councel. The members were the Apostles, who were Pastours of the Church-Catholike, and brethren out of Ga­lilee and Jerusalem. The work was to elect an Apostle, who was to be a Pastor of the universal Church: and they that undertake and dispatch such a businesse which concerns the extraordinary teaching and government of the whole Church, should repre­sent the whole Church-Catholike.

M. Ellis vin. p. 25. utterly denyeth that ever there was any ge­neral Councel which might be said to be the Church-Catholike, viz. ministerially. But I took general in the usual sense of it, and not precisely considered. He knows the four Councels are known by the name of The four general Councels. And so himself cals them, vind. p. 15. l. 37. I took the term general in the sense that we cal the four Monarchies, the Monarchies of the whole world, [Page 115] and yet we know there were many countries that were never under them. And as Luke Act. 2.5. saith, there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men out of every nation under hea­ven: and yet there were many Nations where Jews never dwelt, some of which were discovered lately. But let him look into Euseb. de vita Constantini, lib. 3. and Socrates Scholast. lib. 1. cap. 8. and he shall finde from how many Countries the first Councel of Nice was gathered. ‘There were gathered (saith he) together into one, the chief Ministers of God inhabiting all the Churches throughout all Europe, Africk, and Asia. That sacred Synod framed as it were by the handy-work of God, received also both Syrians and Cilicians, and such as came from Phoenicia, Aegypt, Arabia, Palaestina, Thebais, Ly­bia, and Mesopotamia. There was also in this Synod the Bi­shop of Persis, of Pontus, Gala [...]ia, Pamphilia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia.’

Moreover the Thracians, Macedonians, Achaians, Epirotes, Also of the Spaniards there was an eminent man, [...]. The Bishop of the imperial city [...] (viz. Rome) by reason of his old age absented himself, yet there were pre­sent of his Presbyters, which supplyed his room. Divers things M. Ellis excepteth against that Councel, as some extraordina­rinesse in the summoning of the members of it, without electi­on and delegation of the particular Churches. And that Con­stantine was the visible head of it; and that he called for Bi­shops chiefly, if not only, which will not be pertinent here to answer. Something there might be extraordinary in the sum­mons: for the civil and Ecclesiastical State not concurring to­gether until Constantine, haply there could not be a regular e­lection. In extraordinary times and cases, our brethren will grant something may be done extraordinarily: as there is in the calling of this present Assembly, as is acknowledged by M. Gillespy. There were also others besides Bishops and Mi­nisters. Neither did Constantine either sit as President of it, nor presume to be head: but confesseth himself to be [...] not [...]: but by his civil sanction he did confirm their decrees, and send them abroad. Neither is there any ground that in that or any other Councel, the members acted [Page 116] only each for his own particular Church that sent him (as M. El­lis suggesterh) but the whole for the whole, as far as their dele­gation was.

I acknowledge there is power given to every particular Church to rule it self, and exercise the discipline of the Church for the being and well-being of it ordinarily. Yet so as it is a part of the whole Church, into which also the censures there passed, have influence. And on some great occasions there may be cause to ferch help further, as Cranmer appealed to a gene­ral Councel. But if that extensive power cannot be had, as now it is very difficult; then must the particular, national, provincial, classical, or congregational Church rest in that in­tensive power that remains within its own limits; or also if they stand so as that they cannot combine with neighbours, or have recourse unto them. Extraordinary cases cannot be regulated by ordinary rules. And this I conceive is the reason why the Scripture hath not determined more particularly the Synodi­cal Assemblies; but only giveth general rules that may be drawn to particulars, because all Churches and seasons are not capa­ble of national or provincial Synods, in regard of many things that may be incident.

In some cases also all civil power must rest in one Congrega­tion, as if it were in a wildernesse, where there were no neigh­bour Towns or cities to which it might be joyned. Yet it fol­loweth not that it must be so in England, or any other king­dom, where there are Counties, Shires, Cities, great Towns, or a Parliament. Yea, I know not but a particular family may, yea, must be independent in such an extraordinary case, both in Ecclesiastical and civil matters also: yet it follows not that there is such an inherent right in every town or family all over the world, and that therefore particular Towns and families in England are debarred of an inherent priviledge belonging to them, because necessity may put such an Independency on some, in an extraordinary case; as by shipwrack, or being cast into some Iland not inhabited.

Here M. Ellis chargeth me to say, that the power of a gene­ral Councel, (or of a Church-Catholike visible) is but exten­sive, and only extensive, and not intensive, and the power of [Page 117] the particular Churches is intensive. But Sir, do as you would be done by. It is not fair dealing to note them as my words which were none of mine, nor my sense. For first, I never conceived a general Councel to be the whole Church-Catho­like visible, but only an oecumenical, ministerial or represen­tative body of Officers, or Organs of the Church, much lesse the prime Church to which the Ordinances and priviledges of the Church were first given, of which I spake, as appears in my second part. Secondly, I never said the power of a general Councel was only extensive; for as the particular Officers have intensive power over their particular Congregations, so hath a general Councel intensive power also, but their power is larger in extension actually, then the particular Officers is, being Officers sent from a larger part of the Church-Catholike, and intrusted by more, and acting for more then one Congre­gation, or one Eldership. This distinction M. Parker de polit. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 121. setteth down in these words. ‘Distinguo de potestate clavium, quae intensiva aut extensiva est. Intensivâ potestate caret nulla Ecclesia prima ( viz. particularis) ne mi­nima quidem; extensivâ verò e [...] caret, quam habet Synodus, cum potestas ad plures Ecclesias extenditur.’ And so it neither over­throweth my first nor second tenet, as he inferreth. Sect. 6.

Obj. If there be a Church-Catholike visible here on earth, it is fit it should have a visible head over them, that so the body and head may be of the same nature.

Answ. This was indeed used as a main argument by the Pon­ficians for the supremacy of the Pope. The avoiding whereof made our Divines so shy of granting a Church-Catholike visible, but it was not necessary that they should deny upon this ground, as M. Hooker conceives, Surv. p. 251. I say it is not necessary to grant a visible head to the Church-Catholike visible, no more then to a particular visible Congregation, which our brethren hold to be a body of Christ. And though they call it a mystical and spiritual body, yet that doth not imply it to be invisible. The Sacraments are called mysteries, and mystical, and the Or­dinances are called spiritual, and yet are visible, though the grace signified or conveyed by them to the Elect, is invisible. They are spiritual in respect of the authour God, and the di­vine [Page 118] subject about which they are, in opposition to natural and civil, and so our Ecclesiastical Courts were called spiritual, though indeed as they managed them they made them carnal and sinful. The members of the particular Congregations are visible members, and their union and confederation is visible; and they are a visible body, mixed of true beleevers and hypo­crites, as Gerard, Whitakers, Cameron, and even M. Bartlet in his model, confesseth. And their communion is visible, and yet there is no visible head on earth required for them, and why then should there be for the Church-Catholike? Such a head there­fore, whether visible or invisible, present or absent, as will serve a particular mystical body of Christ, as M. Cotton cals a particular visible Congregation, will serve the Church-Catholike visible.

I answer further, that the Church-Catholike visible hath a head of the same nature, consisting of body and soul, who some­times lived in this visible kingdom of grace, in the daies of his flesh, and did visibly partake in external Ordinances, though indeed now he be ascended into his kingdom of glory, yet cea­seth not to be a man, and so visible in his humanity as we are, though glorified and glorious, yet not lesse visible in himself for that, but rather more: and ceaseth not to rule and govern his Church here below, for it is an everlasting Kingdom, Esay 9.7. As when King James was translated from Scotland to England, and lived here, he did not cease to be King of Scotland: so nei­ther doth Christ cease to be the head of his Church, though he be translated and ascended to his other kingdom, the kingdom of glory. And as for a Vicar or Deputy here below, it is not need­ful. We confesse the government of the Church in regard of the head is absolutely Monarchical, but in regard of the Officers, it is Aristocratical.

This second answer is excepted against, both by M. Ellis vind. p. 56. and M. Hooker Sur. p. 258. ‘It is insufficient (saith M. El­lis) for Christ is head invisible, and thence our Divines af­firm his body the Church to be mystical also, and invisible taken properly.’

I answer, That Christ is not only head of the invisible compa­ny, which headship and body allude to the natural head and bo­dy, [Page 119] which is indeed the Church in the most proper and prime sense, but he is head also of the visible company or Ecclesiastical body, in allusion to a civil head or governour.

Christ not only affordeth invisible communion to his invisible members, but externally by Ordinances to both invisible and visible members of the Church, yet to both visibly. For Christ by his Ambassadours, and in his written word speaks externally to their senses, and they speak externally to him in praier and singing. And as he was once visibly on earth in our nature, a visible head of his Church: so also, if the millenary opinion be true, (which some of this way hold) he shall come again, and shall sit and reign a thousand years visibly. But whether that opinion be true or no (which I much doubt) yet he shall come again visibly, as the Sonne of man, at the end of the world, and take account of the managing of these Ordinan­ces, and of the carriage both of Officers and private Chri­stians, and the elect shall be gathered together into heaven, and enioy him visibly to all eternity, and he shall visibly con­demn the reprobates, and every eye shall see him. So that this is but an interval, wherein Christ though he be now visible in himself, yet appears not to us visibly, ordinarily, though he did to Paul and Steven, even after his ascension. Yet, now he af­fords visible communion to his people by his Ordinances, and they do visible service unto him, though he resideth not with them. If the absence of the King make the kingdom invisible, then Ire­land is an invisible kingdom.

M Hooker affirms this opinion to be not only untrue, but very dangerous, to hold that Christ as meer man consisting of body and soul is a visible head of his Church. And thereupon citeth Whitakers words, that Christ did not reside in the Church as a visible Monarch, nor came into the world to set up a visible Monarchy.

Answ. I do not conceive that Christ as meer man consisting of body and soul is the head of the Church, either invisible or political, but as God-man, yet that person was visible, though but in one of his natures, and in but half of that neither, viz. his body. The visibility of one nature makes visibility to be pre­dicated of the whole person, else no man is visible, for his soul [Page 120] is invisible. It is the meanest half of him that is visible, and so no earthly King should be visible. Christ is called God manifest­ed in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begot­ten of the Father, Joh 1.14. We were eye-witnesses of his majesty, 1 Pet. 1.16. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life. 1 Joh. 1.1. I hope these speeches are neither untrue nor dangerous And for his donative power and authority, Christ saith of himself, Joh. 5.27. that the Father hath given authority to execute judge­ment because he is the son of man, The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sinnes, and that was a kingly action. And the Apostle saith Act. 17.31. God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousnesse, by that man whom he hath ordained. It is true indeed all the vertue and power come from the deity to gather and perfect the Saints, forgive sinnes, raise the dead, judge the world; and by his deity only he is present with us now, yet as man also he is head of his Church and not as God only; for had he been only God, he could not have been a sutable head or second Adam, but that he became by becoming man, and taking our nature upon him. The seed of the woman must break the Serpents head. The governing pow­er and wisedom of a King is in his invisible soul, yet he is a visi­ble King. It is true also that Christ came not in the daies of his flesh as a visible, temporal Monarch, in Davids civil throne, yet Christ confesseth then unto Pilate that he was a king, though his kingdom was not of this world, i. e. civil, to oppose Caesars, yet it is in this world, and external in this world also. God over-ruled Pilate to set a true title over Christ on the Crosse. Jesus of Nazareth king of the Jews. As a King he had all power in heaven and earth given hem, Mat. 28.10, 19 and immediatly thereupon as a King he issues out his Commission to his Apo­stles, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, &c. It is not because Christ died for all as a Priest, that this commission is so gene­ral, but because all power in heaven and earth was given to him, therefore as a King he summons in all, even the very re­bels to yield obedience to his lawful authority, but only such as [Page 121] yield obedience and come in are saved by him. He set Officers and offices, and gave commandment to his Apostles, Act. 1.2. And appointed the form of Ecclesiastical proceedings in disci­pline, in case of scandal, Mat. 18. And this is no other doctrine then our reverend Assembly hath set out, both in their larger and shorter Catechism. That Christ our redeemer executeth the offices of a Prophet, a Priest, and a King, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. Neither can I see any reason why Christ should be denied to execute his kingly office while he was here below, any more then his Priestly or Prophetical. If he was then a King and had all power given him, he did not suspend the execution of it, while he was on earth, Joh. 5.17. neither doth Beza in conf. fid. ob. 5. art. 5. cited by M. Hooker, deny Christ to be head as man, though he acknowledge him to be head as God also. And though he saith, that he com­municates that degree of dignity to none else: He by those words excludeth the Pope, &c. but not Christs own humane na­ture; by which it is indeed that we come to our union with God.

All that can truly be alledged in this case is, that Christ is not now visibly seen as King with our bodily eyes, nor can we come to him bodily, nor receive any verbal commands from his mouth, as we may from an earthly King. But how few sub­jects have that priviledge in regard of their earthly Soveraigns! The legal commands are counted the Kings commands, and not his verbal only, nor chiefly. Yet we finde that Christ after his ascention did in Rev. 2. and 3. Chapt. write a letter by John un­to the 7. Churches of Asia, and reproves or commends and ex­horts them particularly: and in the inditing of it appears as a man to John: and useth arguments therein from things beti­ding him as man: as that he was dead and is alive again, and washed us from our sins in his own bloud, &c.

Object. Though there be a Church-Catholike, yet it is not visible, because it is the object of our faith, it being an Article of our faith, I beleeve the holy Church-Catholike. Now faith is the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. Things seen are the object of sense and knowledge, not of faith. For what a man seeth, how can he be said to believe? faith and sense [Page 122] are opposed each to other by the Apostle.

Answ. If indeed we take the Catholike Church in the lar­gest sense, for the elect past, present, and to come, as some do; the Church-Catholike is invisible. Also the grace of such as are invisible members, is invisible: but that is not the Church we are speaking of: The Church we have in hand is the whole company of visible believers in the world, considered as vi­sible.

Secondly I answer, it is not true that that which is in it self visible cannot be the object of faith. Indeed that which is actu­ally seen is the object of that mans sense and knowledge that seeth it: but that which is visible, i. e. which may be seen, may be the object of faith to him that seeth it not actually. I be­lieve there is Orbis universus a whole world, but I never saw it, and yet it is visible. I believe that there is a kingdom of Spain, and Empire of Germany, and they are visible, but I never saw them, nor am ever likely to see them. I believe there are con­stellations about the South-pole, but I never saw them, and yet they are as visible as those about the North pole: So I be­lieve that the Church visible is now no longer included in the land of Canaan, but is spread over many kingdoms, and may be into all, but I never saw it in the extent thereof, and yet it is visible in it self. The extent of place though it lessens the visibility, yet it takes it not away. I know this was an argu­ment of an eminent Divine of ours against a Jesuite, and it holds strongly against the visibility of the Church-Catholike taken in the first sense, but not in our sense. Yea, grant the Church-Ca­tholike to be a Genus, yet the argument reacheth it not, for a Genus is not the object of faith, but of knowledge, because the assurance thereof ariseth not from the credit of any ones word, but from our own understanding.

CHAP. VI. That the Church-Catholike visible is an Organical, yet simi­lar body. Yea, one Organical body.

THat the particular Churches are or ought to be organized, Sect. 1. It is Organical. is not a thing questioned by M. Ellis or M. Hooker, nor any one that I know of. And therefore I shall neither trouble my self nor my reader about that. It may not only be drawn from Mat. 18. Tell the Church, which cannot be referred only or chiefly to the Church-Catholike, for that even in a general Coun­cel ministerially is seldom convened, and cannot be informed by every one that it scandalized, But also from Tit. 1.5. I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city. And Heb. 13.6, 17, 24. Remember, obey, and salute them that have the rule over you. Of the Elders of Ephesus we reade, Act. 20.17. And of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, Rev. 2. and 3. Chapt. And yet many of these were combined Churches of many Congregations, and might be so all for ought I know. And we reade of the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem in the Acts, but whether fixed to particular Congregations or no I know not, to be sure they ruled in common. Only we finde Rom. 16.1. Of Phaebe a servant of the Church at Cenchraea, which is the most probable example of a Congregational Church, as I said before, but not certainly. But I shall take that for granted that particular Churches ought to be organized.

But with what Officers? whether with a Pastor and a Teach­er, or with preaching and meer ruling-Elders? Or by whom these ought to be elected or ordained, or how maintained? Or whether their power be from Christ immediatly, or from the Congregation, the Officers being as their stewards and ser­vants? Or whether the Congregation hath votes and suffrages in the dispensing of censures, and the Elders but their mouth to pronounce and execute their censures, as he that sits for judge and gives the charge at a Sessions, or a chair-man at a Com­mittee is, in regard of the rest of the Justices or whole Com­mittee to propound, gather their votes, and passe sentence ac­cordingly? [Page 124] whether their work in such Ecclesiastical meetings be only to convene and dissolve, Chap. 6. and to bring things into order for the hearing of the rest? are different questions, which are not to my purpose, and therefore I will not meddle with them.

Now seeing every part is or ought to be organized, the whole may be said to be Organical in that sense. Sect. 2. It is similar. If all the species be be organized (supposing they were species) the genus in a logical consideration must be said to be organized, because it is the com­mon nature of the species so to be. Much more if we consider the several Congregations as members, as indeed they are.

Now because I said that these particular Congregations thus organized, are similar, integral parts of the whole, M. Ellis chargeth me with a contradiction to mine own end and scope, and disagreeing with Apollonius, vind. 54.

First, he thinketh he hath caught me upon the hip of such a contradiction against my self and scope, and that I can come off no otherwise then with a Veniam (que) damus, petimus (que) vicissim, nor any otherwise be relieved but by the charitable benevolence of my readers ingenuity. But if there had been such a palpable contradiction, it is a marvel that reverend, judicious M. Hooker should not finde it, and shew it as well as he. If all the countries in the world had the same kinde of civil government, both offi­cers and laws respectively, though not dependent, were it a con­tradiction to say they were similar integral parts of the world? And if all the Corporations in a Kingdom (though organical bo­dies) were of the same constitution, and had the same Officers, as Maiors, &c. would they not be similar integral parts of the kingdom? yea, even in physical mixed bodies, as medicinal po­tions compounded of several ingredients, yet because the mix­ture is alike in all parts they may be said to be similar parts of the whole. Materialia componentia sunt dissimilaria, partes in­tegrales compositi & constituti sunt similares. So the Church-Ca­tholike in regard of the constituent materials, or essential parts, viz. Officers and private Christians, is dissimilar, but in regard of the several Congregations constituted, which are integral parts of the whole, it is similar because they are similar. I did not mean by similar quarto modo similare (as I may say) in the strictest sense, as haply the pure element of fire is, but such a si­milarity [Page 125] as is consistent with a mixture of ingredient materials. Every Congregation in reference to other Congregation is si­milar, being of a like constitution, but in reference to it self it is dissimilar, consisting of Officers and private Christians.

This assertion need not seem so harsh, seeing D. Ames as I shewed before asserteth the same. And M. Bartlet in his model, p. 45. confesseth the particular Churches to be similar parts of the Church-Catholike: and saith the Independents have left it upon record that they are so, and for that cites, Ames. medul. c. 32. And M. William Sedgewick in his Sermon before divers of the Parliament, pag. 4. And chargeth the London-Ministers for an untruth in affirming (in the preface of Jus divinum) that they deny it. But the charge is unjust; they only set down the difference between the Presbyterians and Independents there to be in this, that the Presbyterians hold that there is one general Church of Christ on earth, and that all particular Churches and single Congregations are but as similar parts of the whole: and the Independents (say they) hold that there is no other visible Church of Christ, but only a single Congregation, meet­ing in one place to partake of all Ordinances. The London-Mi­nisters affirm only that the Independents deny one general Church of Christ on earth, not the similarity of particular Con­gregations. But it will necessarily follow that they deny them to be similar parts, if they deny the whole to which the parts must relate. And if they make the whole Church a genus (as they do) then must they make the particular Churches similar species, which is little lesse then a contradiction, for the formality of a species lieth in dissimilarity and difference from the opposite species.

Now to shew that this assertion of the similarity of particular Churches crosseth mine own scope, M Ellis sets down mine opinion, with a mark as if the words were mine own, which neither are my words nor my sense, viz. That the Church (visible Catholike) is an Organical, ministerial, governing body, i. e. (saith ‘he) not such a body as is the element of water and air, every part whereof is of the same nature, vertue and power in it self considered, but such a body as a man hath, which is distinguish­ed by several members, &c. And such a body as all Corpora­tions [Page 126] are. Now this (saith he) contradicts plainly the for­mer both opinion and expression; for if the Church-Catho­like be a similar body, and all Congregations alike, and the whole nothing differing in nature or constitution from the parts, then the Catholike visible Church is no more the govern­ing Church then a particular.’

Ans. To let passe his unfair dealing with my self (and others) in misreciting my words.

I said indeed the Church-Catholike was an Organical body, but not a ministerial governing body. For the scope of my The­sis was and is to prove the Church-Catholike as it consists of Officers and private Christians, to be the prime Church to which the Ordinances are given respectively, as the Officers or pri­vate members are capable; and to particular Churches secon­darily. I spake not of the Organs or Governours only. The body of Officers is indeed a governing body, called a ministe­rial Church, but the whole Church either particular or general, is no governing body, no more then a whole Corporation or kingdom can be said to be a governing body, but they are go­verned bodies, and so is the Church both particular and general.

Indeed I finde the words ministerial governing Church in M. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt. 177, 178, 179. &c. but it is clear that he takes it not in M Ellis's sense, but for a Church furnished with Officers, and having discipline and government exercised in it: for he was farre from making the body of the Church to be the receptacle of the keys, and having power of governing. He saith the keys were given for the Church, but not to the Church.

It is only a Scottish expression not to be so expounded and strained, as M. Ellis doth, who bendeth his whole reply against a sense of it, which I beleeve was not M. Rutherfords meaning.

Neither did I make the whole to differ any thing in nature, constitution or power from the parts; but said they have the same kinde of intensive power, but in the Church-Catholike it is of larger extension. Similar bodies conjoyned exert their pow­er more intensely and extensively, then when single. All the water of the Sea will cool and moisten more and further then one drop; a great fire will warm, yea, burn more and further [Page 127] then a spark: a great heap of stones extends further and will weigh more then a little one. So all Churches (if they could meet) have no other power when met together, then a single Church, but being combined, the power both reacheth further in extensi­on of places, and it more august and solemn, and to be the ra­ther respected and submitted unto.

But this (he saith) crosseth Apollonius, whom (saith he) I fol­low, but indeed I never saw his book, nor heard of it, until a good while after I had composed my Thesis, and then inserted I think but 2. or 3. sentences of his. ‘ Apollonius (saith he) saith that Eph. 4.16. is meant of an organical, ministerial body, dif­fering in members, which M. Hudson expounds to be meant of a similar body whose parts are all alike.’

Answ. They are alike in the integrals, as I said before, but not in the essentials. But where doth Apollonius deny the particular Congregations to be similar integrals parts of the Catholike? There is therefore no disagreement among the Presbyterians in this point (as M. Ellis suggesteth, vin. 54.) that one of them would have one thing, another another.

But the main question comes now to be discussed, Sect. 3. It is one Orga­nical body. viz Whe­ther the whole Church-Catholike visible be one Organical bo­dy? which if it can be made appear, will end the whole contro­versie.

The Church is distinguished into Entitive and Organical.

The Church visible is called Entitive, not because of the in­ward grace which is essential to an invisible member, but from the reception and embracing the Christian Catholike faith, which is essential to a visible beleever. And it is called Organical, in reference to the Officers thereof, which are the Organs of the Church, or in regard of the Offices which Christ hath instituted to be in his visible Church. This distinction halteth as much as that of the Church-visible and invisible: for the Organical Church is also Entitive, viz. it is of such as have received and embraced the Christian faith, and is made up of such, and only of such: yet there is a difference in notion, but not in per­sons. Indeed in some sense a company of visible beleevers may be said to be a Church-Entitive, and not Organical, because they are not actually under any particular Officers: as a company [Page 128] of visible Christians in New England inhabiting together to make a Congregation, but as yet have chosen no Officers, may in reference to other organized Congregations be said to be inorganical, and entitive only: but this sense is not the most proper sense of the word. For if they be, then but a Church-entitive, then also after they have Officers, if those particular Officers die, they should return to be a Church-En­titive only again, in the interim before they have chosen any new ones.

Now though in consideration we may distinguish between the essence of beleevers, as beleevers embracing the Christian faith, and their existence under Officers, especially under par­ticular Officers: yet the existence of visible beleevers, members of the Church-Catholike, can hardly be without reference to Officers. For the ministery of the Officers is the usual means of their conversion: and to be sure they cannot be admitted to be actual members of the Church-Catholike by baptism, but by some of the Officers, though not considered as their particular Officers, yet Officers in general. And such persons as receive the doctrine of Christ which denominates them to be belee­vers, are bound to receive his commands also, to submit them­selves to his Ministers for their edification. And though they have no particular Officers, yet as they look upon the Church as a society of men and fellow-members to whom they joyn themselves in the general, though not as yet in any particular membership: so they look upon the Ministers as Christs Mini­sters, to whom they are to be subject in the Lord, to receive their doctrine, exhortations and reproofs, and from whom al­so, if they prove scandalous, heretical, infectious, or apostates, they must expect disciplinary censures, though they be no parti­cular members, under a particular Minister.

There is a question whether the Church or the Ministers be first, because the Ministers are the instrumental cause of the conversion of the Church, and the Church of the choice of the Ministers, which is something like that Philosophical question, Whether the hen or the egge were first, for as the egge comes of a hen, so the hen comes of an egge. And as that is resolved by the consideration of the creation, and then God made the [Page 129] hen first: so is this question by consideration of the first insti­tution and setting up of the Evangelical Catholike Church; and then we finde that Christ set up the Officers first to convert men to be beleevers, and they being converted to the faith of Christ are bound to submit themselves to Christs Ministers in the Lord. And because they will stand in need of constant in­spection, teaching and ruling, which they cannot enjoy from Ministers in general, as so considered: because they are disper­sed into several places for habitation, and take particular parts of Christs Church to watch over; therefore they are to desire and endeavour to have some of Christs Ministers to take the particular inspection of them. But we know that at first they receive Baptism not from their own particular Minister, or not as so considered; for being newly converted into the Church, and not baptized, they cannot as I conceive be members of a particular Congregation, until after baptism, but they receive it as from one of Christs Ministers in general, and are by him admitted into the visible body the Church, and after this have liberty to choose under the inspection of what Ministers they will put themselves. See more of this Qu. 2. S. 2. 4.

Now before the proof of this assertion, it will be needful to explain a little what I mean by one Organical body; I doe not mean that there is one universal, visible, actual society, con­sisting of all such as are accounted or to be esteemed Christians, subjected actually to one or many universal, general, actual Pa­stors or guides, from whom subordinates must derive their of­fice and power, and with whom they must communicate in some general sacred things, which may make them one Church as the Jews were. And which general sacred services or duties can be performed by that universal head or heads, and that Church only.

Such an universal Christian Church Christ never ordained, no, not in the daies of the Apostles, to whom the extraordina­ry care of all the Churches was committed. Nor that all the whole Church should be subjected to one supream Tribunal of Officers constantly erected, and continued among them. Nor yet to communicate with Christ himself (though in some sense he may be said to be a visible head) in some worship to be per­formed [Page 130] by all joyntly assembled at some especial solemnity, as the Jews at the Passeover.

But an habitual, Politico-Ecclesiastical society, body, flock, in one sheepfold of the militant Church, in uniform subjection to the same Lord, the same Laws, in the same faith, and under the same visible seal of Baptism, performing the same worship and service in kinde: and though the members be dispersed far and wide, yea, divided into several particular places, and secondary combinations of vicinities, for actual, constant en­joyment of Ordinances (as particular Corporations in a King­dom, which is an accidental, not essential relation to them as subjects of the Kingdom) yet still those Ordinances, admissi­ons, ejections, have influence into the whole body, as it is a polity: and the members indefinitely may of right communi­cate one with another in any place, or any company of Chri­stians, though every person so meeting but occasionally, may be of a several particular Church, and the Minister dispensing, a particular Pastor to none of them all, yea, though none of them all be fixed members of any particular Congregation, nor the Minister dispensing fixed to no particular Congregation neither: by vertue of their general membership in the visible body and kingdom of Christ, and of the habitual indefinitenesse of the Ministers office, and the common donation of the Ordinances by Christ to his whole visible Kingdom, and to all the subjects and members thereof, which have a common freedom therein. And in this sense the word Church is taken in Scripture. His bodies sake which is the Church, whereof I Paul am made a Mi­nister. The house of God which is the Church. Now because there is no such civil society or kingdom that will in every thing pa­rallel this: but there use to be some general offices and officers, and some inferiour subordinate, receiving power and authority by descention, derivation, or subordination, and the inferiour Officers of lesse extent of place and power then the superiour. As the Lord chief Justice of England is above inferiour Justices, and his warrant can reach all persons in all the Counties of the Kingdom, and there be constant Courts of Kings bench and Common Pleas for judicature for all the Subjects of the whole Kingdom (though haply it was not so in the four Monarchies) [Page 131] this make men stumble at the name and notion of a Church-Catholike visible. But as in other things Christs Kingdom is neither of this world, not like unto worldly polities, so nei­ther in this. But every Minister of the Church in his particular place serveth the Church-Catholike visible in admitting mem­bers to general freedom in it, and ejecting out from general communion, prayeth publikely for the whole body, and mana­geth his particular charge, in reference to, and so as may stand with the good of the whole body, whereof his Congregation is but a member. And the Ordinances therein administred, are the Ordinances given to the whole, not as to a genus, which is but a notion, and can have no Ordinances, but as to a spiritual kinde of an habitual organical body and polity; as to a sort of men so and so qualified, bound up in an union and unity of the same head, laws, seals, worship and communion.

Now the same arguments which prove the Church-Catholike an Integral, will serve to prove it one organical body also, Sect. 4. and therefore I shall take some of them into consideration again, un­der this head and in this notion.

1. It will appear by the names and metaphors whereby the Church-Catholike is called and set out in Scripture, which are taken from things which are not only each of them an Integral, but each of them one Organical body: and in eâ formali ratione lyeth the analogy between them and the Church.

It is compared unto a natural body, which is an organical integral having many members and Organs, which though they lie indeed in the several members, yet are Organs of the whole, and the several members members of the whole, and doe their several actions, and perform their several of­fices for the good of the whole, and sympathize together, 1 Cor. 12.12. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

This is not meant of the Church of Corinth only, but of the Catholike Church, because it is the whole body to which Christ is the head, and Christs person as the head of the whole, and this whole body is called Christ, i. e. mystically, [Page 132] the whole receiving denomination from the better part, the head.

And so M. Bartlet takes it in his Model, pag. 35. for the whole Church. And so all Expositors that I have met with, except some few of late, who to avoid the dint of this argu­ment would have it meant of the Church of Corinth, as a parti­cular Church. But it will sound very harsh to make Christ and the Church of Corinth to be called Christ, when they are but the head, and a part of Christs body. It is the body whereof Paul was a member, v. 13. We are all baptized, where Paul puts in himself and all beleevers.

Object. But this is meant of the invisible company of belee­vers.

Answ. It is true, but it is spoken of them as visible, because it is brought in there to shew the diversities of gifts, offices, ope­rations and administrations in the visible Church: there is an eye and an ear, &c. mentioned, and the Officers of the Church named; now there are no Officers of the invisible Church as in­visible, nor different administrations; as they are members of the invisible body they are all similar, and have the same standing and operations of their general calling as Christians, not as Apo­stles, Prophets, Evangelists, &c. And many that have these com­mon gifts of the holy Ghost (which are by the Spirit of Christ) and the Offices there mentioned, were not invisible members of Christ, yet were not only members, but Officers in this body there spoken of. It is also the visible body there meant, because the 2. external seals, viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper are specified in v. 1 [...]. as means and signs of this union in one body, and they are visibly administred.

There is an invisible body of Christ and a visible, the invisible is in organical, the visible organical; the invisible while they are in the visible Church are visible members thereof, and so put on the relation of Officer and private member. It is true, some things are spoken of the whole in reference to the better part, the invisible number; and as they [...] professed themselves to be of the invisible body, so the Apostle speaks of them, and to them, as if they were as they ought to be, and at least made a shew as if they were. But that the place is meant of an organi­cal [Page 133] body as one, is out of question, and that the analogy between the Church and such a body, lay in the unity and organicalnesse, is as clear.

The like is spoken Rom. 12.4, 5. For as we have many mem­bers in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of an­other. It is the Church-Catholike, not Roman particular Church; Paul puts in himself, yet had never been at Rome then. It is organical, for the Officers are there enumerated. It is one, for there is a sympathy of members spoken of. To this purpose is that of Salmas. Retinebitur [...] communicativa, & [...] inter omnia membra Dominici corporis, i. e. Ecclesiae, quae nisi una sit non potest esse vera, Appar. p. 281.

Also it is set out by a political body. Sometimes it is cal­led a kingdom, and the kingdom of heaven, as I shewed before out of many places of Scripture. Now a Kingdom is one Organical body; for so many men living together within the same limits make not a Kingdom, but as it is combined by the same Laws, under one Governour or Government. In the Heptarchy, this one Kingdom since, under one King and body of laws, were seven Kingdoms. Now if the Church-Ca­tholike bears such an analogy to one Kingdom as to be called a Kingdom, it is from this that it is one organized Inte­gral.

It is also called a city, and sometimes Jerusalem, and as it is reformed it is called new Jerusalem, and the members both of Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens, Eph. 2.19. Now a City is one Organical body under one common government: otherwise so many houses or streets and inhabitants being toge­ther, would not make them a City. Sometimes the buildings and inhabitants, which if under one government would make one city and Corporation, being great and near, and haply con­tiguous, yet wanting a charter to make them a Corporation are none; yea, by difference of Charter, Government and chief Governours are two Cities as London and Westminster. The Church-Catholike therefore being one city is one organical body.

Also it is set out sometimes by one martial or military [Page 134] body, and is called an Army terrible with banners, Cant. 6. 10. which by some is interpreted Church-censures. M. Cotton indeed expounds it of the Church of the Jews, when they shall be called home by conversion to the Christian faith; to be sure it is the Church-militant. Now an Army is one organical body under one General, and the same Laws martial, though quartered in divers places: therefore so is the Church-Catholike.

It is also set out by an Oeconomical body, a family or hous­hold, Eph. 2.19. Now a family is one Organical body, wherein are Governours or a Governour, and governed, an husband, father, or master; and therefore so is the Church-Catholike, else the analogy should not hold. All these metaphors and many more, whereby the Church-Catholike is set out, shew it one visi­ble, organical body.

Secondly, That the Church-Catholike visible is one society virtually and habitually, appears, because by Baptism where­ever administred, the baptized visible beleever is admitted a member not of the particular Church among whom he was baptized, nor to bear any special relation to the Minister bap­tizing him, that he must take a special inspection over him as one of his particular flock and charge, but into the whole general body of Christs kingdom visible. For, as I shewed before, there was Baptism administred as the seal of the general covenant, be­fore particular Congregations were set up. See more of this, Qu. 2. S. 2. and S. 8.

And also because by excommunication a person is not cast out of that Congregation only where the censure was past, but out of general communion with all other Churches in the world, even the whole visible body of Christ. Certificates indeed we finde in Scripture to others, of their excommunication, that so others might avoid communion with them. As of the excom­munication of Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.20. And so we reade also of certificates of Apostates, who it is like were ex­communicated. As of Phigellus and Hermogenes, 2. Tim. 1.15. And of Hyntentus and Philetus, a Tim. 2.17. The former of which was encommunicated, and it is probable the latter also, by the same reason. The like certificate we finde again of Alexander, 2 Tim. 4.14, 15. But no new act of excommunication [Page 135] past upon them any where else.

Alexander Bishop of Alexandria having excommunicated Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia an Arian, writes an Epistle to certifie it to all other Ministers. Charissimis honoratissimisque fratribus, qui ubique gentium sunt nobiscum in Ecclesiae ministe­rio conjuncti [...]. Cum in sacris literis sit unum corpus Ecclesiae Catholicae nobis traditum. &c. therefore he signifyeth by letters what he had done, [...], Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 3. Nine Bishops excommunicated Jovius and Maximus, and that excommunication by Cyprian and others was appro­ved as valid. The like we finde of Novatus excommunicated at Rome by Cornelius and a Councel there, and it was certified to Fabius Bishop of Antioch, and approved by him, and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to whom the Epistles came. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 35. And Santo satenus excommunicated at An­tioch, was so accounted of the whole world, Niceph. 6.28. The Novatians excommunicated in Africk are so held at Rome. Cyp. l. 1. Ep. 3. and 13.

Thirdly, It appears to be one organical body by the identity of the external Covenant, charter, promises, and laws of the whole Church. The Covenant, charter, and promises, are but one grant, not one Covenant in kinde and many species there­of, but one individual Covenant of grace granted to the whole Church. This is not the Covenant whereby particular Con­gregations are said to be constituted, but the whole body. The Churches constituted by particular Covenants are alterable, di­visible, extinguishible (as M. Norton confesseth, p. 30.) which this is not: they are many and particular Covenants, this one and general: they are accidental, humane, arbitrary, and super­added; this essential, divine, necessary, and prime. And though this Covenant may seem but to belong to the Church as En­titive, yet the Laws which are also one visible systeme, argue it to be organical, because they relate to Officers and discipline: and they binde all not only vimateriae, but as proceeding from the same fountain and authour, the King of the whole Church, not quà particular members, but quà members of the whole.

Fourthly, It appears by the general right of communion, [Page 136] that all the members have habitually and indefinitely to joyn in, as providence offereth opportunity, though not cast into a Congregational combination, as all cannot be. Any visible be­leever under the seal of Baptism only, hath an inherent right to worship with any other visible Christians in confession, petiti­on, thanksgiving, and praise; and to prophecy with them in the Apostles sense, i. e. joyn with them in partaking of that Or­dinance, to sing with them, and receive the Lords Supper with them, and to be entreated by any Minister as an Ambassadour of Christ to be reconciled, 2 Cor. 5.20. and is bound to submit to the doctrinal admonitions and reproofs of any Minister ac­cording to the word: and the reason why any Minister may not passe a judicial censure also, if there be cause (seeing the keys are commensurable) is not because he wants habitual power in discipline, at well as doctrine, but because that is to be per­formed in a Court of Elders, and a strange Minister wants a call to joyn with any such Court, to bring his habitual power into act: yet our brethren will non-communion or deny com­munion with a stranger, if they have any thing against him, which is virtually a suspension of him; yea, if they have not positive assurance by testimony (not of his being in the general Cove­nant, for that is requisite, but) of his being a fixed member of some other Congregation which they approve of, not only for having the essentials of a Church, but as a pure Church: for upon that ground they deny the communion to some members of our Churches that go over with certificates (though not to members of their own Churches) because they judge us as im­pure. Indeed certificates are requisite from strangers to notifie their general right by being in the general Covenant, and to notifie their personal innocency from errour or scandal which might debar them.

But they only declare a right, they give none: neither doth their right proceed from the membership of the particular Con­gregation, from whence they come, but from the general, which is implyed in their particular membership, because Congregati­ons consist only of such; and they are witnesses of his godly conversation, he having lived with them.

As for judicial, Ecclesiastical censures, I confesse it is most or­derly [Page 137] to turn the accused person, and his accusations to his own Congregation, where an Eldership hath taken the parti­cular inspection of him, and have power in actu secundo already called forth to deal with him: but suppose they will not, or neg­lect it, or he will not return, but abide still in another place; or suppose he be not a fixed member in any Congregation, but a wandring star, and yet is a baptized person, and is very scanda­lous, or very erroneous, and fit to infect the persons among whom he converseth; shall there be no remedy for that Congregation? For ought I know, they may put their general, habitual power into act, and upon sufficient witnesse proceed against him, and finding him obstinate may excommunicate him, as well as a civil Officer will keep the kings peace in his own Town, by clapping an unruly, riotous, or traiterous stranger by the heels, if he take him within his limits.

Fifthly, I might argue also from the opposition of the ad­versaries of the Church, both Satan and persecutours, who oppose it not essentially only, but politically; their spite be­ing against the Officers and Organs of the Church, not only quà Christians, but quà Ministers, not quà Ministers of this or that particular Congregation, but quà the Ministers of the Church, and not only as dispensers of Word and Sacraments, but as dis­pensers of censures especially for they do most usually gaul men, and move their anger. They look upon the Church as one body, and upon Ministers as Officers of the Church in a general consi­deration, and so may we.

Sixthly, Sect. 5. It appears by the indefinitenesse of the office of Mi­nisters: which I reserved for the last, because I shall dilate a little more upon it then the former, And indeed upon this hinge hangeth the whole question of the Organical integrality of the Church Catholike visible. And turn the question which way you will, it will rest on this center, viz. Whether a Mini­ster be a Minister to any but his own Congregation?

I finde M. Ellis affirming that a Minister is an Officer only to his own Congregation, vind. p. 8. And the answer of the Elders of several Churches in New-England, unto 9. Positions, p. 8. Their words are these, ‘If you mean by Ministerial act, such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a [Page 138] Minister doth perform to the Church, whereunto he is called to be a Minister, then we deny that he can so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own, because his of­fice extends no further then his call.’

So M. Best in his Church-Plea p. 30 saith, Officers of Churches may be helpful to other Churches as Christians, but not as Mi­nisters. To the same purpose M. Bartlet in his model, p. 69. Here­by it appears they suppose the Ordination of a Minister to his office, is limited to the particular Congregation that call him. Indeed the call of the people exerts or cals forth the exercise of his office unto them in particular constantly; but his Ordina­tion to his office is more general, and giveth him habitual power in actu primo, to exercise and perform the acts belonging to his office elsewhere upon a call. Christ giveth the office, and hath annexed power of dispensing his Ordinances: the Presby­tery ministerially admit this or that man into it, not as a Presby­tery of that particular Congregation, for they may none of them belong unto it, but as a Presbytery of Christs Ministers having a call to give that Ordination in a regular way: and the parti­cular Congregation, by desire and election give a call to the ex­ercise of this power among them, pro his & nunc.

‘Habitu & potestate omnes Episcopi sunt Episcopi cujusvis in orbo vel paraecia, vel provinciae, quia in quavis apti sunt, habiles, & idonei exercere Episcopalia sua munera, quando illuc legitimè vocantur, ac mittamtur. Actu verò & quoad legitimum exerciti­um, ibi solummodò Episcopi sunt ubi per missionem & vocationem illam modiatam Dei, &c. huic illive Paraeciae, &c. praeficiuntur.’ Crakenthorp. Def. Eccl. Aug. c. 28.

Now that a Minister is a Minister and so habitually in office to more then his own Congregation, and therefore indefinite­ly to all the whole Church, will appear by these proofs. First, because the donation of the keys, and the institution and com­mission of the Evangelical Ministery was in reference to the whole. Go teach all Nations, and baptize them. Whenas yet there was no distinction of Congregations. God set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, 1 Cor. 12.28. So Eph. 4.12.

As God gave the Levites to the whole house of Israel, and [Page 139] they did at first in the wildernesse serve all the Tribes conjun­ctim, as one body of Officers over one combined large Congre­gation, but afterwards when the Tribes were dispersed in Ca­naan, the Levites were dispersed among all the Tribes, and ex­ercised their office of teaching and judging in the several places where they dwelt; yet this divested them not of their general habitual power, this made not their office to stand in relation to the particular city or Synagogue vvhere they did constantly exer­cise: and when they removed from place to place, as the wan­dring Levite, Jud. 17.8. did, they still retained their habitual of­fice and power, and needed no new consecration, but by vertue of their office did exercise the acts belonging to it where they had their particular station and call.

So is it with the Evangelical Ministery of the New Testa­ment: a Minister of the Gospel bears a double relation, one to the Church-Catholike indefinitely, another to that particu­lar Congregation over which he is set for the constant exercise of his office. And if he removes to another place, he needs no new Ordination; for that continueth and abideth still upon him; it being to the essence of his office, and not in reference either to the place from whence he cometh, or to which he goeth only. A Physician or Lawyer needeth no new license, or call to the Bar, though they remove to other places, and have other patients and clients. The Justice of peace who is in com­mission for the whole County, though he exercised it in one part of the County, while he lived there, yet if he removes to the other end of the County, he needeth no new commission to execute his office there, where he never did before, because it was habitual to the whole County, though actually exercised where he lived; so though a Minister removes, he needeth no new Ordination, but a new call to the exercise of his office there, no more then a private Christian by removing into ano­ther Congregation, needeth a new Baptism, because neither Ordination nor Baptism stand in relation to the particular Con­gregation, but the Church-Catholike. As he that is admitted a freeman in any Hall of any Company in London, is admitted a freeman of the whole City, as well as of that Company: and he that by reason of his birth hath right to be baptized in any [Page 140] Congregation, is admitted a member of the whole society of the Church-Catholike visible, as well as of that Congregation: so he that is ordained a Minister, as by the occasion of the call of a particular Congregation he is ordained their particular Minister, so also is he ordained a Minister of Christ and the Go­spel, and Church in general. ‘Ordination (saith M. Ruther­ford) maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and es­sentially, the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister, but their Minister, the Minister of such a Church: he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church. Ruth. peaceab. plea. 263.’

And to the same purpose it is that M. Ball saith. ‘A Mini­ster chosen and set over one society, is to look unto that peo­ple committed to his charge, &c. but he is a Minister in the Church universal: for as the Church is one, so is the Ministe­ry one, of which every Minister (sound and Orthodox) doth hold his part. And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend, yet he is a Minister in the Church-uni­versal. The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract, must be distinguished from the power of exerci­sing it concretely, according to the divers circumstan­ces of places. The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church, the latter is proper to the place and people where he doth minister. The lawful use of the power is limi­ted to that Congregation ordinarily; the power it self is not so bounded. In ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place, as if they were to be deemed Mi­nisters there only, though they be set over a certain people. And as the Faithful in respect of their community between them, must and ought to perform the offices of love one to an­other, though of different societies; so the Ministers in respect of their communion, must and ought upon occasion to perform Ministerial offices toward the faithful of distinct societies. Tri­al of new Church. [...]ap. p. 33.’

To the same purpose is that of Crakenthorp. ‘Episcopi omnes quà Episcopi universalis Ecclesia pastores sunt, & ju­re Divino sic pastores sunt. Episcopus item unusquisque par­ticularis sua Ecclesia pastor est, non quà Episcopus sed quà [Page 141] Romanus, aut Alexandrinus Episcopus, nec jure Divino sed humano solum, & Ecclesiastico, pastor sic est. Cura om­nium ovium, quà Episcopi sunt, ad omnes spectat, saith Sal­mas.’

‘Praeter peculiarem curam quam singuli habent pastores sua­rum Ecclesiarum, generalem etiam quadantenus habere censendi sunt universalis Ecclesiae in his rebus quae ad salutem & bonum omnium Ecclesiarum cedunt, Apparat. 270.’ For, saith he, as in the natural body, the particular members have a double of­fice, one general and common for the defence and service of the whole body, and another special and proper; speciale ac proprium; so it is in the Church. It was the commendation of Athanasius by Basil in Ep. 7 [...]. Tantam geris omnium Ecclesi­arum curam, quantam ejus quae tibi peculiariter a Domino tradi­ta est.

Secondly, Sect. 6. It appears by the subject matter whereabout the office of the Ministery is exercised, viz, the Ordinances of God, the Word and Sacraments, and Praier: the good news of the Gospel, the profers, promises and precepts, which equally per­tain to all parts of the Church-Catholike. Therefore their fun­ction is set out indefinitely, in reference unto the subject matter of it, and not the people to whom they dispense them. A Mi­nister is an Ambassadour of Jesus Christ, and is in office habi­tually to the whole Church: and though he be set to lie leiger in a particular Church, yet the subject of his office reacheth to the whole Church, and not that place only; yea, to all that are capable of reconciliation, for the Ministery is the Ministery of reconciliation; and even when he delivereth his Embassage in his own Church, he is to deliver both profers, promises and pre­cepts indefinitely to strangers of other Congregations, yea, of forreign nations, if they come into his Congregation. Suppose a Mayor of a Corporation should send abroad his Serjeants to summon the whole Corporation to a general Court, and for expediency should send one into one street, another into ano­ther, a third into a third street: if any of these serjeants in their walks should meet a freeman that dwelleth in another street, ought he to forbear to summon him, because he dwels not in his particular walk, seeing he is an indefinite Officer to the whole [Page 142] Corporation, or is that summons without authority, because the man dwels out of his particular limits, seeing the businesse con­cerns all? Surely no, he ought to exert his general, habitual power of his office, and summon him. So seeing Gods message is general to all, though the Ministers (who are indefinite Offi­cers) be setled in particular Congregations for expediency, yet they have power by vertue of their office to deliver it to any Christian that God offers them an opportunity to preach unto. It is unreasonable, that seeing the message is indefinite, and concerns all in general, the commission to deliver it should be but particular. But I shall touch upon this in the second question.

Thirdly, It appears by the end of the Ministerial function, viz. to encrease and edifie the body of Christ, not only the in­visible body but the visible also, by converting such as do not as yet beleeve the Gospel. And this was a great part of the work of the Ministers in the primitive times: but how could they baptize those they had converted, when the Apostles and Evangelists were dead, if they had power to baptize only their own members? And this work, as there is occasion offered, li­eth on Ministers still, for the office of the Apostles and Evan­gelists is ceased, and yet many remain still out of the Church. Indeed while the Churches of New-England constitute Churches of members already baptized, this difficulty appears not; but if they come to convert natives, how shall they be baptized but by an Officer of the Church-Catholike? for they are mem­bers of no Congregation, either they must admit them mem­bers of their own Congregation, and then baptize them, as their members, as I perceive their practice is, for which pra­ctice we finde no precept or precedent or intimation in Scri­pture, or else baptize them into the Church-Catholike, and then admit them members of their particular Congregations, and yet that will not stand with this opinion: or else they must grant them liberty to gather into a Church-Entitive (as some call it) and so make them capable of choosing Officers, and of being a political body before they be baptized; but neither will this stand with our brethrens principles: but should this latter be granted, who shall ordain a Pastor over them? Shall unbap­tized [Page 143] persons lay on their hands on them? See more of this, Q. 2. S. 2.

Also the feeding and edifying of the body already convert­ed, requires that this power of the ministerial function should be indefinite, for the minister of any particular Congregation through sicknesse or absence, or the like occasions, may not be able to afford sufficient spiritual food to his own people, nei­ther Word, Sacraments, nor discipline, without the help of sin­gle fellow-laboures, or a combined, classical Eldership. What shall become of a Congregation in the intervals between the death of a former Pastor and the election of another? or who shall ordain him if he be elected? seeing all Officers of all par­ticular Congregations in the world are but as private men to them, by this opinion.

The end of the Ministerial function is threefold, to convert into the visible Church, to convert into the invisible Church, and to edifie such as are converted. Now this opinion cuts the two former ends quite off; for they suppose them both visibly and invisibly converted, before they think them fit matter for a Church, and so before admission into a particular Congrega­tion, and then restrain the Ministers office only to the particu­lar Congregation so constituted, so that his work is only to e­difie and govern such as are supposed to be truly godly, and train up their children. And by consequence it must follow that all conversion must be by men out of office, or at least as so considered. But Pro. 9 3. Wisedom sends out her maidens to call in those that are without, viz. the simple and that want understanding. The Ministers by vertue of their office may ex­hort and entreat and summon [...]n, to submit unto Christ, such as refuse and are unwilling and such as against whom (they con­tinuing perverse) they are to shake off the dust of their feet, for a witnesse against them. They are [...] under-suitors for the Bridegroom, Joh. 3.19. to woo such as are of themselves unwilling, and to make motions for Christ to such as ei­ther heard not before of him, or had not before consented unto Christ.

Fourthly, It appears from the actions which every particular Minister doth perform, both in his own Congregation and out [Page 144] of it. Every Minister doth in his own Congregation serve the Church-Catholike, by admitting members into the Church-Ca­tholike, and by preaching the word to strangers that come to his Congregation, both fixed members of other Congregations, and such as are not fixed in any, and administring the Lords Supper to members of other Congregations, and in other Con­gregations by preaching or administring the seals there, upon a desire. And by excommunication they eject not only out of their own, but out of the whole. They also can keep lectures in other Congregations frequently. If it be objected, That this is occasionally done, and a charitative act and not an act of of­fice. I answer, indeed charity and necessity may be the occasi­on of the performance thereof pro hic & nunc, but that can­not enable them to do it, if their office did not give them right and power habitually thereunto, no more then to private Chri­stians.

It is observable what M. Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way saith, p. 80. ‘That to suppose a Minister to be a Minister to his own Congregation only, and to none other society whatsoever, or to what respect soever, is contrary to the judge­ment and practice of the universal Church, and tendeth to destroy the unity of the Church, and that communion which the Church of God may and ought to have one with ano­ther. For if he be not a Minister in other Churches, then are not the Churches of God one, nor the Ministry one, not the flock which they feed one, nor the communion one which they had each with others. Again p. 90. he saith, If a Minister may pray, preach, and blesse another Congregation in the name of the Lord, and receive the Sacrament with them, we doubt not but he being thereunto requested by consent of the Pastor and the Congregation, he may lawfully dispense the seals among them, as need and occasion require. That distinction of preaching by office, and exercising his gifts on­ly, when it is done by a Minister, and desired of none but Mi­nisters, and that in solemn, set, constant Church-Assemblies, we cannot finde warranted in the word of truth, and therefore we dare not receive it.’

The Ministers are the light of the world, and though they stand [Page 145] like a light upon a particular Candlestick, yet are occasionally to enlighten all that they can, either that come to them, or that they occasionally go among. Reverend M. Norton in his answer to Apollonius saith, this is mediantibus candelabris Ecclesi­arum. His words are these, cap. 7. pa. 91. ‘Nobis ergo judicibus, Ministri ordinarij virtute muneris Ecclesiastici, sunt pastores certis Ecclesijs, & mediantibus candelabris Ecclesiarum, mini­stri omni creaturae, pro occasione data, &c.’ But this concession is too narrow: for every Minister giveth light to others, not only as he standeth in his own Candlestick, viz. when others come to him; but also out of his Candlestick, when he goeth to them. And when he preacheth or administreth Sacraments abroad, he doth it not as the Minister of such a particular Con­gregation, but of the Church-Catholike; for the particular Congregation hath nothing to do to send an Officer to exercise his office in another Church, if it be confined and peculiar to that particular Congregation only, no more then a Corporati­on can send their Mayor to exercise his office in another Cor­poration, no not charitativè. It is therefore mediante officio sive munere, by reason of the indefinitenesse of his office, not of his particular station and relation, that he can dispense the Ordi­nances to other Congregations. M. Norton p. 80. acknowled­geth that a Minister hath potestatem exercendi actus officij chari­tativè, & modo debito, in aliis Ecclesiis, and that this mini­sterial power whereby he exerciseth such acts, in an Ecclesiasti­cal power, p. 81. and that it is Ecclesiastical, not only in regard of the dispenser and administrer (as it is when he preacheth to heathens) but in regard of the receivers or people to whom he doth dispense; and that Churches ‘non tantum sub ratione Christian â exercent communionem Christianam, sed etiam quâ Ecclesiae exercent communionem Ecclesiasticam inter seipsas, & in seipsis ad invicen: quare etiam Ministri, praecipuè cum sint partes ejusdem totius organici, etiam quà Ministri, actus ministeriales officii in Ecclesii [...] non exercerent?’ And even from this concession of his (as I conceive) will necessarily follow that every Minister hath an indefinite, habitual, Ecclesiastical power, by vertue of his office in the whole Church-Catholike visible in toto eodem organico, which if it may be brought into [Page 146] act and exercise by charity, then much more by necessity, com­bination, mission or delegation, and if for the exercise of one key, why not of another, so it be in a due manner? They are the Stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. and though by particular assignment they dispense the Ordinances to a parti­cular company of Christs family, yet may not deny them to o­thers of the family that have the same right thereto. They are spiritual fathers, and do not only beget their own people to Christ ministerially, but strangers also. They are Christs shep­heards, and are to neglect none of Christs sheep, as opportu­nity is offered, though they have a particular charge of a set flock.

When M. Ellis preached before the Parliament, did he preach as a private Christian, a gifted brother, or as a Minister? Surely they summoned him as a Minister, and heard him as a Minister: for they could have found many able Gentlemen members of Parliament, Lawyers or Citizens, who could have spent an hour or two in praier, and exposition, and exhortation, but they never summoned any such to perform that work. Or had they summoned him to have been a member of the Reverend Assem­bly, would he have acted there as a private man, or as a Minister? Or do the d [...]ssenting brethren sit there as private men? or keep Lectures in London as private men?

Indeed skill, fitting endowments and willingnesse give a ca­pacity to be called to the office, but Ordination and mission giveth habitual power, and a call giveth occasion of exercise thereof, and of drawing forth that power and office into act.

A private souldier may have as much skill to leade a Troop as a Captain, but he cannot do it authoritatively without a commission: so haply many private Christians are able to preach and govern in the Church, by reason of their skill, know­ledge, wisedom and faithfulnesse, but cannot do it authorita­tively, having no commission by office thereunto. And should such private man passe the censure against a scandalous brother that the Elders would do, yet it is not Ecclesiastical binding, yea, though such a scandalous person should referre himself to them as arbitrators, and promise to submit to their censure, yet [Page 147] they cannot Ecclesiastically excommunicate him, or restore him; no more then private men in an arbitration can condemn and execute a malefactor, or absolve him (though he be innocent) if indited. Many times private men standing by, and hearing the e­vidence at the Assizes against a malefactour, will say he is but a dead man, yet that is no judicial condemnation of him, though it be materially according to the law of the land, yet it is not for­mally, for so is the act of the Judge only, who is in office for that purpose.

Fifthly, If private Christians bear a double relation, Sect. 7. one to the Church Catholike visible as members thereof, and another to the particular Congregation where they are particular mem­bers, then so do the Ministers also. The universality of private Christians membership necessarily requires an universality of the ministerial office, for dispensing the Ordinances to them, though but occasionally. As particular members agree with o­ther particular members in Christianity, so particular Ministers agree with other particular Ministers in the ministerial office. If particular private members can joyn with any Congregations in the Word, Sacraments, and praier, and are bound to con­tribute to them as members of the same general body (if there be need) though in forreign countries; then may also parti­cular Ministers dispense the Ordinances of Jesus Christ as ge­nerally, if there be necessity or occasion. Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus ordained a Deacon and Presbyter at Bethlehem, in mo­nasterio Bethlemitico, in the jurisdiction of John Bishop of Jeru­salem, when they were almost destitute of spiritual food, and defended his action thus. ‘Oh Dei timorem hoc facere compulsi sumus, maximè quum nulla sit diversitas in sacerdotio Dei, & ubi utilitati Ecclesia providetur. Nam et si singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias quibus curam videntur impen­dere, & nemo super alienam mensuram extendatur, tamen prae­ponitur omnibus charitas Christi.’ It seems he accounted his office habitually genera [...], and though the order of the Church required him to keep within his own bounds ordinarily, yet necessity, the profit of the Church, and the love of Christ, might draw forth the execution of his office further.

He addeth further, Non considerandum quid factum sit, sed [Page 148] "quo tempore, & quo modo, & in quibus, & quare factum sit, i. e. if it be not done to make a schism in the Church, as he expresseth himself afterward, ne que feci quicquam ut Ecclesiam scinderem. Afterwards he adds, ‘Multi Episcopi communionis nostrae & pres­byteros in nostrâ ordinaverunt Provincia.—Ipse cohortatus sum beata memoriae Philonem Episcopum, & S ^m Theopropum ut in Ecclesiis Cypri, quae juxta se erant, ad meae autem paraeciae Ec­clesiam vide bantur pertinere, ordinarent presbyteros, & Christi Ecclesiae providerent.’ Epiph. Epist. ad Johan. Hierosol. quam Hieronymus lutinam fecit. Extat in Hieron. Ep. T. 2. & in Ep. Hieron. ad Paumachum. T. 2. Vide Baronium Anno Christi 392. Sect. 42. &c.

The universal pastoral care which lieth on all Bishops as Bi­shops, saith Crakanthorp, puts forth it self both in general Coun­cels, yea, and out of Councels this universal care of the Church lyeth upon all Ministers that they provide for the safety of the Church as much as lieth in them, consulendo, hortando, monendo, ‘arguendo, increpando, scriptis simul & voce alios omnes instruen­do, & cum vel h [...]resis ulla vel schismain Ecclesia grassari caeperit, velut incendium publicum illud restinguendo, & ne latiùs serpat providendo.’ Def. Eccl. Angl. c. 28.

Sixthly, There will follow divers great absurdities, if the of­fice of a Minister stands only in relation to his own Congrega­tion. For then he cannot preach any where as a Minister but in his own Congregation, nor yet to any that come to his own Congregation occasionally, much lesse administer the seals of the Covenant to them, though they come never so well appro­ved by testimonials, or by their own knowledge of them, which yet hath been the ancient custom of the Church, and is practised still among our brethren in New-England, by vertue of com­munion of Churches, as they say: but this being an act of office, cannot be done except there be an habitual, indefinite power of the ministerial office, which by this desire of strangers and their testimonial, is drawn forth into act.

Also hereby a Minister is rendred but as a private Christian to all the Christian world except his own Congregation, and if his Congregation be any way dissolved, he is but a private man again. Also the censore of excommunication which hath [Page 149] been inflicted by such Officers in such a Congregation can ne­ver be taken off by any other Officers in any other Congrega­tion after the dissolution of that, for no Congregation can re­ceive an excommunicated person to be a member before abso­lution, and absolve him they cannot, because he is none of their members; Ejusdem est ligare & solvere: yea, and if he be wrong­ed by censures in any particular Congregation, no Church in the world can relieve him, except there be an indefinite, habi­tual power of office, which by such occasions can be drawn forth into act. It maketh way also for any private man to preach publikely if he be able, for Ministers themselves, by this opinion, should preach but as private men, if they preach out of their own Congregation. Also it necessarily implyeth that a Minister cannot remove from his particular Congregation, though for the great advantage of the Church, unlesse he will divest himself of his former Ordination (which was in refe­rence only to his particular Congregation, by this opinion) and take a new Ordination to his Ministerial office again, as if he had never been ordained before. And all acting in Coun­cels must be the actings of private Christians. And all the Le­ctures that are kept by neighbour-Ministers in combination, or singly (except by the particular Ministers of that Congrega­tion where the Lecture is kept) are performed by private men, for so (by this opinion) they are to all the world, except their own Congregations. And so if any of their own members come and hear them preach at any such Lectures, Funerals, Marria­ges, or Baptizings, it is authoritative preaching indeed to them, because of their particular relation to him, but only a charita­tive exercising of gifts, as a private man out of office to all men else.

And if this opinion be true, what shall become of all the un­fixed visible Christians in New-England? who by reason of their unresolvednesse, where yet to fix their civil habitations, or of scrupulosity or want of ability utterance, and boldnesse, to expresse themselves so as to obtain an admission into a par­ticular Congregation, or haply though visible Christians under the seal of the Covenant, yet have not the inward true work of grace in them, yet are neither ignorant nor scandalous, but [Page 150] live inoffensively, and willing to joyn in and submit unto all Gods Ordinances: I say, what shall become of them and their seed? Shall they all be left without the Church in Satans visible Kingdom, because they are no particular members, and there is no extension of the Ministerial office beyond the particular Congregations?

Sect. 8. Object. If every Minister be a Minister of the Church Catho­like visible, then what do they differ from Apostles and Evan­gelists, for that was their especial priviledge that their commissi­on extended it self to all Churches? This Objection M. Bartlet hath in Model▪ p. 69.

Answ. There is this difference; Every minister hath by his Ordination power in actu primo to administer the Ordinances of God in all the Churches of the Saints, yet not in actu secundo without a special call. But the Apostles and Evangelists (which were vicarij Apostolorum) had both: and the Evangelists pow­er was called forth by the Apostles, for they exercised their function where the Apostles appointed them. The Apostles re­ceived their office immediatly from and by Christ: The Evan­gelists theirs from Christ by the Apostles: ordinary Ministers theirs from Christ indeed, but ministerially by the Presbytery. The Apostles and Evangelists were not fixed officers in any particular Congregation, but itinerant from place to place: or­dinary Ministers are fixed in their own Congregations. They served the Church-Catholike actually wheresoever they became, and could draw forth the exercise of their offices without any mediate consent or call of the particular Churches or places, but so cannot particular ordinary Ministers. So that ordinary Ministers they are Ministers of the Church Catholike, though not Catholike Ministers actually. But if Ministers be Ministers only in their particular Congregations, where they are fixed, and to which they were called by the Congregation, I marvel that our brethren of the Congregational way here in England are so desirous to have itenerant Ministers to be sent into all parts of the land that shall be fastned to no particular Congregations: yea, and also to have gifted men, not ordained at all, to be suffer­ed to preach publikely and constantly in Congregations; surely these things are not consistent with their principles.

CHAP. VII. About Combinations of particular Congregations in Classes, and of them in Synods.

A further question is about the combination of Congrega­tions and Elderships in Classes and Synods. Sect. 1. For though it cannot be denied but that particular Ministers in their parti­cular Congregations do serve the Church-Catholike in their admissions, ejections, and other Ordinances, as preaching to, praying with, and administring Sacraments to members of o­ther Churches, in their own meeting-houses, and upon occa­sion in other meeting houses, for the case is the same, whether they come to him, or he go to them; yet it may be doubted whether the Ministers and Elders may combine together, and jointly exercise acts of government, &c. And though this doth not necessarily belong to my question, yet because it hath some reference to the integrality of the Church-Catholike, I shall speak something of it.

Now there is a double Integrality of the Church-Catholike, the first is Entitive whereby they are all bound together in the visible embracing, profession of, and subjection unto the visible doctrine, covenant, and laws of Christ, whereby they become Christians in the genera [...], whereby all Christians are bound as opportunity is offered, to perform Christian duties one to an­other, as fellow-members, ex officio charitatis generali, not only by vertue of the moral law, but by the law of Christ, and to Christ as the King and head of his Church. As all dwelling within the kingdom of England are members of the Kingdom, and bound to carry themselves as subjects to the governours and laws, and as fellow-subjects one to another, though they be fixed members of no Corporations nor Townships. And this inte­grality is alwaies actual.

The second is as it is organical by combination, as all the Counties and Corporations and Towns by combination make one kingdom: so all the particular Christian Congregations, [Page 152] Provinces and Kingdoms by combination make one Church-Catholike visible under Christ, Chap. 7. and this is an habitual integra­lity. Of this it is that Ames speaks, the Church-Catholike in regard of the external state thereof, Per combinationem habet suam integralitutem, Am. med. l. 1. c. 33. f. 18.

There is likewise a double combination, one habitual, where­by all Churches and Christians are united and habitually com­bined into one political Kingdom under Christ, and are obli­ged to be mutually helpful one to another, as need requires, as becometh fellow-subjects and fellow-members: secondly, there is actual combination, whereby any particular Churches shall actually agree, and so unite together for mutual help of each other, and for transactions of businesses of common concern­ment. And this is either a constant combination of vicinities in a Classis, because there will be constant cause; or occasional and more seldome, as of a whole Province or Nation, and may be of the whole Church-Catholike, if convenible by their de­legates. This latter combination is fundamentum exercitij: by the former they have jus adrem, by this latter they have jus in re, to act conjunctim for the good of those Churches so actually combined.

And of this second kinde of integrality and combination it is that we are now speaking, which necessarily ariseth from the former, as the organical integrality of a Kingdom ariseth from the Entitive. For seeing all are fellow-subjects under the same Soveraign and Laws, though they have particular Coun­ties, Corporations and Towns wherein they live, and actually enjoy constantly the general priviledges of subjects under the King and Laws, yet there will necessarily result a community and habitual integrality of the whole by coordinate combina­tion.

The civil and Ecclesiastical combinations as they proceed from a parallel ground, viz. subjection to the same laws and Soveraign (I mean respectively) so they must necessarily run parallel in things that are general and essential to combination. Our brethren make them run parallel in the two first steps, viz. in combining particular persons into families, and particular families into Congregations of them that are [...], dwel­lers [Page 153] together in some vicinity, which is nothing else in English but Parishioners, the English word comes of the greek. The Christians dwelling together made one Church at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, &c. by Ecclesiastical combination, as well as one city by civil combination respectively. And I doubt not but if all the Inhabitants of any one Town in New-England were judged fit to be members of the Church, they would com­bine them as members of the Church in that Town, and that Town would give denomination to them all as the Church in or of such a Town. And seeing the subjects of Christs Ecclesiasti­cal Kingdom [...]unne parallel further with the subjects of a civil Kingdom, they all being Christians, Why may not the combinati­on also run parallel, and the denomination be parallel for trans­action of common Ecclesiastical affairs, as well as civil, if pru­dence so dictate it? and the Churches in a hundred if they lie convenient, combine [...]to a Classis as well, as into a hundred for civil transaction? And the Classes into a Province as well as hun­dreds into a County or Shire? and the Provinces into a natio­nal Church as well as the Counties into a civil Kingdom? and seeing Christs Ecclesiastical Kingdom reacheth over many King­doms, why may they not make one habitual Church-Catholike, as well as many Kingdoms under the same laws and head make one Empire? The actuality indeed may cease where the con­stant or frequent community of acting ceaseth, whether at the Congregation or Classis where all the Officers are combined in frequent common acting, or at the National Church where the civil community ceaseth, and so the frequent occasion of common acting by delegates cease, I determine not, but the habituality ceaseth not in the whole Church-Catholike vi­sible.

I shall first speak of the combination of particular Congre­gations into a Presbyterial Church, Sect. 2. commonly called for distin­ction sake a Classis. That there may be a college or body of Elders that can act conjunction as well as divisim, appears from 1 Tim. 4.14. where the Presbytery are said to lay their hands on Timothy. There is the name and thing, and their acting con­junctim in Ordination, which was not the Presbytery of a single Church, or at least not so considered in their Ordination of an [Page 154] Evangelist, an itinerant, universal, actual officer under the Apo­stles. Our brethren also in New-England joyn the Elders of divers Congregations together in ordaining Elders for a new-erected Congregation, and not only the erecting of new Con­gregations will require it necessarily, but the supplying of other Congregations vacant by death, for there are but few Con­gregations so well stored with preaching Presbyters, as can ordain new ones, if one or two of them die. Also we finde an Eldership acting together, Act. 15.6. The Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter. Also Act. 11.30. and Act. 21.18. Christ gave the keys to the Apostles together, Mat. 28.19. Go ye and teach and baptize, &c. who though they recei­ved their extraordinary calling of Apostleship for themselves only, yet they received the ministerial office for all succeeding Ministers, and we finde no other especial donation of the keys; and this appears by the following words, Lo I am with you alway even to the end of the world; which must needs be meant of the succeeding Ministers, for the Apostles were not to last to the end of the world, neither their persons nor their office. Therefore as the Apostles could from that donation exercise the keys conjun­ctim & divisim in their extraordinary function, so may the Pres­byters exercise theirs also, and some keys cannot be used but con­junctim, as in Ordination and dispensing censures: and if El­ders of several Congregations can act together as Elders in or­dination (even in New-England) and in censures, much more th [...] in a greater body. And if our brethren in New-England dared admit private men to lay on their hands in ordination of their Ministers, doubtlesse they would appoint some of their own private members to do it, that so (according to their tenet) they might enjoy all Gods Ordinances independent­ly in their particular Congregations, and not admit of a forreign Officer to come and act as an Officer among them.

That divers Congregations may combine and make one Pres­byterial Church, appears by divers instances in the New Testa­ment. The Congregations in Jerusalem are called one Church, Act. 8.1. Act. 11.22. Act. 15.4. The Congregations in Antioch are called one Church▪ Act. 1 [...].1. and Act. 11.26. The Congre­gations [Page 155] in Ephesus are called one Church, Act. 20.17. Rev. 2.1. And the Congregations in Corinth mentioned in the plural number, 1 Cor. 14.34. are called one Church, 1 Cor. 1.2. and 2 Cor. 1.1. Now that there were several Congregations in each of these cities appears, because there were in each of them so great a multitude of beleevers, as that they could not meet together to partake of all Gods Ordinances, especially if we consider that they had no publike eminent buildings for meet­ing-houses, but met privately [...] Act. 2.46. in an upper room, Act. 1.13. and in the house of Mary, Act. 12.12, in the school of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. in the house of Aquila and Pris­cilla, 1 Cor. 16.19. in Pauls hi [...]ed house at Rome, Act. 28.30. in the house of Nymphas, Colos. 4.15. &c. therefore called the Church in their houses. And this manner of meeting continu­ed in the times of persecution in that age, and some succeed­ing.

Also it appears by the multitude of Church-Officers, Elders, Prophets and Teachers that were in each of them, which could not busie themselves in one Congregation, and sure they were not idle in those daies. Also by the variety of languages, espe­cially at Jerusalem, Act. 2.5, 8. &c. See these and other argu­ments of this nature more fully explained, and more particu­larly proved and applied in Jus Div. part. 2. chap. 13.

And if these Churches were such (as in all rational probability they were) then that position▪ That there are no other Ecclesi­astical societies instituted by Christ but particular Congregatio­nal-Churches, will not hold good; and the Basis of the Con­gregational way will fail, and the partition wall that seem­eth thereby to be between them and the Presbyterians, must fall down.

And this unity of these Churches was not a spiritual unity in regard of saving grace, for all the members had not that; nor in regard of judgement, belief, heart and way, for that was common to all the Christian [...] in the world: but a political u­nion by an especial Ecclesiastical obligation together (though we finde no mention of any explicit Covenant, as the consti­tuent form of the particular Churches) nor only in regard of the administration of Word, Sacraments and Praier, for these [Page 156] were dispersed in their several Congregations, and could not be jointly together in regard of their multitudes. Neither were they one in reference to the Apostles general power and office only, they being universal Pastors; for so the universal Church over the whole world was one; but in regard of the common Presbytery whereby they were governed constantly, and the Apostles themselves being in these several Churches did act as co-Presbyters with their Elders, and so they call themselves Elders, 1 Pet. 5. [...]. and Joh. 2. And though indeed it cannot be peremptorily affirmed, that these Presbyterial Churches had their several Elders fixed to their several Congregations; yet that (as I conceive) varies not the question at all. And yet it is very probable that the Elders in those cities did divide those cities between them, for particular teaching and inspe­ction of manners, to avoid confusion, and for a better means of conversion and edification of the whole, that so the mem­bers and others might the better know where they should be baptized, taught and instructed (so far I mean as the persecuti­ons and [...]ange [...]s of those times would permit) and yet for more weighty manners of ordination, excommunication, or con­futing any heresies, or transacting any businesse of general con­cernment they did meet together.

Now that these several Presbyterial Churches had each of them a common Presbytery set over them to govern in common, appears for Jerusalem, by Act. 11.27, 30 and Act. 15.2. and at Antioch by Act. 13▪ 1, 2, 3. with Act. 15 35. and at Ephesus by Act. 20.17, 28. [...] at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.12. and 1 Cor. 4.15. and 14 29. and at Philippi, Phil. 1.1.

And not only Scripture proves it in the practice, but right reason and necessity requires that there should be a combina­tion of particular Congregations, for the attaining the end for which government was appointed, both because there are ma­ny things that jointly concern many particular Congregations, and therefore it [...]s fit they should be transacted in common: as also some particular Congregations are too weak to perform some things that may concern themselves, as probation and or­dination of their own Ministers, and censuring of persons of great external [...], or civil dignity; the resolving of diffi­cult [Page 157] controversies, and cases of conscience; the confuting of subtle and dangerous errors, and learned subtle hereticks. There may also be through mens weaknesse and corruption, male-ad­ministration or presumption thereof in a particular Congrega­tion, which without combination and appeal cannot be reme­died. There may also fall out a difference between the Congre­gation and their particular Presbytery, and then who shall de­cide it? yea, the very Presbytery in a Congregation may differ, and be equally divided among themselves, and who shall de­cide that difference? There may be some great difference be­tween one Congregation and another Congregation, and they being equal in authority as Congregations are, Par in Parem non babet imperium, who then shall end these differences, if both be resolute, and will not yeeld each to other, or to the advice, counsel and perswasion of neighbour-Churches? Therefore it is necessary that there be an authoritative conjoyned Pres­bytery, wherein the whole hath power to regulate the parts; the greater part of the body to heal and help the lesse, either in keeping them from division▪ or to cure them of divisions, when they are risen.

Sometime again many neighbour Congregations are scan­dalized by some notorious evil breaking out in one Con­gregation, or their members endangered by the evil example of some persons dwelling in one of the neighbour Congregati­ons, and having recourse unto, and converse with the members of the rest, and haply that Congregation cannot, will not, or do not censure that offendour: shall there be no means to bring him to censure, and afford a remedy for the rest? Some heretick may endanger the members of divers Congregations, and yet live but in one, and that one not able (haply) to grapple with him; or haply he be a fixed member of none (as may easily fall out, especially if Churches consisted only of gathered mem­bers, as some would have them) or one that shifteth up and down to avoid Congregational censure, how shall he be dealt withal, without combination of Churches?

Sometimes the offendour or scandalous person is a member of one Congregation, and the witnesses live in two or three neighbour Congregations, how shall this mans cause be brought [Page 158] to trial? The Elders of that Congregation where the accused person dwelleth cannot authoritatively send for witnesses out of another, and if they will come voluntarily, they cannot (by our laws) safely administer an oath unto them: neither can the Elders where the witnesses dwell send for the accused per­son authoritatively, nor censure him if he will come volunta­rily. And yet many such like cases may, and will fall out. If all civil causes were confined to the trial of the chief men in the several Parishes, we should soon finde the difficulty, disa­bility, mischief, and impossibility thereof, and the case is the same for Ecclesiastical causes, for ought I know. ‘There is no way (saith M. Rutherford) to reduce or judge scandalous, dissenting Elders without there be a combination; for they will not censure themselves, and the people cannot. Peaceab. Plea. 191. But (saith he) the spirits of the Prophets must be judged by the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.39. And otherwise we must leave all scandalous Elders to the immediate judgement Christ.’

Sect. 3.But still there remaineth a greater Query about Synods con­sisting of delegated Officers of particular Churches, which be­cause they are most properly Ecclesiae ortae, I shall say the lesse of them, as being not so pertinent to my question, it being a­bout the whole Church, consisting of both Officers and private members respectively. Concerning Synods and the subordination of the particular Churches unto them, divers have written so fully, learnedly, and punctually, that I shall referre the reader to them. See M. Paget in his defence of Church-government, par. 2. and of the power of Classes and Synods, ch. 6. And M. Gil­lespies Assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland. And the four Leiden Professors, Synops. purior. Theolog. disp. 49. The advice of our Reverend Assembly concerning a Confession of faith and a form of Church-government. And Jus Divinum by the London Ministers. And M. Parkers Polit. Eccl.

The nature of Synods is all one, whether they be Provincial, National or Oecumenical, and they only differ as greater or lesse, but their power in reference to their precincts, and de­legation is alike. They differ from Presbyteries called Classes, because the Provincial is constituted only of certain delegated [Page 159] members from the classical Presbyteries of the same Province: the National of delegated members from the Provincial Sy­nods: and the Oecumenical of delegated members from the National Synods: whereas the Classis is constituted of the El­ders of the particular Congregations combined together. The Classes are more frequent, constant, and ordinary in their meetings, the other more rare and extraordinary. The power of Synods is not at all civil, but Ecclesiastical, neither is it de­structive to the power of Classes, or single Congregations, but perfective and conservative. They are not infallible, but may erre as well as a Classis, or single Eldership, yet are not so sub­ject thereto, because in the multitude of Counsellours there is safety, and they consist of more choice able men, and not so liable to personal prejudice against the accused, nor likely to be swayed by fear, or favour, or sinister respects. Their pow­er is not meerly consultatory and suasive, but authoritative, and to be submitted unto by those for whom their delegation is, so farre as their acts are according to the word of God, In Synodo est authoritatis apex, totius Ecclesiae unitas, ordinis firma­mentum, Leid. profes. de concil. If it be no more but consulta­tory and suasive, that is no more then a few private men may do, yea, one man or woman may counsel, advise and perswade. By M. Ellis's opinion Councels and Synods being void of all au­thority are but as a company of private Christians met toge­ther to advise one with another how to act in their own Con­gregations, where only (saith he) they are in office: it may be an act of those that are in office but not as Officers, so that in that act they are to be considered as private members, who by such consultation take or give private advice how to act as offi­cers, where they are Officers. Which is no otherwise then if in these times of trouble and danger, a company of peti-con­stables should meet occasionally, or by appointment together at a market-town, and there consult together how to act most commodiously and uniformly in their several Parishes, in the pressing of Souldiers, or gathering Assessements: or a compa­ny of Mayors of several Corparations should meet by appoint­ment at London, and there advise together, how to order their several Corporations. So that a Synod whether Provincial, [Page 160] National, or Oecumenical, can have no power to summon any heretick or scandalous person, and if any such should volunta­rily come before them, or be brought before them by the ci­vil Magistrate, that should before their faces blaspheme the whole Trinity, or be convicted of Sodomy, yea, though any of their own members should curse God himself, or be convicted of a present act of whoredom, or of sorcery, they have no pow­er to censure him Ecclesiastically, but fraternally admonish him, and send him back to his own Congregation to be censured, and they themselves only go thither as witnesses against him, because they are there (by this opinion) out of office, and all censures belong to the particular Elderships, as particular. But suppose now this heretick or scandalous person being de­parted (haply) from the Congregation where formerly he li­ved, or that Congregation being dissolved be a fixed member of no Congregation (as ten thousands of visible Christians, i. e. that have received the doctrine of Christ, and are under the seal of Baptism, may be, if particular Churches consist only of such as can give evidence of the work of true grace in them­selves) shall he remain an entitive member of Christs visible king­dom a gangreened limb, a rebel and traitour under the name and notion of a subject, and infect the rest of the body, and there be no remedy?

Sect. 4.But as the subject matters that Synods have to deal with are of three sorts, so their power and the acts of it which they put forth are of three [...] likewise. First, they are to act in refe­rence to matters of faith, i. e. doctrines to be beleeved and em­braced, and of divine worship, i. e. duties of worship to be per­formed unto God: not to coin or frame, or adde any new articles of faith, or new acts of worship, or alter any that God hath instituted: but to explain, prove and apply those Articles of faith, and rules of worship laid down in the word, and to con­fute and declare against the contrary errours, heresies, and cor­ruptions; and the power they exert herein is called dogmati­cal. Secondly, they are to act in reference to external order and polity in matters prudential and circumstantial, which are determinable by the true light of nature, right reason, and ge­neral rules in the Scripture [...] to set things in order, that all [Page 161] things may be done uniformly, decently, and in order: and the power they exert herein is called diatactical. Thirdly, they are to act in reference to errour, heresie, schism, obstinacy, contempt and scandal, and to represse them, and to censure such persons as are guilty of any of them, and are referred over to them: and the power they exert herein is called critical.

This is none other power then the particular Elderships in their several Congregations or Classes may exert in their sphear and precincts, with submission to the superiour assemblies, and all must be according to the word of God. As in the natural body God hath set several senses to act upon the several sensi­ble objects, visible, audible, tactile, &c. and several faculties in reference to truth and falshood, good and evil, to discern and embrace the one, and avoid the other: so in the body Ecclesi­astical hath he set several powers in the organs thereof to act diversly, according to the occurrent objects and incidents in the Church, both in the particular Congregations for the good of them, and in greater parts of the body for the good of them, and in the whole if convenible, for the good of that: but because remote parts cannot meet personally and generally in all their Officers, therefore that trouble and confusion is avoid­ed by delegation of particular elected choice officers, and is but occasionally, and pro tempore,

A ground and pattern of a Synod is laid down Act. 15. and 16. which is acknowledged to be a Synod, and warrant for a Synod by reverend M. Cotton in his keys of the kingdom of heaven, cha. 6. And is called an Oecumenical Councel by Chamier in Panstrat. Tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. sect. 2. and Whitak. cont. qu. 6. And gene­rally by our Protestant Divines. And is abundantly proved and explained by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum, par. 2. chap 14. and 15. to which I referre the reader for satisfaction.

The occasion of that Synod was an errour broached at An­tioch, and neighbour-Churches, to enforce the observation of the ceremonial Law by all Christians, and this was promoted by lying, as if they were sent by the Apostles and Elders at Ie­rusalem to preach this doctrine. Hereby the Churches were much troubled, and in danger to be subverted in their souls, This could not be suppressed by the disputes of Barnabas and [Page 162] Paul: hereupon the Elders of Antioch decreed and ordained ( [...]) that Paul and Barnabas, and some others, should go up to the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem about this question, and they submitted to this order, there was an authoritative mission, and probably members were also sent from Syria and Cilicia, for they were involved in the same danger, by the same persons, Act. 15.23, 24, 41. But if there were delegates but from two Churches, it will justifie delegates from ten or twenty.

And as the Church of Antioch did not send Paul and Bar­nabas as extraordinary and infallible and authentical Oracles of God, as M. Cotton noteth, for then what need the advice and help of Elders that were below them, being but ordinary and particular Officers of Ierusalem? But as wise and holy guides of the Church, who might not only relieve them by some wise counsel and holy order, but also set a precedent to succeeding ages, how errours and dissentions in Churches might be remo­ved and healed. And with Paul and Barnabas they joyned o­thers messengers in the same commission. So when this Synod was met, the Apostles acted not by their Apostolical, infallible, transcendent power, or by immediate inspiration, as in the pen­ning of the Scripture; but the matters were carried on in an ordinary Synodal way by disputes and discourses, they delibe­rated about the true state of the question, and the remedy there­of, and after deliberation and disputes, they decisively conclude and determine the matter, and put forth all the three fore-na­med power. First, they exert their dogmatick power in confu­ting of the heresie and in vindication of the truth of justifi­cation by faith, without the works of the law: and their cri­tical power in branding the false teachers with the infamous brand of troublers of the Church, and subverters of souls, and of bely [...]rs of the Apostles and Elders of Ierusalem: and their diamctick power in ordering and framing practical rules or con­stitutions for the healing of the scandal. They passed [...] Act. 16.4. they imposed them, for they are said [...] Act. 15.28, 29. yet were not all the things they imposed ne­cessary in themselves, as abstaining from things strangled and from bloud: they are called necessary not intrinsecally, for then [Page 163] they are so to us but for that time, because those things were so odious to the Jews, who could not be so suddenly brought from all ceremonies.

It is true our Divines in their writings against the Papists do cry down the infallibility of Councels, and the over-high e­steem they had of them, and the injurious and sinful decrees of their Popish Councels, but they honour the general Councels, and account Synods an Ordinance of God. Calv. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect. 13. saith, ‘Nos certè libenter concedimus, siqua de dog­mate incidat disceptatio, nullum esse nec melius nec certius reme­dium, quàm si verorum Episcoporum Synodus conveniat, ubi con­troversum dogma excutiatur. Multò enim plus ponderis habebit ejusmodi definitio in quam communiter Ecclesiarum pastores, invocato Christi Spiritu, consenserint, quàm, &c.’

Whitak de consilijs cap. 2. not only alloweth but commend­eth Synods and Councels from the necessity and utility of them, and marvelleth that Nazianz [...]n should say he never saw a good end of a Synod, alledging the good end and profit of the Coun­cel of Nice. And citeth Augustine in Ep. 118. Conciliorum in Ecclesia Dei saluberrimam authoritatem esse. And addeth fur­ther, Etsi Concilia non sunt simpliciter & absolutè necessaria, tamen multùm conferun [...], & valdè utilia sunt, idque propter mul­tas causas. And then reckons up the causes. And divideth Synods in [...] & [...]. And bringeth Act. 15. for an example and warrant of them.

And Chamier in his Panstrat. tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. De omni­um toto orbe Ecclesiarum politia, sheweth the lawfulnesse and use of Synods. And lib. 5. saith, Ad Synodos convocatos fuisse atque admissos omnes Episcopos nemo dubitat, sedisseque judices, suo jure, prout fieri solet in Aristocratia. And M. Parker in Polit. Eccl. l. 3. p. 355. saith, Fundatur haec progressio a Presbyerio ad Classem, a Classi ad Synodum, in instituto Christi, Mat. 18.17. ex proporti­one. And p. 123. he foundeth them upon the same Scripture, Per gradationem ratiocinandi: a little after he saith they follow from that place, per sequelam ratiocinandi, & per consequentiam. In­numerable might be the citations of Protestant Divines in this kinde.

It is confest, Sect. 5. that particular Churches are endued with the [Page 164] power of discipline within themselves, if the matter doth par­ticularly and peculiarly concern themselves, and none others: or if there be no others that can joyn with them, they may do much alone, but that case is extraordinary.

It is confest also that every single Congregation is equal in power to any other single Congregation, considered as a Church, only one may be greater and purer then another, and furnished with more and more able officers. And therefore how one sister Church by its single power can non-communion another, that is of equal power with it, I know not, for it is a censure, and no lesse then a vertu [...] excommunication: and the other Church hath as much power to non-communion them, and so there is a principle laid of perpetual and frequent division, and splitting asunder of Christ [...] political body and kingdom. Such a principle in a Common-wealth between Town and Town in civil affairs would be very dangerous, and bring deadly feuds and civil wars, and at last ruine to the whole.

And though there be a subordination of particular Churches to greater Assemblies, yet it is not absolute and arbitrary, but in the Lord: also it is a coordination, because the Officers of the particular Congregations are there, and help to constitute the [...]lasses, or if it be a Synod they are vertually there by their de­legates or Commissioners, as the Counties and Corporations are in a Parliament.

The subordination of particular Congregations to greater Assemblies, consisting so of members taken out of the particu­lar Congregations, and the authoritative power and Ecclesia­stical jurisdiction of those greater Assemblies over them ap­pears, because we see the Church of Antioch was subordinate to the Synod at Jerusalem, Act. 15. Also Christs direction to deal with an offending brother, Mat. 18. ascends by degrees from private ad [...]onition to admonition before two or three, and from them if he amend not, to the Church: but what if the greater number of a Church, or suppose a whole Church of­fend? by the same rule of proportion they are to be brought before a higher Assembly, else no remedy can be had for offend­ing Congregations, as well as offending persons. But neighbour-Congregations or particular persons may be offended by a neigh­bour [Page 165] Church, and there is no reason that that Church should be partee and judge also in their own case; and therefore it is re­quisite that there should be a greater combined Assembly to complain unto.

And as the unity of the whole visible Church and political Kingdom of Christ requires this, as the London-Ministers have well noted, wherein all things are to be managed as between members and fellow-subjects, and the greater part in coordina­tion to rule the lesse in the Lord, and the whole the parts: so also there is the same necessity of Synods as of Classical com­binations, and otherwise there will be irremediable difficul­ties.

Also we may observe the like subordination and appeals in the Jewish Church: the several Synagogues were subordinate to the great Assembly at Ierusalem, and had their appeals thi­ther in greater causes, Deut. 17.8, 12. 2. Chron. 19.8, 11. Exo. 18.22, 26. And this could not be a ceremonial Law, for it did ty­pifie nothing. The appeals were not to the high Priest, typify­ing Christ, but to their highest Court: and though it were ju­dicial to them, yet the equity of it remains, and so far as it was grounded on common right it is moral. Now the like diffi­culties and dangers that occasioned that Law then, remain still as great among us, and ever will. And it is observable that this thing was not learned by Moses in the pattern shewed him in the Mount, but was taught by the light of nature to Iethro, and by him was given in advice to Moses, Exo. 18.22. and af­terward was approved by God, as being according to right reason, and a thing common to all societies as societies, not Ec­clesiastical only, and not a positive law only, but dictated by the light of nature, right reason and necessity, and therefore is practised in all ages, nations, armies and societies, though not in every particular circumstance. And therefore except it were forbidden, or some other way instituted to avoid those difficul­ties and dangers that will arise, it ought to be in use also in the Church under the Gospel, as well as summoning, convening in fitting times and places, and a moderatour or chair-man, and silence, obedience and respect, and due order in proceedings ac­cording to allegation and probation, which are things com­mon [Page 166] to all Judicatories, as Judicatories. And surely God would not have Christians under the Gospel under a more grie­vous yoke, and irremediable inconveniences then the Jew­ish Church, that if any of them be oppressed by the igno­rance, or ill will of their Elders, they should have no re­lief.

Sect. 6. Obj. If their be appeals from one Presbytery to another that is higher, then must there be two kindes of Presbyteries, and two kindes of Presbyters; but the Scripture speaks but of one, and giveth no rules for any Presbyteries, but one. Indeed in Univer­sities the same men may be heads of the Colleges respectively, and heads of the Universitie also; but there are differing and distin­guishing names, relations, and Statutes: but it is not so for El­ders of particular Congregations to be Elders of Classes and Sy­nods, &c.

Answ. The Church is but one visible, political Kingdom of Christ, made up by the collection and aggregation of all visible beleevers, who are called into an unity of Covenant, and laws, and way: and all the Ministers and Officers of the Church are given to the whole primarily, for the gathering and edifying of it, and they are all to teach and rule, and perform all their administrations respectively, with reference to, and the best advantage of the whole. And they did serve the whole as one actually when they were convenible, but their number encrea­sing they divided into several companies, for their better or­dering, edification and encrease: and therefore the instance is not parallel, for the office of the Ministers is first to the whole, and the Charter and Statutes of the whole and of every parti­cular Church are but one: and therefore the Ministers though they ordinarily act in their particular Congregations, as it were in their particular Colleges, being called by them to take the immediate, constant, particular inspection of them, yet can they exercise their general office when and wheresoever they have a call thereunto. Now this call is not that which giveth them their office, but is proximum fundamentum exercitij only. Neither is the particular Congregation the adequate corre­late to an Elder, for it doth not mutu [...] ponere & tollere, but the Church-Catholike only. But of this see more in the 2 ^d que­stion. S. 4.

[Page 167]But against this M. Ellis vind. 40. brings an Objection which he ushers in with a Let it be observed by all sorts, ‘By this means (saith he) 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 on­ly, there is derived a very transcendent power and autho­rity upon every particular Minister, more then any Parlia­ment man hath, yea, more then a King, who is limited to his dominion.’

But I answer, that the Presbyterians acknowledge that pow­er of government is given immediatly to every Congregational Eldership, or at least to such a College of Elders as may fre­quently and constantly meet and rule in common, as they did at Jerusalem, and it is not derived unto them by any superiour authority on earth, by way of descention, except by a Ministe­rial investment by Ordination. And this power is to be con­stantly exerted for the actual, Ecclesiastical regiment of that Congregation, or those Congregations over whom those El­ders are set in the Lord, yet with reference to the rest of the body, whereof they are but a parcel, and they may stand in need of the help of more Elders then their own, upon occa­sion.

It is true, government is not given to the members with the Officers, but to the Officers only: not to the body of the Congregation as the subject of it; either in whole or in part, as they are private members distinct from the Officers, much lesse are they the [...], or first receptacle thereof.

And for the inference hence of such a transcendent power and authority upon every particular Minister more then a Par­liament man or a King. I suppose M. Ellis is not ignorant that the office of every particular Minister in his Congregation gi­veth him authority to do more in administring Gods Ordinan­ces, (as authoritative preaching, and administring the seals of the Covenant, and the Officers in administring spiritual cen­sures) then a Parliament man or a King can do. Remember Ʋzziahs example. And yet in all civil affairs they are as duti­ful subjects as any else, and as much subject to civil authority. Because the Priests and Levites were in the matters of God [Page 168] set over all Israel, will it therefore follow that the meanest Le­vite was greater then the Nobles, Princes and Kings of Israel? Indeed the meanest Priest might offer sacrifice, which the King could not do, but this was no disparagement to the Nobles or to the King. No more it is to them that the meanest Physician may administer physick virtute officij, and the meanest Pilot guide the Ship, which the greatest Princes may not doe. The office and power and honour that belong thereto is of an­other kinde, then Parliaments and Kings, it is not civil but spi­ritual. You know Gods Ministers have power to baptize Par­liament men, Nobles and Kings, and their children, and to give them the Lords Supper, and to teach, admonish, reprove, and from God to threaten and denounce judgements against them, even eternal destruction, if they go on in sinful courses. They do doctrinally binde and loose Princes, and their whole King­doms, and the whole world, as occasion serveth. And can any man say that the greatest men are by their greatnesse free from Church-censures, if they be notoriously vile? and yet none can impose them but Ecclesiastical Officers. Suppose divers Parli­ament men or Noble men, yea, a King himself were members of a Congregational Independent Church, would not the Of­ficers of that Congregation account it their duty to admini­ster all Gods Ordinances to them, as occasion requires, yea, the Ordinances of discipline and censures, if there be just cause?

Sir, would you now be willing to have a retortion of your own kinde? with a Let it be observed by all sorts, that by the In­dependent way power is given to 2. or 3. Officers in a Congre­gation (or as others of them say, if the particular Congregation joyn) to censure, yea, excommunicate Parliament men, Nobles and Kings, if they judge there be cause, and all the Churches in the world shall have no power to relieve them, except that Con­gregation, or those Elders please.

‘It makes (saith M. Ellis) every Minister one of the stand­ing Officers of the Christian world, to whom with his col­legues (not severally and by distribution, but jointly and as one body) is committed the government of the whole Christian world, and managing the affairs of the son of God throughout [Page 169] the face of the earth.’ And this is marked with (") as if these were the very words of the Presbyterians, which are but his own paraphrase and collection, and not their sense, much lesse their words.

But I answer, Every Ministers office is habitually indefinite, but he is not actually a standing Officer of the Christian world. But as a Physician by this calling profession and license, is a Phy­sician to the whole world habitually, and may act upon the bo­dies, and about the lives of men, of what nation soever, where and when he hath a call. And as a Lawyer is a Lawyer to the whole Kingdom, and hath power by his call to the bar to deal about any mans case or estate (so far as the Law alloweth, and his calling serveth) where and when he is required, and yet these are but professions, not offices, which would make the habitual power haply more reducible into act, upon a lawful cal: but Christs Ministers have an indefinite habitual office, beyond their particular Congregations, yet in regard of exert­ing and constant exercise thereof, it is distributively over their own flocks, which are as their constant Patients and Cli­ents, but if there be necessity, just occasion, and a call to be helpful to any others joyntly with them that have the same office, they may exercise their power in any part of the whole body.

‘And so (saith M. Ellis) he is one of Christs vicars general (and not particular only, which I acknowledge every Minister to be in his place) magnum surely & memorabile nomen.’ But this is but magnum & memorabile scomma, and so I passe it by. M. Ellis knows that th [...]s power though habitually it belongeth to the office, and so to the person that hath that office, yet is not drawn forth in a general Councel for the actual, immediate service of the whole Church, once in many hundred years: and divers generations of Ministers die, and it is not called forth in their ages; and when it is, they are usually the most able and eminent persons that have that call, and not one of many hun­dreds of them neither, therefore that scoff might well have been spared.

But he confesseth every particular Minister in his place to be Christs Vicar (as he terms him) i. e. to act vice Christi, and [Page 170] all distributively to be Christs Vicars general. I see he is not sublimated so high (as some are) as to make the Ministers to be the Vicars or Stewards of the Congregation, and to carry their keys for them. But can they act vice Christi no where else? in whose name doe they preach, baptize, administer the Lords Supper, and blesse the people, when they act abroad occasionally? This ariseth from that principle (disclaimed in all former ages of the Church) that a Minister is a Minister, but in his own Congregation, and out of office to all the Church besides.

Sect. 7.But M. Ellis hath another Objection against it, viz. ‘If it be so (saith he) great reason it is that the Church of the whole world should choose these universal Officers, and so the Church of a Nation the National Officers, &c. by whom they are to be governed in that which is dearest and of high­est moment, viz. the precious soul, or else their condition is most sad.’

Answ. Is there not the same reason that the whole world should have a hand in the choice of every Physician? and the whole Kingdom of every Lawyer? And by the same reason it will follow, that the whole Christian world should have a con­sent in the admitting of every member of the Church, seeing they be members not of the particular Congregation only, into which by particular association they are admitted, but of the whole Church-Catholike visible. But as every Minister is en­trusted with the admitting of members into the whole, and e­very Eldership with casting out of the whole: so may every conjoyned Presbytery be also with the admittance of an Offi­cer. It is impossible that the whole Church should meet about admittance either of members or Officers, but the particular parts are entrusted in the places where they live: and if any man or woman can give in any just exception against either member or Minister, that is to be admitted, it shall debar their admission, or procure an ejection.

The new Jerusalem Rev. 21. it said to have 12. gates, and there was an admission into the whole city by every gate: so is there admission into the whole Church by baptism in every Congregation. The Temple spoken of in Ezek. 40. &c. is con­ceived [Page 171] to typifie the Evangelical Church in general, and the se­veral chambers the particular Congregations: now as those that were admitted into any chamber had thereby admission into the whole house, so they that are admitted in any Congre­gation, are admitted into the whole Church. And though the admission of particular Officers or members is not done inter­ventu totius Ecclesiae, yet it is done intuitu totius Ecclesiae, with reference and respect had to the whole.

But secondly I answer, That when that habitual power is drawn into act in a part [...]cular Congregation, as their particular Minister, then that Congregation meets to give him a call: and if an unworthy, unskilful man get into the profession of Physick or Law, for all his habitual power by license, he may have pati­ents and clients few enough to call his power into act: the like may be said of an unworthy Minister, if Churches have their right of calling or approving their Ministers. Or if there be a call to act in a Synod, so great a part of the Church as the Sy­nod extends unto, have a hand to call to that action. Indeed in a Classis the whole vicinity of Officers may meet personally by their actual combination, but if it be a provincial Synod, e­very Classis in the Province chooseth the members thereof se­verally: if in a National Synod every Province chooseth and calleth the members thereof, and so there is a call of the whole Kingdom: and if it be a general Councel of the whole Church, all the Christian Nations elect and call the members thereof respectively: and so this sadnesse he speaks of is salved.

‘And for unworthy persons intruding into the Church by a little learning, to live idlely on the sweat and cost of o­thers, or that shall have a friend, patron, or purse to make one, and so come into the Ministery and a living; which (saith he) is the Kings road in some Churches: the Presbyterians ab­hor it as much as he.’

‘But such an one (saith 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.’ This is another scoff, in calling every Minister, though unworthily crept in, a parliament man, and joint governour of the whole Church on earth.

[Page 172]But Sir, your passions make you forget your self much. It is not to be actually such a Parliament-man and joynt governour, but habitually [...]pable to be occasionally chosen pro tempore, into a Provincial, National, or Oecumenical Councel. And is [...] not as great danger in a kingdom, that any man, though of never so mean br [...]eding, or vicious life, if he get wealth or ho­nour by hook or crook, shall be capable to be chosen a Parlia­men-man, and by his vote (only, as it may be) all the civil li­be [...] of a kingdom may be destroyed? Any Gentleman or [...]ght though he hath not an habituality, yet hath a poten­ [...]ty to be a Parliament-man, which is reducible into act as well as if it were an habituality. And proportionably there are fourty nay five hundred Gentlemen chosen to be members of Parliaments, for one Minister chosen to be a member of an Oecu­menical Councel.

‘A glimpse whereof (saith he) we have seen in the Convo­cations or Synods in our own Nations. But when did M. Ellis see a Presbyterial Convocation or Synod in our own Nation?’ Prelatical Convocations and Synods indeed we have seen and felt, but no Presbyterial ones. And therefore his second sadnesse might have been spured.

‘O but none (saith he) attains the honour of being an univer­sal Officer, a Parliament man, but by the consent (formal or vertual) of all or the major part of them. And therefore the condition of the Church is more sad then the condition of men in their civil liberties in this kingdom.’

Answ. I pray wherein? For as the free-holders in the king­dom choose Parliament men for themselves, their wives, children and servants, and all the cop [...]holders, and meaner poor people in their several Counties, which are farre the greater number: so the Ministers and Elders, whom the Congregations have chosen and entrusted over them in the Lord, doe formally or [...]e [...]ally choose all the members of Provincial, National, and Oecumenical Synods and Councels. And if the Laws of the Kingdom would bear it (haply) it would be as commo­dious (if not more) if a prime man or two in every Town had the power to [...] and elect a Parliament man or two for the whole County.

[Page 173] ‘O but no such agreement hath been made (no not tacitely) by the Church-Catholike, nor no such institution of Christ hath appeared yet.’

Answ. We finde a patern of a Synod in Act. 15. consisting of delegated members, with formal disputes and decrees, not of the Apostles only but the Elders also. And if one Church may delegate and send to a Synod, then may another, yea, twenty.

And we finde that the Churches did then submit unto them, to their great profit, Act. 15.31. And the Churches for­merly have agreed unto, honoured, and submitted unto Coun­cels, and received much good by them; especially the first and general Councel of Nice, &c. And indeed the choice and send­ing of members to make up Synods, is more then a tacite agree­ment to them, as well as the choice of Parliament men is a vertual agreement, and promise of submission to the Parlia­ment.

Object. But if the Ministers be Pastors to the whole Church, Sect. 8. then the whole is to honour them, and contribute towards their maintenance, because they serve the whole, ordinarily in their own Congregations, and occasionally by preaching and ruling in Classes and Synods, for it is due from them that are taught and ruled. Gal. 6.6. 1 Tim. 5.17.

Answ. That all men are bound to honour all the Ministers for their office and works sake, is true; though they cannot a­ctually apply and give testimonies of that honour, but to such as they know. But for maintenance, the people over whom the Minister hath the particular inspection, and among whom he doth assidiously labour, are ordinarily to afford it, being the persons that actually partake of his continual labours, and it is the most convenient way of certain and speedy raising of it, as the Levites had maintenance from the several places where they dwelt, both cities and gleabs, and other comings in. Micah giveth a stipend to Jonathan the Levite, his diet and apparel, Judg. 17.10. It is like the Elders of Jerusalem were maintained by the Church of Jerusalem, but whether it was collected in the particular meeting-houses for such as did la­bour there particularly, or put into one stock for the mainte­nance [Page 174] of their whole Eldership, I know not.

But suppose one able man will maintain a Minister for the whole Congregation, or a Lecturer or Minister in another Con­gregation, or the State shall maintain a Minister in a Congrega­tion, i [...] that Congregation bound to afford him a second honour­able maintenance? Or suppose a Combination of Ministers ha­ving sufficient maintenance from their several Congregations will joyn together, and maintain a Lecture freely, may not the people hear them, because they doe not maintain them? I fear you will finde but few Congregations will make that scruple.

Obj. But the Ministers perform not their whole office to the Congregation that maintains them, but part of it to the Classis, and part to the Provincial or National Churches, and part to the Catholike Church.

Answ. A particular Eldership perform their whole office to their own Congregation, which concerneth their Congregati­on only, as farre as they are able. But in some things the par­ticular Congregation stands in need of the help of other Elders, as in male-administration, and matters of more weight; and there be matters of more general concernment then can be transacted in one single Eldership: and other Congregations likewise may stand in need of the help of their Eldership in the like cases: and so the particular Congregation is not hin­dred but helped by combination. And even in their greater Presbyteries they serve their own Congregations also, as well as in their own Congregations they serve the Church-Ca­tholike, in admitting members in, and casting them out that are scandalous, and in feeding, nourishing, and go­verning the members thereof, in their own Congregati­ons.

Ob. But this will be too great a burthen for Ministers to med­dle in the affairs of many Congregations, who will have work enough in their own.

Answ. As they shall afford help to others, so they shall re­ceive help for their own Congregation from others with whom they are combined. But what greater burthen will it be to doe it in an authoritation way, more then in a charitative? [Page 175] and yet that our brethren will allow.

Object. But then the Ministers exercise rule where they doe not ordinarily preach, and so the keys are not commensu­rable.

Answ. The keys are commensurable, though the exercise of them be not alwaies commensurable. Neither is a Minister bound alwaies to put forth the exercise of every key, where he puts forth one. A man may preach where he administreth no Sacraments. Paul preached much at Corinth, but was not bound to baptize there: though no doubt he converted many, yet he baptized but few, 1 Cor. 1. Christ himself preached much, but baptized not, Joh. 4.2. Peter preached to Cornelius and his company, but baptized them not: it is said he com­manded them to be baptized. And the Apostles usually carried about with them a Minister to baptize those whom they conver­ted; as shall be shewed more in the second question.

A man may administer Sacraments where he preacheth not, as the Apostles baptized, but Christ only preached there. And he that baptized Cornelius and his company, did not preach unto them, but Peter only preached. We reade not that the [...] or Minister, which Paul and Barnabas carried about with them, did preach.

A Minister may both preach and administer Sacraments where he rules not, As Philip to the Eunuch, The Apostles and the 70. in Christs time: and Ministers that preach abroad in a journey, or at a Lecture.

Also a Minister may rule where he neither preacheth nor ad­ministreth any Sacraments: for all the Elders in Jerusalem ruled in common; but preached and admnistred Sacraments from house to house, and could not preach to every Congregation whom they ruled. Also the Elders at Jerusalem, Act. 15. did ex­ercise discipline in making decrees for Antioch, Syria, and Cili­cia, where they preached not.

Object. Sect. 9. This formerly was a grand Objection against the Bishops; that they undertook to rule where they preached not.

Answ. The exceptions against the Bishops, were first, That they or most of them arrogated that power of rule to them­selves [Page 176] upon a wrong ground, viz. not as Presbyters, but as men of a superiour order and office, viz. of being Bishops, and so above Presbyters, even Pastors of Pastors. Secondly, They chal­lenged that to be due to one that belonged to a College or Eldership, or combination of Elders. Thirdly, They rob'd the people and Postors of their liberty and power: for they did not associate Congregations with them, but subdued them unto them. They were not mutually subject to Presbyteries, but made the Presbyteries subject to themselves. They did not carry things in way of consociation and confederacy as inter Pares, but as Lords both of Ministers and people. They took the whole Di­ocese to be their actual cure, and all Ministers were but their Curates. They forced men to bring in presentments to them and their delegates, which concerned the particular Congre­gations only, and ought and might have been transacted there. But it was not for exercising an act of discipline meer­ly where they did not preach, but because it was not on a right ground, nor in a right way. See these things noted by the Assembly in their answer to the dissenting brethren. pag. 11.

Obj. If there be superiour and more general Assemblies, and ap­peals unto them, then great and stubborn persons will never be brought to censure, for they will appeal higher and higher, even to a general Councel, which haply will not convene in their life time.

Ans. The Officers of the particular Congregation have power to inflict the censure, if they finde just cause, and that censure re­maineth on them, notwithstanding their apppeal, until their cause be heard in a greater Assembly, and if it then be found to be just, they confirm it, and leave it upon them, if unjust, they ought to relieve them.

Obj. If appeals be admitted to greater Assemblies, as Provin­cial, National, and much more Oecumenical Councels, it will occasion much trouble and charge to the partee grieved, and to the witnesses and prosecutours to go so far to bring their causes to trial. This Objection or to this purpose M. Ellis maketh, vind. pag. 16.

Ans. That may be prevented by stating the question in diffe­rence, [Page 177] and putting it inter controversias juris, and so it may be determined indefinitely: and the matter of fact may be pro­ceeded in accordingly in the particular Congregation or Classis, in application to the particular persons, secundùm allegam & probata.

Obj. But if appeals be admitted from the Congregational El­dership, because they may erre, the same danger will lie against Classes, Synods and Councell, for they may erre also, and by the same reason a man may appeal from a general Councel, for that may erre.

Ans. The appealing from the particular Eldership to superi­our assemblies, is not because they are infallible and cannot erre, but because there is lesse danger of erring, and fewer temptations to erre or be swayed, then in the particular Eldership. In the multitude of Counsellor [...] there is safety. Many eyes see more then a few: and those greater Assemblies consist of more choice e­minent persons usually, then the particular Elderships. And they are freer from all suspition of personal grudg or animosi­ties, and not so subject to fear of revenge from the censured person.

This liberty of appeals, as it is founded in the law of nature, Sect. 10. and seen by the light thereof, and in use in all societies, and granted to the Jewish Church, and practised by the Church of Antioch in Act. 15. and in use anciently in the primitive times, Providendum est [...]ne [...]innocens damnetur, ideò habeat potectatem is qui abjectus est ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet, Conc. Sard. Can. 17. &c. So also it is in effect granted by the Apologists themselves, Apol. Nar. p. 21. ‘It is the most abhorred maxime that any religion hath ever made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory and dishonourable unto that of Christianity, that a single and particular society of men professing the name of Christ, and pretending to be endow­ed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the same body and society with themselves, should either arro­gate to themselves an exemption from giving an account, or being censurable to any other, either Christian Magistrate a­bove them, or neighbour Churches about them.’ But what kinde of account or censurablenesse they mean, I know not. [Page 178] But as the censurablenesse from the Christian Magistrate a­bove them must be meant of a judicial censure in his kinde, which is civil; so that from the neighbour-Churches about them should be judicial also in their kinde, which is Ecclesia­stical.

Object. But if general Councels be an Ordinance of God, and the supream Ecclesiastical judicatory, it is a marvel that Christ should suffer his Church to be so many hundred years without it; it should then rather be a constant, standing Court.

Ans. It is not necessary that there should be a standing Court Catholike consisting of constant Officers of the Church-Catho­like actually, as there is of particular Churches, but only occa­sionally pro re nata: for there is power put into particular Chur­ches for the managing their own affairs; and such affairs as are of general concernment, and of greater weight then can be transacted in a particular Eldership, or Classis, or Provincial, or National Assembly, fall out very seldom. The Apostles them­selves after their dispersion kept no such general standing Court, much lesse is it needful now. Cogi Optimates non semper est ne­cesse, Chamier tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. sect. 15, 16. where he answers this objection fully. A general Councel ought to be (saith Salmas.) only, Quoties exigit causa communis, &c. Apparat. 273. It is not ad esse Ecclesia, nec ad benè esse Ecclesiae, sed ad optimum esse Ecclesiae, saith M. Rutherford. The Church of Antioch had once an occasion of appeal to a Synod at Ierusalem, but no such cause of constant recourse thither. This Objection may be made as well about the Christian Magistrate; seeing he is to be a nur­sing father to the Church, and such were promised by God, it may be marvelled that God should let the Evangelical Church want them in the infancy of it for above 300. years: and ma­ny of the Emperours after they proved Christians were wasters of the Church and promoters of Arianism and Popery, and not nourishers of the Church. But we must not undertake to prescribe God what is best. Times and seasons are in his hand.

Obj. If general Councels be the supream Ecclesiastical Judica­tories, "then how dare any particular Churches, at most but (if) [Page 179] National, abrogate and swear against the Ordinances and go­vernment established by the Catholike Church. And this Obje­ction he bids me minde, vin. p. 56. I suppose he meant the Obje­ction, in reference to the National Oath and Covenant against Arch-bishops, Bishops, &c.

Answ. Although Councels are very reverend and to be sub­mitted unto in the Lord, yet are they not infallible, but may erre; they are not regularegulans, but regulata & regulanda, and to be tried by the word of God, and if they speak not ac­cording to that, they are not to be obeyed. Clavis errans non ligat. Yet it is safer to be guided by a multitude of Counsellors in a great, yea, general Assembly, if it were rightly gathered (which the Popish Councels were not) then to stand bound by two or three Elders in a particular Congregation without re­lief.

The doctrine of that famous Councel of Nice, and some others following, was found, and we have not departed from them therein. And we know, that although many Councels were corrupt and not rightly chosen, nor acting uprightly according to the word, but guided by factions, and swayed by the Pope, and the best not infallible, yet the Scriptures are a constant, in­fallible rule to walk by. Nec ego Nicenam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminensem debes, [...]anquam praejudicaturus, objicere. Nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. August. advers. Maximin. lib. 3.

Chap. 8. CHAP. VIII. An answer to M. Ellis's Prejudices, Probabilities and Demonstrations against an universal visible (and as he cals it) governing (but should have said Orga­nical) Church. And his wrong stating of the question rectified.

MR Ellis hath set down divers just prejudices (as he cals them) and strong probabilities ( vind. chap. 3. pag. 10.) and Demonstrations ( vind. ch. 4. p. 19.) against this position, or rather against an opinion of his own stating and framing, for I know none that own it as he hath stated it. But it is an easie thing to set up a man of straw, and then beat it down at plea­sure.

Sect. 1.Before I answer these prejudices, probabilities and demon­strations, it will be requisite to view what M. Ellis denyeth, and what he granteth, and how he stateth the question, and what is the true state of it, and where in the difference lyeth between him and his opponents, and then we shall the better see how his pre­judices, probabilities and demonstrations will lie against the que­stion in hand.

‘First, he denyeth the question to be meant of the essential onenesse of the Church, whereby all the Christians in the world divisins, and in their several places doe 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, vind. p. 7.’

But indeed this onenesse is included in the question, and is the very foundation and ground of all: we desire no other unity then will necessarily flow from this. This Entitive visible unity of the whole as one society under one head, in one visible Co­venant, under the same seal, under the same laws from the same authority, is enough to denominate a Church-Catholike vi­sible, [Page 181] and one visible kingdom of Christ here on earth. And to this Church as one integral society, were the Ordinances and priviledges primarily given, and for their enjoyment thereof was the organicalnesse and politicalness added, and it was made one habitual, organical, visible Kingdom of Christ on earth, be­cause all these visible subjects have one common right to, and communion in the same Ordinances and priviledges indefinitely in this whole visible kingdom.

But I fear this will not su [...]e our brethren who make not the general Covenant, which giveth the essence and entitivenesse to the Church, but the particular Covenant, compact and con­federation to give the right to the Ordinances. Their tenet (as far as I can collect from their books) is, that a company of visible beleevers being joyned together in a particular holy Co­venant, have thereby right to the enjoyment of all Gods Ordi­nances; and hence flow their right of choosing and ordaining Officers over themselves (the Ordination in their sense being nothing else (as I conceive) but a designation or assignation of those chosen men) by the imposition of hands (of some men appointed by them in their name and behalf) to be their par­ticular Officers, to dispense the Ordinances of Jesus Christ unto them. And hence also floweth their right of censuring and e­jecting those Officers again, if they miscarry themselves. Ejus­dem est instituere & destituere, and if the Congregation can ap­point men to lay hands on their Officers in their behalf, and set them up, then also if they see cause they can appoint men to lay hands on them by censures, and pluck them down again, or else they must go out of their Congregation to neighbour Elders for that censure, which is contrary to their own tenet, if it be an Ordinance of God. Yea, they must go out of their Congregation for discipline, which is most contrary to their principles, and that indeed where the greatest pinch lyeth, for they do not so much startle at a Ministers dispensing the word or Sacraments to other Congregations, for that is done fre­quently by them, or at the exercise of the key of discipline, and as I conceive, that it is that which breedeth this difference be­tween us. And if they must go out of their Congregation for the censure of their Elders, why not by the same reason in some cases [Page 182] for the censure of some private members? So that by their tenet their right to Gods Ordinances neither ariseth from their being in the general Covenant, for so they were before their confede­ration, nor yet from their organicalness, for they have power to organize themselves, and disannul those Organs again, and to per­form some Church-acts before and without Organs, but it ari­seth meerly from their particular covenant and consederation.

‘2. Neither is the Query (saith he) whether the several com­panies or Churches of this profession as they are one in nature so also in spirit and affection, and thereupon in engagement of mutual care one of another, and to take notice what do­ctrines are dispersed, what conversation used among the Chur­ches pag. 7.’

If by Engagement he meaneth an [...]amicitial or fraternal En­gagement, as he seems by his paralleling it with the Engage­ment of brethren of the same family, indeed it cometh not up to the question in hand, but if he meaneth an Engagement not only founded upon similarity of nature and unity of Spirit and affection, but upon an expresse command of Christ to his sub­jects in their places and Offices, to uphold his honour, and pu­rity of his Ordinances, and watch over their fellow-subjects to keep them from prophanesse and errour, or cure them if they be fallen thereinto, and this not by advice and perswasion, but by Ecclesiastical censures, if they be stubborn and obstinate, then it comes up to the question in hand. And surely the case may be so, that the key of doctrine will not serve, but the key of di­scipline (which our brethren acknowledge is commensurable with it) must be exerted also. Stroakings and lenitives will not cure all maladies in the natural body, nor good counsel all the distempers in the Common-wealth, nor yet in the Church, there must sometimes be corrosives of censures applied.

‘Nor 3. is it doubtful (saith he) whether such Churches may voluntarily, as occasion shall require, associate together for mutual assistance, and act (in many things) by common and joint consent, &c. This the Scripture and light of nature dictates.’

If by voluntary he doth not mean arbitrary, but such a volun­tary and yet necessary obedience to the dictates of Scripture [Page 183] and the light of nature as is in the observation of Gods com­mands, and as the voluntary joyning of members to a particu­lar Congregation, then it is the very ground of Synodical As­semblies. And though it be but occasional, yet these occasions falling out frequently and constantly, so ought those meetings to be as frequent and constant, which is all the Presbyterians contend for. And the same Scripture and light of nature that dictates this voluntary, occasional meeting, dictates also that they should have power to act together when they are met, else to what purpose should they meet? no occasion can war­rant them to do that which God hath not given them power to do. And whereas he saith the testimonies alledged by Cra­kenthop. in Def. Eccl. Ang. cap 28. are meant of an obligation of charity and not of office, it is utterly mistaken, for they speak of their power as Bishops, [...]ura omnium ovium, quà Episcopi sunt, ad omnes spectat. And Episcopi omnes, quà Episcopi, uni­versalis Ecclesiae pastores sunt, & jure Divino sic pastores sunt.

‘Nor 4. (saith he) 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.’ But as I con­cieve this is the highest thing that the Presbyterians aim at in such a Councel, and is the thing which himself makes question of, vind. pag. 8. lin 1. and yet four lines further seems to yeeld it again.

Then M. Ellis vind p. 8. comes to state the power of associ­ated ‘Churches, whether lesse or more, Sect. 2. and especially a gene­ral Councel. And there he grants an authoritative power (at least virtual) from Christ to act, and give not only advice, but directions and rules, to which the conscience is bound to submit, unlesse special cause disswade us. And this authority is more august and solemn (though not greater) the greater the number is, and the more publike the manner of giving forth the precepts shall be. And (a little further he saith) in doubt­ful cases, or upon occasion of grosser errours and scandals, God hath by Ordinance (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.’

[Page 184]Here he granteth almost as much as the Presbyterians doe desire, yet plucks it away again in the very next words in say­ing ‘That their acting in giving such directions and rules, is the acting of Officers, but not as Officers, for such they are only in their several Churches, but yet by reason of that relation they are the more fit for that work, &c.’ But hereby he o­verthroweth the analogy of their acting with the acting of an assembly of Lawyers or Judges, or a College of Physitians con­vened by publike consent, which he there makes the parallel of this Ecclesiastical acting, for their acting conjunctim is by vertue of their office and professions respectively, as much as divisim, and not meerly as friends or men skilled in those sub­jects and sciences; for it (by their office and profession) be­cometh (as he confesseth) authoritative, and to be submitted unto, not only because materially good but formally theirs, who by office and profession have power and authority to give it. If he would have made his parallel to run to his minde, he should have resembled the actings in Councels to the advice of understanding friends and neighbours in matters of Law and Physick, who have no office therein, or profession thereof, but have some knowledge and experience therein, and thereby are fit to give friendly and neighbourly, charitative advice and directions. How men can have authority to make rules which are to be obeyed because they are formally their rules, and yet do this as men without office, I understand not. The Synod Act. 15. did make decrees and give commands, he confesseth, but did not impose any penalty: but surely the making decrees and commands implyed an authority, and that conjunctim so to do, and the imposing of them implyed a power of office, and that a coercive also, else decrees and commands are to lit­tle purpose.

And to passe by his second grant, what power the Church-Catholike may possibly have in unusual and extraordinary cases or accidents, I come to his third gram, viz. ‘what power the universal visible Church might have (if possibly convenable) together, as it was at Jerusalem (in which case (saith he) we grant what is co [...]tended for) but the Query is. What pow­er the parts have asunder, and without endeavouring the [Page 185] 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 brethren now practise. vind. pag. 9.’

Here he granteth what is contended for, if the whole were convenable, i. e. (as I conceive) all the Officers of the whole Church. But if that could be, I doubt he holds they must, either act as men out of office, or an particular Officers, every one in reference to his particular Congregation: or can their conven­tion together put a general office upon them which they had not before? or draw forth general actions that concern the whole, from them that had no habitual power reaching the whole? but if all the Officers met together can rule the whole, because every particular Congregation hath its Officer there, why hath not a part thereof convened, power to rule that part also? seeing the right and reason is the same, seeing the Church is a similar body in regard of the integrals, and the parts are similar parts. And if so, here will be an unavoidable ground for classical associations, where all the Officers may meet. ‘And himself freely acknowledgeth the conveniency and necessity of Classes, yea, and Synods also, for direction and determination, and that by divine right, though not with power properly juridical. vind. pag. 3. But then their directi­ons and determinations must be by his opinion, but chari­tative, and by their skill only, and not by vertue of their office.’

But the reason why his parallel of a Kingdom, where a part cannot make laws for that part, holdeth not, is because the whole Kingdom is under one legislative power, and com­bined together in a body representative under one head, who have power to make uniform laws for the whole, but neither the Church-Catholike nor any particular Church can make any new divine laws, or abrogate any of them which Christ hath set down, but explain them, and make particular rules according to the ge­neral, and not otherwise: and put Christs laws in execution: and this a particular combination may do in their sphear, for their limits. And so as farre as their Commissions reach, the Of­ficers [Page 186] in a Corporation may make constitutions for the Corpo­ration, so they be not contrary to their charter; and the Justi­ces or Committees for a County may make Orders for the County, so they be agreeable to the Laws of the Land, whereof the County is a part: and have habitual power to execute justice in any part of the County, as occasion serveth, though they, for conveniency sake, do usually act in their several divi­sions.

A Justice or Mayor or Constable cannot act beyond their County, Corporation, or Town, though they be desired and called, without a new Commission, but a Minister may preach and administer Sacraments in any part of the Church-Catho­like upon a call, and why not also act judicially and juridically and where (according to the foresaid limitation) if he hath a call to bring his habitual power into act, seeing the keys are commen­surable?

Sect. 3.But then he comes to state the question positively what it is. And he sets it down thus, viz. ‘Whether the whole company of Christians on earth are in their ordinary and setled Church-constitution, so one intire single Common-wealth, Corpora­tion and Congregation, as that of right, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ it is the first subject of all Church-power: by authority whereof, and commission from which, all particular Churches act, and to the determinations of the ma­jor part whereof they are to yield obedience (if not apparent­ly contrary to the word of God) and the Catholike govern­ing power whereof, resides immediatly as in its proper subject under Christ, only in the Ministers and Elders; and they not taken severally, but jointly as one entire College or Presbytery: to whose charge severally and jointly the whole and every par­ticular Church is committed, &c.’

And this assertion M. Ellis sets down with (") in the margin, and cites Apollonius and the London-Ministers as the Authors of it, as if they were their very words: but they are niether their words non sense. I wonder, Sir, who ever dreamed of such an as­sertion, but your self. It is not honest dealing to lay the births of your own brains at other mens doors, to make them father them.

[Page 187]The like stating of it is again, vind. pag. 40. where the same Authours are cited, viz. Apollon. cap. 3. sect. 4. And Jus Divi­num pag. 43. and pag. 163. And again, vind. p. 27. and there are cited for it, Apollon. cap. 3. pag. 41. And Hudson p, 25. as asser­tors of this opinion expresly. But I am sure there in no such thing asserted by these Authours in any of those places. And if he saith it is drawn by consequence from their tenets, I answer, it is not accounted fair dealing to affirm those consequences that may be drawn from any mans opinion, to be his opinion, when (haply) he was never aware of any such consequences, or doth deny the consequence of them from his opinion. Much lesse is it fair to set them down in capital letters, and with marks in the margin, which usually importeth them to be their very words: or to make that the main controversie which is not owned by the opposite partee, but (haply) may be drawn by consequence.

The scope of Apollonius and the London-Ministers is to set down the proper subject and receptacle of the keys, first, nega­tively, not the people or catus fidelium, nor the civil Magistrate (though they grant him a defensive, diatactick, compulsive, cu­mulative power, a power circa sacra, non in sacris) nor Papal Officers, as Cardinals, &c. nor prelatical, as Deans, Arch-Dea­cons, &c. nor political Officers, as Committees, Commissio­ners, nor Deacons. But positively all those Church-guides, ex­traordinary and ordinary, which christ hath erected in his Church, vesting then with power and authority therein, viz. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers, governments or ruling-Elders, these Christ hath made the im­mediate receptacle, and first subject of the keys, or of Ec­clesiastical pover from himself. So say the London-Ministers expresly.

Now suppose they had undertaken to set down who were the proper subject of civil authority under the King: and should first negatively say, it is not the Physician, nor the Chirurgion, nor the Mathematician, nor the Merchants, nor Mariners, nor Trades­men, nor Husbadmen, and Farmers, but positively they are the Judges, Sheriffs, Justices, Maiors, Bayliffs, and Constables: Would any one gather from hence that all these Officers, not taken se­verally [Page 188] but jointly, are one entire, actual college of Officers, to whose charge severally and jointly the whole, and every part of the Kingdom is committed; by authority whereof, and de­pendance upon which common Officers, the Officers of every particular Town do act?

Besides, this stating of the question is not consistent with it self, for it makes the Church-Catholike the first subject of all Church-power, and then makes the Ministers and Elders the proper subject thereof: but the proper subject is the prime sub­ject▪ Unlesse he means in a logical sense, as sight is predicated of the whole man, and yet is seated properly in the eye: or reason is given to the whole man, and yet is seated in the un­derstanding. Christ hath given all his Ordinances to his visible Church; for the publike dispensation of which he hath insti­tuted Church-Officers, to whom he hath committed that power respectively: these officers are distributed among, and setled in their several Congregations, and there actually and constantly dispense their Ordinances to them, as by their office they are en­abled, according to the word; and yet because there are some things of common concernment with other Congregations, and of greater moment and difficuly then can be transacted by a few Elders in a particular Congregation, therefore upon such oc­casions they make act conjunctim, with the Elders of other Con­gregations; and may also dispense both Word and seals occasio­nally to other Congregations, upon a call by opportunity, want, or desire of other Congregations.

Yet do not the Presbyterians hold, that the particular Churches or Officers act by authority of, and commission from the one entire, single Common-wealth, Corporation and Congregation of the whole company of Christians on earth, as M. Ellis is pleased to set it down, to render their tenets odious: but they hold that every Minister by vertue of his office hath an imme­diate habitual power from Christ to dispense his Ordinances, but the con [...]tant exerting and exercise of this power is called forth into act by that parcel of the Church-Catholike, which hath given him a call to take the particular immediate inspe­ction and care over them in the Lord, yet upon occasion for the honour of God, the vindicating of his truth, the suppres­sing [Page 189] of more general errours and scandals, the propagating of the Gospel, and the good of others as God gives opportunity, it may be exerted and exercised in other places, and to other persons, so confusion and disorder be avoided.

Neither do the National Churches act by commission from the Catholike, nor the Provincial from the National, nor the Classis from the Provincial, nor the Congregational from the Classis; but every Minister acts by commission from Jesus Christ, by vertue of his Office. And the Congregational Eldership is first in acting, though last in Christs intention, in instituting the office. Every drop of water is similar to the whole element, and is cold and moist, but receive not those qualities from the whole Element, but hath them immediatly in its self, and though it actually exerts them only where it is placed and applied, yet hath an habitual power to exert them any where else, if appli­ed: So the Church-Officers have their powder, neither from the Church Catholike nor from their particular Congregation, but from their office, which they receive from Christ (though ministe­rially admitted thereto by the Presbytery) which power though ordinarily and constantly they exert in their own Congregation, yet can elsewhere upon a call.

Neither do the Presbyterians say, that the Church-Catholike or the whole campary of Christians on earth, are in their or­dinary and setled Church-constitution one entire, single Com­mon-wealth, Corporation and Congregation actually, but one habitual Common-wealth and Corporation, made up by the ag­gregation of all the single, actual Congregations of Christians in the world (as an Empire of all the Provinces and Kingdoms under it) and that beside the particular, actual, constant affairs of the Congregations, which are properly to be managed by such as are the particular actual Officers thereof, there are some things that concern more then themselves, and those are to be transacted (as such occasions arise) by the Officers of so many Congregations as they concern, they belonging properly to the cognizance of Officers, as Officers: and if those matters be of more general concernment, then that all the Officers concerned therein can meet, without confusion, to transact them, then they are to delegate some choice Officers from the [Page 190] several vicinities to transact them, as hath been shewed before: and as the call of the Congregation draweth forth the power of the Officers to act among them constantly, so this delegation cals forth their power to act occasionally pro tempore in this greater meeting. The case was once that Totus mundus inge­muit sub Arianisino: this concerned the whole, or the great­er part, and could not be cured by particular Officers, as par­ticular, in their several Congregations divisim, and therefore required a more general meeting of Officers (to whom by rea­son of their office it did appertain) to consider of it, and sup­presse it conjunctim, by confutations and censures: and these having done the work they were called forth unto, then are to return to their particular charges again: for this work is but occa [...]ional, and these occasions fall out very rarely. This makes not the whole Church-Catholike under one actual constant regi­ment.

Yet because in Churches that are near together in a vicinity, matters of common concernment or that require the help of more Elders then one or two Congregations can afford, will frequently and constantly occurre, and if there be not a set time and place appointed by consent for a certain number of Offi­cers of that vicinity to meet, they will be drawn together with much difficulty, charge, labour, trouble and confusion, and with lesse certainty (as appears by the case of M. Ward in the Ne­therlands, who being unjustly cast out of his place, could not under two years get a meeting of neighbour-Elders to hear and right his cause, and when he had obtained a meeting, it was [...]ut of very few, viz. the Elders of Aruheim, as I have been enformed) therefore it is conceived that there should be a certain time and place appointed for the Elders of such a vicinity as are in combination for mutual assistance, to meet in.

M. Ellis mistakes the state of the question, in saying the Mi­nisters ‘and Elders of the Catholike Church not taken seve­rally but jointly, as one entire College or Presbytery, have the charge severally and jointly of the whole, and every par­ticular Church committed to them, vind. pag. 9.’ For they are not actually Ministers and Elders of the Church-Catholike, [Page 191] nor actually one entire College and Presbytery, nor have not a­ctually the charge of the whole and every particular Church, but habitually only, by reason of the indefinitenesse of their office. They have power in actu primo by vertue of their office, but not in actu secundo sive exercito: they have jus ad rem every where, but not in re any where without a call. They are the Ministers of Jesus Christ, and thereby have right and power to perform the acts belonging to their office, but for the execution of it, either in a particular Church constantly, or conjunctim occasi­onally with others, there is required a call thereunto. And the not observing of this distinction is the cause of this difference in this question. The Levites were by their office consecrated to do the service of the Tabernacle, and to stand before the Con­gregation to minister unto them, Numb. 16.9. And the Priests to offer sacrifice: and both Priests and Levites were to be Teach­ers and Judges and Israel: and they had 48. Cities with their suburbs given unto them: but they might not at their pleasure exercise this power, and dwell where they listed, and minister in what they pleased, or offer sacrifice promiscuously when they listed, or be Teachers and Judges where and when they listed, but according to appointment and assignation, and according to their courses, and as they had a call to exert their power. So it is with the Ministers of the Gospel, They are vested with an office to dispense Gods Ordinances of worship and discipline, but they may not execute this office, but as they have an espe­cial call thereunto, no more then require maintenance, which also belongs to their office, except from those that call them to exercise their office among them. There are houses and gleabs and maintenance allotted by the law of the land for the Ministry, but every Minister may not carve for himself where and what he pleaseth. The particular exerting of the office and reception of maintenance in and from particular Congregations is not quà Minister indefinitely and habitually, but quà Roma­nus, Alexandrinus, Londinensis, Gippovicens [...]s. The whole Church in reference to Christ the King thereof, is indeed an actual po­litie, but in reference to the ordinary Officers, whose office though habitually it be indefinite, yet is actually drawn forth into exercise by a particular or special call and evocation, it [Page 192] may be stiled an habitual polity.

Sect. 4.Now let us see how M. Ellis's Prejudices, Probabilities, and Demonstrations will lie against this habitual integrality of the Church-Catholike visible, and against the habitual indefinite­nesse of the Ministers office.

First, he objecteth the novelty of this opinion. And indeed well he may, as he hath stated it, for he was the first that hatch­ed it, in his own brains. But that the Church is one habitually, and that the particular Churches bear the relation of members to the whole, and of fellow members one to another, and that Ministers are Ministers beyond the limits of their particular Con­gregations, and can upon occasion administer the Ordinances of God to more persons then those of their own Congregation au­thoritatively (upon which hinge hangeth the whole question) this is no novel opinion.

For the first execution of the Evangelical, Ministerial office, in teaching and baptizing by John Baptist, and by the Apostles before they had their general commission, and the preaching of the 70. was without any respect to any particular Congre­gations, for there were none set up. And when they were set up, the Apostles send faithful teachers to the several Churches whom they commended also to them, exhorting them to re­ceive, respect, and obey them; as Timothy and Apollos, 1 Cor. 16.10, 11, 12. Phil. 2.19, 23. And the many places whether Timo­thy and Titus travelled, and where they preached and exercised their office, is abundantly set down in the Scriptures, and ga­thered out by S [...]ct ymnuus, and M. Prin [...]e in his unbishoping of Timothy and Titus.

The Apostle also sent Tychicus a faithful Minister to the E­phesians, Eph▪ 6.21. and under the same notion of a faithful Mi­nister he sends him also to the Colossians, Col. 7.8. as is further noted in the second question. And lest this should be said to he done as he was an Evangelist (though we finde him not expresly called an Evangelist) yet it is clear that there were many that preached the Gospel in the Apostles daies in more places then one authoritatively. The brethren that John writes of in his 3 ^d Epist. ment forth and were helpers to the truth, taking nothing of the Gentile [...], were Ministers which might [Page 193] have taken maintenance, but did not, that they might spread the Gospel. It appears also even by the false Teachers that crept into Galatia and Corinth in Pauls absence: and those that went from Jerusalem to Antinch and bred the broil there, and those that preached the Gospel of envy and strife, Phil. 2. [...]5. who certainly were no Evangelists, neither do I allow of their false doctrine, yet it proveth that it was ordinary for Ministers to preach to more Congregations then one. And it is very pro­bable that those dispersed which went up and down preaching, Act. 8.4. were officers, as one hath lately shewed▪ for what should the Apostles doe at Jerusalem if there were no private Christians there? and it is likely that the heat of the persecution fell most upon the officers, and therefore they were generally scattered abroad, except the Apostles.

And in the after ages of the Church there was nothing more frequent, then for Ministers to act out of their own Congre­gations. We finde indeed provision made by Canons for the ordering of Ministers in the exercise of their function in other places then their own, but no prohibition to exclude them from it. As first, that they must have leave to do what they did: which was a wise provision against such as creep into other Churches without a call. It was provided in Conc. Nic. Can. 17. Caranza. That no Bishop should ordain any that belong to an­other Bishop, Cum non habeat consensum Episcopi ipsius a quo recessit clericus. And Conc. Constinop. Can. 2. secundum Zona­ram▪ [...], &c. Non vo­cati Episcopi ultra Diocesim ne transeant ad ordinationem vel aliquam aliam administrationem Ecclesiasticam. There is not taken away from them power of exercising of any of those things in other Dioceses, when they were called by others to help therein. Nullus Episcopus ex alia provincia audeat ad aliam transgredi, & ad promotionem ministerij aliquos in Ecclesijs or­dinare, nisi literis regatus adveniat. Conc. Antioch. Can. 13. Caranz. Nisi fortè cum consilio & voluntat [...] regionis Episcopi. Can. 22. Yea, the Councel of Sardice provideth, that if a Bishop in a Province where there have been more Bishops, did neglect to ordain more Bishops, then might the Bishops of the neigh­bouring Province (being desired by the people of that Pro­vince) [Page 194] come ex vicinâ provincia & ordinent Episcopum. Conc. Sa [...]d. Can. 2. secund. Isidor. sed Can. [...]. secund. Caranz.

Secondly, No Bishop ought to sollicite an Ecclesiastical Offi­cer of another Diocese into his own, and ordain him there. Conc. Sardic. Can. [...]8. Cara [...]12.2.

Thirdly, When Presbyters travelled abroad they could not be admitted to officiate [...], Absque literis commendatitijs proprij Episcopi nusquam ullo modo ministrare. Conc. Chalced. Can. 13. secundum Zona [...] 1 [...]. sec. Caranz. Then if they came commen­ded by their bishop they might perform any Ecclesiastical duty. Vide Concilij septimi canon, [...]0. apud Zonaram.

Fourthly, They were not permitted to stay too long abroad. Non multo tempore in alicua civit [...]te residere. Definire ergo tem­pus, qu [...]a & non recipi Episcopum inhumanum est, & si diutùs re­sideat per [...]ciosum est. Conc. Sard. Can. 14. Car. Per multa tempo­ra nititur immor [...]ri, Con. Antioch. Can. 3.

Fifthly, When they were abroad if they were recalled they were to return to their own charge, Conc. Antioch. Can, 3. Ma­ny other provisions were made, directing how Ministers were to carry themselves when they were abroad, but none of those pro­visions of them off from officiating abroad, only they regulate them in their carriage to prevent disorders.

Many examples antiquity affords us of the dispensing of Or­dinances of worship, ordination and discipline, beyond the limits of the Ministers [...] particular charge.

[...] of Alexandria was famous this way, Tantum studij in Scriptur [...] propaganda posuisse serunt, ut praeconem Evangelij Gentibus Orian [...]libus, & Indis sese conferret, [...]. It is said also, that there were many Evangelists, and faithful messengers prepared to promote and plant the heavenly word after the gui [...]e of the Apostles, [...]. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 9, 10.

Auici [...]us Bishop of Rome granted leave to Polycarpus Bishop of [...] for the re [...]erence that he owed him, to administer the Lorde Supper in his Church [...]. Euseb. lib. 5. [Page 195] cap. 24. So Nicephorus relates, [...]. 4. cap. 39. And the Centurists, Century 2. cap. 10.

Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus Bishops of Rome, gave the Eucharist to the Bishops of other Churches that resorted to them, though differing from them about Easter. Euseb. ibid.

Athanasius consecrated Frumentius Bishop at Alexan­dria, and sent him into India, and there he converted ma­ny to the faith, and builded many Churches. Socrates lib. 1. cap. 15.

Athanasius travelling from Jerusalem by Peleusium the ready way to Alexandria, preached in every city where he came, and exhorted them to eschew the Arians: and in divers of the Churches he ordained Ministers, though it were in other Bi­shops Provinces, [...]. Socr. lib. 2. cap. 19. 24.

Basil Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia fearing that the Doctrine of Arius would creep into the Provinces of Pontus, went into those parts and instructed men in his doctrine, [...], and confirmed the wavering. Socrat. l. 4. c. 21, 25.

Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum did the like in many cities, and often went to Constantinople for that end, Ibid.

Paulus Bishop of Emisa came to Alexandria in the daies of Cyril Bishop there, and there he preached a famous Sermon. And Cyril writes of him in an Epistle to John Bishop of Antioch, that he laboured there in preaching beyond his strength, that he might overcome the envy of the devil, and joyn together in love the scattered members, [...] Evagr. lib. 1. cap. 6.

Epiphanius Bish. of Cyprus came to Constantinople where John Chrysostome was Bishop, and in a Church not far from the wals of the City, he celebrated the communion, and made a Deacon without the leave of Chrysostome. And though Chrysostome re­proves him for it, yet only for the breach of an Ecclesiastical ca­non. Multa contra canones agis Epiphani, primùm, quod ministros Ecclesia ordinas in Ecclesijs quae sunt in meâ Diocesi. Soc. l. 1. c. 13.

[Page 196] Moses a Sarac [...] by birth, an eminent man, being much desired by Mavia the Queen of the Saracens to be their Bishop, was sent to Alexandria to be ordained: and though he refused to be ordained by Lucius the Arian Bishop, yet certain exiled Bi­shops ordained him in a mountain. Socrat. l. 4. c. 29. Theodorit. l. 4. c. 21.

Origen being sent for by the Churches of Achaia, as he was upon his journey to Athens, he went through Palestina, and was ordained to be a Presbyter by Alexander Bishop of Jeru­salem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, though he was a man of Alexandria, and went to officiate in Achaia, Histor. Magd. C [...]n. 3. c. 10. cited also by M. Pat. Symson History of the Church. pag. 268.

Yea, the dividing of Dioceses (and the same we may say of Parishes which are the bounds of particular Congregations) was but an humane prudential act. And therefore in the Councel of Nice, they pleaded no higher ground for it but Mos antiquus ob­tinuit, &c. And in the Councel of Constantinople consisting of 250. Bishops it was forbidden by canon that Bishops should leave their own Diocese, and intermeddle with forreign Church­es, for until that time by reason of the great heat and storm of persecution it was [...] indifferently used. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8.

And what frequent use the Church anciently made of Sy­ [...] and Councel, and how authoritatively they acted, M. Ellis cannot be ignorant whole Volumes might be written of this subject. And there [...]re Reverend M. Cotton in Keys, chap. 6. handling the Question, Whether a Synod hath power of Ordi­nation and excommunication, though his judgement seemeth to inclin [...] to the negative, yet saith, we will not take upon us hastily, to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and latest Synods, wh [...] have put forth acts of power in both these [...]. Th [...] refo [...] of all arguments this of novelty might well [...] may most justly be retorted upon the con­trary [...].

[...] answers M. Ellis giveth against the antiquity of Syno [...].

[...] [...]ndling of things of common concern­ment [Page 197] doth not conclude them one Corporation, no more then the common Treaties of Nations in things of joint concern­ment. vind. p. 10. But this common concernment arose from the unity of the head, body, charter and Laws, and the mu­tual relation of members, and therefore that parallel hold­eth not.

2. Saith he, this (it is certain) was at some distance of time, af­ter the discipline of the Churches were corrupt and declined to worldly policy, vind. p. 11.

Ans. Surely this is not so of all. For the first convention, Act. 1. about the installing of a new Apostle, and that before the Church was divided into particular Churches, and for a thing that concerned the whole Church, a meeting which our Di­vines usually account a Synod, yea, a general Councel, though not in all formalities, where there was a joint exercise of the key of order: this I say was before the corruption of discipline, or declining to worldly policy. And that Synod Act. 15. where decrees were made and imposed on the Churches, and that by Elders of divers Churches as well as Apostles, and concern­ing things indifferent in their own nature (some of them) though necessary in regard of that present time: that Synod was not lyable to this exception. Nor those two Synods in Asia where John the Apostle sate President, mentioned by M. Patrick Sym­son in his first Century of Councels, pag. 482. out of Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 20. mentioned also by the Magdeburg. Centu­rists.

3. It might be (saith he) by decree and judgement only, not by actual execution. Or

4. Each Church might act its own power, though in union with others, as so many several and distinct Churches united, and Elders congregated, and so they might excommunicate from their own heap or Congregation only.

Ans. The history of the Councels doth abundantly confute this, for they acted as one body jointly for all the Churches they met for, and not severally, and did both ordain Bishops, and also actually excommunicate many hereticks. For what several distinct Churches did the convention Act. 1. act, seeing there were none then in being?

[Page 198]5. It was (saith he) a voluntary association, by right of fra­ternity, and not onenesse of corporation: which appears by a­stringing and confining in after times the power of Bishops and Ministers to, and within Dioceses and Churches.

Ans. Though it were voluntary, yet might it be necessary and not arbitrary, as was shewed before. The onenesse of Corpora­tion was not actual, but habitual. The astringing of them by ca­non to avoid confusion, took not away their habitual power, for by leave they might act any where, as hath been shewed be­fore. But if they had not been endued with habitual power by office, their voluntary association could not have en­abled them to exert their power jointly, when they were met.

Sect. 5.Let us now hear what witnesses he produceth against the unity and integrality of the Church, and the habitual power of the Mi­nisters beyond the limits of their Congregations, or their joint a­cting together as Ministers upon a call.

First, Chrysostome in Serm. 1. de Pash. saith; The Sacrifice or Passeover was to be eaten in one house, and not to be conveyed out, i. e. the house is one that hath Christ; and the many houses of the Hebrews have but only one power, nature and condi­tion, as the Churches throughout the whole world, and in se­veral Provinces, being many in number, are but one Church.

But wherein doth he differ from the Presbyterians herein? They grant the Churches are many in number divisim, and yet make but one conjunctim habitually. But he is expresly against M. Ellis, for he grants Provincial Churches; and that all the Churches throughout the whole world are one, and this must be one integral, for a Genus is not made by aggregation of Provinces. And all these though organized are similar parts of the whole, having but one only power, nature and condi­tion.

2. Clemens Alexandr. lib. 7. Strom. There is absolutely but one ancient and Catholike Church in the unity of one faith. And say not the Presbyterians the same also? and it appears he held the Catholike Church to be an Integral, because he saith it is an­cient, but a Genus [...]ever groweth ancient.

He might ha [...]e gone higher, fo [...] another Clemens in his consti­tutions, [Page 199] who (if he be of any credit) speaks more home. Nos Apostoli scripsimus vobis Catholicam hanc doctrinam ad fulcien­dum & confirmandum vos, quibus universalis Episcopatus creditus est, [...] Constit. 6. c. 14.

But Basil in Ep. ad Neo-Caesarienses will be of more credit, ‘Interrogate patres vestros & annunciabunt vobis, etiamsi loci situ divisae sunt paraeciae, tumen veluti coronamento quodam unitae, unâque sententiâ gubernatae fuerint. Assidua quidem po­puli fuit inter se commixtio: ipsi pastores verò tantâ praediti fue­runt mutuâ charitate, ut alius alio praeceptore ac duce usi sunt.’

And Cyprians testimony de unitate Ecclesiae is direct against him; for he defineth the unity of the Church by doctrine and discipline. As there is one God, one Christ, one faith; so there is one Church, one discipline in it, one Bishoprick, &c. Episco­patus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Now Bi­shoprick argueth the Church to be one politically (though but habitually) and as many that are bound in a bond pro toto & in solido, are every one liable to be arrested for the whole; so many that have a joint interest in a thing in solidum, have all a joint right to the whole. Upon which words of Cyprian M Parker in Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. pag. 122. hath this inference. ‘Quid ni & unitas Ecclesiae in uno Petro primitùs designata, unitatem, idest aequalitatem authoritatis in singulis Ecclesijs quibusque de­notet? sic ut Ecclesia una sit, & Ecclesiastica potestas una, cujus ab Ecclesijs singulis pars in solidum tenetur.’

Cyprian is abundant in this point, Episcopatus unus est Epis­coporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cypr. Ep. 53. Etsi pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, & oves universas, &c. colligere & fo [...]ere debemus. Ep. 67. Cyprian gather­ed together an authoritative Synod. He stoutly opposed Steven Bishop of Rome for receiving some Bishops that were justly de­posed, pro suâ quam gerebar universalis Ecclesiae curâ. Cyp. lib. 1. Ep. 4.

‘Ʋt unitatem Dominus manefestaret, unam Cathedram consti­tuit, & unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua authori­tas disposuit.’ Cyp. de unitate, Upon which words Salmasius hath this Comment, "Omnes Ecclesiae una sunt, & unitatem [Page 200] "conspirantes faciunt omnes Cathedrae unam Cathedram, De Prim. pag. 87.

Ecclesiae nomine, non tantum una sed multorum unitas designa­tur. Bernard in Cant. Serm. 61.

Augustine in Tract. in Joh. 1.14. is more against him then for him. And whereas he saith, universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccam. He cannot mean thereby that the Church is only one in nature and kinde, but not in number, because he speaks of Priesthood, and what one Minister doth binde is bound to all, so that he violates (saith he) the rights of holy Priest­hood that joins him to himself that is cast out by another. Nei­ther doth Eucherius (by his own relation, for I have not seen him) say any other thing then the Presbyterians; in that he saith the Church dispersed throughout the whole world consist­eth in one and the same faith, and fellowship of Catholike truth.

And whereas there is an innumerable multitude of the faith­ful, yet they are rightly said to have one heart, and one soul in respect of their society in the common faith and love. For he grants in these words an universal visible Church, and that to be a society, now every society of men is one exter­nal visible integral. And M. Ellis granteth that there doth flow an external communion from the internal, and that the mystical union doth imply an union visible also. vind. pa [...] 34.

His quotation out of the Councel of Trent might well have been spared, for it crosseth himself most. Therein is confest a general Councel, and that with authority, and the major part to binde the rest. Indeed they contend that a Councel bindeth not the absent Churches which have no delegates there: and who saith the contrary? But as those Churches who had dele­gates there are concerned in their decrees (so they be agree­able to the word) and that formally, because they are their decrees: so should the Church-Catholike if the whole had de­legates there. But this we gain by this quotation, that a gene­ral Councel is confessed by him to have doctrinal authority; and are not the [...] equally extensible? Have they power to decide points of doctrine (as i [...] there confest by M. Ellis) and [Page 201] not to exercise discipline? who cut one key shorter then the other? It is granted also here, that Councels have to do with matters of common right and joint concernment. And there­by the necessity of Synods and Councels will follow, seeing there are things of common right to many Churches, and may be to all. And this will necessarily require that they should be furnished with authority to transact those affairs of common concernment, and that is as much as the Presbyterians contend for in the behalf of Synods. ‘No State (saith he) can take my wife from me, or dispose of my children in marriage: this is of peculiar right: so in Churches.’ Answ. No more can the Elders of the particular Congregation, nor the civil Officers of the particular Town. But the civil Officers or State can dispose of mens children and good (according to Law) for the good and defence of the whole, notwithstanding a mans peculiar right. So the peculiar rights of persons and Congregations must be sub­servient and give way to the good of the whole, or the greater part.

And though a master of a family ought not to yield up his family-government over wife, children and servants, to rule them in common with other Masters of families, as M. A. and M. S. note in their Def. p. 110. yet if he abuse his government over them, the wronged persons either wife, children or servants, may be relieved by the Magistrate, who yet hath no constant actual hand in the family-government.

And whereas he saith, all the Christians in England would be loth to stand bound to the determinations of 2. or 3. sent in their names to a general Councel. I answer by retortion, so would a Congregation or our Nobility and Gentry be loth to stand bound by the censures of two or three Elders in a particu­lar Congregation without relief.

But it is pretended by M. Ellis to be new also relatively in reference to the Protestant Divines. Calvin is brought in here, vind, p. 13, It is true Calvin saith, Instit. lib 4. cap. 1. sect. 3. Ad amplexandam Ecclesiae unitatem nihil opus est Ecclesiam ipsam oculis cernere, vel manibus palpare, quin potius eo quod in fide sit [...] est. But his meaning i [...], we cannot distinguish the elect from the reprobate by sense, referring it to what he had spo­ken [Page 202] in the former Section. Soli Deo permittenda est cognitio suae Ecclesia, sect. 2. Deus mirabiliter Ecclesiam suam quasi in la­tebris servat.

But here M. Ellis cites a man for him who is directly against him. For Calvin makes the Ministry of man which God useth in governing the Church, to be the chief sinew whereby the faithful cohere together in one body, Inst. l. 4. c. 3. s. 2. where also he dilates upon Eph. 4.4. &c. and saith it is meant of the Church militant only. And in sect. 7. he saith, though the Minister be tied to the particular Congregation, yet he may not only help other Churches, but may be removed to other Churches, of the pub­like utility require it.

And for Councels he saith, l. 4. c. 9. s. 1. That he reverenced the ancient Councels, ex animo, and wisheth all other men did so. And saith the promise in Mat. 18.20. where two or three are gathered together in my name, &c. as it reacheth to par­ticular Assemblies, so also to a general Councel, Sect. 2. And he giveth to Councels power dogmatical, and saith there is no better remedy against errours, as I cited the words upon the like occasion before, Nullum est melius remedium, &c. and also Dialactick power, c. 10. s. 27. in making constitutions according to the general rules, 1 Cor. 14.40. and jurisdiction c. 11. not only doctrinal binding and loosing, but disciplinary by inflict­ing censures, s. 2. and c. 12. s. 22. sheweth the ancient manner of yearly Synods, and of appeals if any were wronged by their Bishops, and not only the relief of the wronged person, but the deposition of the Bishop, or suspension for a time from commu­nion. And he saith, that alwaies before one Synod ended, the time and place for another was set, and then complains that these things were now out of date.

So that Calvin was not against an habitual unity of the whole Church, nor against the exerting of the Ministerial power beyond the particular Congregation, or exerting it conjunctim, in Synods and Councels.

Chamier also hath been alledged for it before. And the dif­ference is vast between the Church-Catholike visible, which our Divines deny, [...] this, as hath been shewed before, Chap. 5. Sect. 4.

[Page 203]M. Ellis's second just (or rather unjust) prejudice, is from the dangerous consequences of this opinion. But indeed they flow from his ill stating of the Question, and not from the Tenet it self.

To the first, viz. a necessity of universal and general Officers, and some one above the rest, to whom the particular Churches may have continual recourse, hath been answered before, Cha. 7. Sect. 6.

To the second, viz. the necessity of a continual standing Court, Sect. 6. hath been already answered, Cha. 7. Sect. 10. The suiting of the Church too much to worldly policy, occasioneth this scruple. And yet we see that Parliaments, and Diets civil, are not standing con­tinual Courts, no more need Councels Ecclesiastical be. And whereas he saith it were notably vain to imagine that Christ hath committed the government of his Church first, and chiefly to that body that should not meet six times in sixteen hundred years, nay never.

I answer, that I never affirmed a general Councel to be the first subject of the keys, nor the London-Ministers, that I can finde, nor Apollonius, that I remember. But the Church-Officers in general, in opposition to the caetus fidelium, or the civil Ma­gistrate, &c. A general Councel is but occasional, yet is it Re­verend and August, and of more large extent, by reason of the general delegation, then any other meeting; and is full of au­thority, for the exerting of all Ecclesiastical power of the keys, as I conceive. The gift of the keys was primarily to the whole body of Officers, or Organs of the Church respectively, as their Offices were capable of them▪ and as they were given to the A­postles together, so they may he exercised together: And secon­darily to the particular Ministers or Officers, as being a part of that body. And though the power habitually considered be inde­finite, yet the constant, actual exercise thereof is in their parti­cular Congregations or Classes.

The Ordinances of God, for the enjoyment and use of them, were given to the whole visible Church for the conversion and edification of the Elect, and if they could meet together, as the Israelites did in the wildernesse, and the Saints (for ought I know) shall in heaven, they might partake of them toge­ther, [Page 204] as their rightful portion, but because they cannot meet but in parcels, therefore they have right to enjoy them di­visim, by vertue of that general gift to the whole, which eve­ry Congregation or parcel appropriates to it self, as being a member of the whole: and yet it is not notably vain to say, The gift of them by God, and his intention in giving them, was to the whole, though they never meet, nor can meet together in this world.

So is the case of the Ministers also, the Ministry is primarily given to the whole body of them, and if they could meet toge­ther they might exercise the keys together conjunctim (a re­presentation, or an epitome whereof is in a general councel) but because they cannot meet but in parcels where they are seated, and have a particular call to give especial attendance, there­fore they exercise them divisim, yet as parts of the whole body of Organs of the Church; and there they serve the whole Church, and their dispensations have influence into the whole,

The third danger, viz. the trouble and charge of appeals, and the tryal of causes by them that can have no personal knowledge of the cause, or persons to be tried, but by information, hath been answered before. c. 7. s. 9.

Sect. 7.His third prejudice is, that this opinion is Papal and Anti-Protestant. And to prove this he bringeth in Bellarmines descri­ption of the Church-Catholike, viz. That it is 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 lawful Pastors, and especially of that only Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pontiffe or Bishop of Rome.’ This latter clause indeed is papal properly, and there­fore justly rejected by the Protestants. But the former part if it be understood of one habitual body or Congregation, is not to be accounted Papal, because set down by a Papist▪ for then all the Articles of the Creed which they hold as well as we (though not on the same ground) should be accounted Papal also. Where they differ from the Scri­pture therein they erre, and therein only we dissent from them.

[Page 205]Neither is it Anti-protestant (unlesse as he hath stated it) Calvins judgement (whom he citeth here again) I have shewed before. and it is opposite to M. Ellis in point of the power of the ministerial office beyond one Congregation (which is the very hinge of the question) and in the power and use of Sy­nods. Chamier indeed makes the Church to be one general or universal: yet he makes it to be aggregated of many particular Churches, which strongly argues an integrality, for no Ge­nus is made by aggregation, and he saith it is compounded of infinite particular Churches, but no genus is made by compo­sition, Omne aggregatum & compositum est integrale. He makes it also to consist of many parts▪ yea, to have partes extra partes, which is the Logicians definition of an integral. But how all the Kingdoms in the world (as he saith, to make a parallel with the universal Church) may be called one Kingdom in the general (except by logical abstraction) I understand not. Certainly it cannot be by aggregation and compo­sition, and by apposition of them as parts of that gene­ral Kingdome he speaks of, which yet he yieldeth in the Church-Catholike. They have not all the same systeme of written Laws, authorized by the same authority, neither have they indefinite habitual Officers, as the Church hath.

And for Bishop Iewel in his answer to Harding, he disputes against the headship of the Pope, but denyeth not Christ to be head of the visible Church. And though indeed he rightly cals it a new fancy, to prove the Pope to be head of the Church from [...], as if there were therefore but one King to rule over the whole world, yet he denieth not that Christ rules over the whole Church, but cals the Church One Kingdom, One body, One sheepfold. And he citeth for the unity of the Church many sentences out of Cyprian, viz. ‘Ʋna est Ecclesia a Chri­sto per totum mundum in plura membra divisa. Item Episcopa­tus unus, Episcoporum concords numerositate diffusus, Cyp. l. 4. Ep. 2. Also, Ecclesia una est, & connexa, & cohaerentium sibi in­vicem Sacerdotum glutine copulaeta. Ep. 9. Quando [...]oramus, non pro uno oramus, sed pro to [...]o populo; quia totus populus unum sumus. Cyp. in Orat. Dominic. Again, Hanc unitatem firmiter tenere, & vendicare debemus, maximè Episcopi, qui in Ecclesia [Page 206] praesidemus: ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum & indivisum probemus, Cyp. l. 3. Ep. 13. Et si pastores multi sumus, unum ta­men gregem pascimus, &c. Copiosum est Corpus Sacerdotum, concordiae mutua glutine atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & gregem Christi lacerare, ac vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri Ibid.’

So that Jewel was far from restraining the Ministers office or power to one Congregation, or from denying the authority of Synods and Councels.

And for M. Rutherford in his Due right of Presbytery, I marvel M. Ellis should cite him, who is professedly point black against him, and hath handled both parts of my question, and concludes them affirmatively, Due Right of Presbyteries, p. 55. &c. and 418. Now whose fault is it to cite authors for him, that are known to be against him?

Sect. 8.I come now to view his greater Artillery (as he cals it) and his first argument is, because (saith he) the Scriptures, Christ, and his Apostles are silent, and speak nothing of one Catholike visible Church: yea (I may adde) and all men else, as he hath stated it. But for Scripture-proofs I referre the Reader to what I said formerly, and now have added, Chap. 2. But my proofs from Scripture he was pleased to runne over in vind. pag. 42. in 7. lines without any answer to the parti­culars.

His second argument is from the institution of Christ; be­cause (saith he) the keys of government were given first and fully, entirely and immediatly to the particular Congregation: and this he proves from the Church of the Jews, to which all Church-power was given first and fully: but this was (saith he) a particular Church, not the universal, unlesse by acci­dent, because there was no other Church-state in the world at that time. And though he grants it to be a Type of the Church of the New Testament, yet not as Catholike, but as Congregational as it self was, or else as mystical. Vind. pag. 21.

Answ. It cannot be denied but there were some things pecu­liar to the Church of the Jews, as typical Ordinances, and a typical high Priest, and that it was bounded within certain li­mits, [Page 207] and they were bound to meet, in their males three times yearly; which pertain not to the Evangelical Church. But in that one Church there were particular Assemblies for ordinary worship, and extraordinary also, and for acts of government, and they had particular Officers, and Ecclesiastical rulers over them: and there were appea [...]s reserved to the great Councel at Jerusalem, and so it could not be a type of a Congregatio­nal Church, for there can be no appeals to that, it being the lowest Church that can be. The particular Synagogues were ra­ther Types of the Congregational Churches, for they are cal­led by the same name, Jam. 1.2. And the Ministers under the Gospel are called by the same names that the indefinite Offi­cers of the Jewish Church were, viz. Priests and Levites, Isa. 66.21. which place is spoken of the time under the Gospel. And if it be granted that the Ministers of the Gospel be given to the whole Church, as the Priests and Levites were indefinite­ly to the whole Church of the Jews, notwithstanding any parti­cular relation to the particular Synagogues and places they resi­ded in, and taught, or judged in, it is as much as I contend for. And if by mystical he meaneth the elect only, or entitively only; it could not be a type of the Church-Catholike so, for the Jewish Church was visible and organical.

His second proof is from Mat. 18. Tell the Church, which saith he was a particular Congregation which was endued with entire power even to excommunication. Whatsoever ye shall binde, &c.

Answ. This was not the Institution, neither was there any donation of the keys, but a supposal of the keys in the parti­cular Churches, which is a thing confessed by all (and this power was also in the Jewish Synagogues) But this is not spo­ken exclusively, that this power is no where else. If the rulers of the Synagogue had power to excommunicate (to which it is like Christ alluded in that speech) then much more the Sanedrim, or highest Court: and so I conceive it is in the Church of the New Testament: If the least combination of Elders have this power given them for matters that concern that Congre­gation only, then much more a greater company and combi­nation, for matters that concern a greater part of the Church [Page 208] under their combination, and for matters of greater moment then can be transacted by the smaller company. But the do­nation of the keys was to the Apostles together, and they were general Officers, and stood in relation to no particular Church, and therefore the keys come to the particular Congre­gation or Ministry there, as to parts of the whole company of Organs, yet immediatly, and not by commission from any Ca­tholike Court.

His third proof is, because the first execution of the greatest act of entire power was exercised in a particular Church, without consulting with the universal Church (though the Apostles were then surviving) 1 Cor. 5.

Answ. For ought that I know the Church of Corinth was a Classical Church, and not a meer Congregational one, for there were Churches in it, 1 Cor. 14.34. Besides the probability that Cenchrea was a member thereof. But Sir who requires the con­sulting with the Church-Catholike in admitting or ejecting members? Or did the particular Synagogues consult with the Sanedrim, or the whole Church of the Jews when they ex­communicated any man? Surely they had work enough to do then.

His fourth proof or argument is Because entire power was committed to particular men, viz. the Apostles severally, and to all jointly, and therefore not to one visible governing Church. Vind. p. 23.

Answ. By this argument it appears, the power is given not to the Congregation, but to the Ministers, whose representa­tives the Apostles were in receiving the keys, severally and joint­ly, which is as much as the Presbyterians require, viz. that the Ministers have power to exercise their ordinary power jointly together upon a call, as well as severally in their particular Congregations, as the Apostles did their extraordinary. Their receiving the keys together signifyed their representation of the Ministers not multiplyed only (as M. Ellis would evade it) but conjoyned.

His fifth argument is from the reproofs given by Christ to the 7. several Churches in the Revelation, and not to the combinati­on of them, though near one another.

[Page 209] Answ. For ought appears they might be all Presbyterial Churches, and not Congregational only. The Church of Ephesus was one, and that was of more Congregations then one, as hath been shewed before. But how doth this prove these Churches were nor, or might not actually have been in combination, if civil authority would have permited? Were not the Elders of the several Churches worthy of blame for not doing their duty in their several Churches? Or will combinations of Congrega­tions now in Classes or Provinces, free their Ministers from blame in neglecting their du [...]es in their particular Congrega­tions? A Classis or Synod is not to be blamed for the faults in a particular Congregation, which ought to be censured in the particular, and not there, neither indeed can be, except they had been brought before them. The several Churches there had their several faults, and therefore though the Epistle is written to the seven, yet it was needful the reproofs should be applied to rhem severally. And yet some think that the whole Epistle was writeen and sent to all the 7. Churches, from Rev. 1.4, 11.

His second sort of Arguments are from the matter and mem­bers of the Church, Sect. 9. and he makes it necessary that the whole Church should be gathered together into one place, as the Jew­ish Church was, and Corporations in their hals, and Kingdoms in their Parliaments: And this he saith I deny against all experi­ence and reason, Vind. p. 24.

Answ. This hath been answered before among the Objecti­ons. I adde further that though usually it is so that there are some general meetings in worldly polities, that are several a­ctual governments, yet it is not alwaies so, as hath been shew­ed, and where it is so it is a fruit and effect and token of liber­ty, but ariseth not meerly from unity: because there have been polities that had them not: for this Kingdom was one a good while before there were any Parliaments, and after they were granted they were but occasional: and so there may be occasio­nal meetings in general Councels, only the vastnes of the Church, and diversity of civil governments and governours render them very difficult in our daies.

But he saith that such an oneness as is in regard of kinde and [Page 210] nature in all the Churches, and in relation to the same head, and in order to, and dependance upon one rule or Law, the word of God, is no actual or real onenesse, but in imagination and conceit.

Ans. It is not actual indeed but habitual, as hath been said many times over, yet it is real, as well as the four monarchies were real monarchies and not in imagination only and conciet. He might as well make the head of the Church, and the Laws of the Church, and the Covenant of grace, and the seals of the Covenant to be but imaginary and in conceit, as the Church-Catholike, for they are the bonds of the unity, and real visible bonds make not an imaginary integral, but a real. And where (I pray) is this one­nesse denyed by the brethren, as you alledge, Vin. p. 24. The en­largement and confirmation of this argument, A non existentiâ, & ab impossibilitate existendi, have been answered before, Ch. 7. Sect. 10.

Sect. 10.A third sort of argument he takes from the form and nature of all bodies incorporate, which consist in order of superiour and inferiour, &c.

But Christs Kingdom is not to be regulated herein according to worldly polities (as himself also elsewhere in his vind. hath noted) so also Christ hath said of the Officers of his Kingdom, that it shall not be so among you, Mat. 20.26. i. e. there shall be no superiority among you: and yet they were to be Officers of a body, a kingdom, an Ecclesiastical polity. But this dif­ficulty is easily salved, because though one particular Officer hath not power over another, yet the greater number in a­ctual consociation, or combination, hath over the lesse: as it is in a Parliament, or any meeting of the like nature, where all the members are equal divisim, severally taken, yet the lesse number is ruled, yea, censurable by the greater, if there be cause.

Divers inconveniences he raiseth from hence, As 1 a necessary existence in one place, and why not at Rome? 2. Constant standing Officers. To these have been answered before. 3. A common form of faith, discipline, worship, and profession, agreed on and formally propounded and taken. I answer, these are for the essentials one in the Church-Catholike, set down in the word, and so acknow­ledged [Page 211] often by himself, and they are submitted unto divisim, by the whole Church. 4. that all must act by authority, and by vertue of commission from the Church-Catholike, and in the name of the Church-Catholike: and this the Assertors of this opinion (saith he) say expresly. I answer, it is a meer figment of his own brain, and a great injury to those he fastens it upon.

And hence the fifth inconvenience ( viz. that the Magi­strate cannot reform within his own dominions, before he hath authority derived from the Church-Catholike, either in a gene­ral Councel, or from their Committee) fals to the ground. For as the Ecclesiastical Officers of particular Churches have power from Christ, and not from a general Councel, to reform their own Congregations, if they be able: so also the Magistrate within his dominions, is Custo [...] utrius (que) tabulae, and hath a power circa sacra, though not in sacris: not intrinsecally as a Church-Officer, yet extrinsecally as a nursing father; and so the Kings of Judah had, without authority derived to them from the Sa­nedrin.

But I should think that this Inconvenience lighteth unavoi­dably upon such as derive the power of the Minister from the people of a particular Congregation, and make them to act as their servants in their name, and according to their votes: for then If the Congregation grow corrupt, they may cast off their faithful Elders, but their Elders cannot reform them, if they be unwilling; and in a corrupt or infected condition, whe­ther by errour or prophanenesse, they will not be willing to re­form.

The sixth inconvenience of a solemn meeting for the election of such general Officers, is answered already, C. 7. S. 7.

The inconvenience of meeting in a general Councel by rea­son of multitude, is salved by delegates rightly chosen. And the difference of languages is salved by learning. That was no im­pediment in the Councel of Nice, or any of the general or large Councels. Neither doth this hinder Princes (as himself con­fesseth) from one end of the world to another, to hold mutual correspondency. Sect. 11.

His fourth sort of arguments (that so he might seem to fetch an argument from every cause) is from the end of the [Page 212] Authours of this opinion, [...]ind. pag. 29. Either it is (faith he) to found the right of Presbyterial government as is now en­deavoured, and to deprive particular Churches of entire power in themselves, or at least of Independency in their government from other Churches: or else to lay a ground work of a more ef­fectual cure and remedy then hitherto, for all distempers of par­ticular Churches.

An. The Presbyterial government spoileth not Congregations of that due power which Christ hath given them, but helpeth and strengthens them in things of greater difficulty wherein they are too weak, and regulateth male-administrations in the particular Congregations, it serveth for the transacting of business of com­mon concernment: it preserveth unity in the Church which is the body and family of Christ: it suppresseth errours and here­sies that arise and spread to the infecting of more Congrega­tions then one, or which particular Congregations cannot sup­presse.

And as for absolute independency, as it is disavowed by M. El­lis, and (as he saith) by the greatest patrons of that way in this Kingdom, and beyond the seas: so that way which is provided thereby for the curing of errour and scandal, meerly by advice and swasion, which may or may not be followed ad libitum, it is not a sufficient remedy against obstinacy therein: and for the Non-communion of Churches by sister-Churches without autho­rity, I fear it will prove unwarrantable, and is a vertual though not formal censuring of them, though their equals; and is a way not to cure Churches, but to cause rents in the Church of Christ, and confusion.

Neither can this associating of Churches together open a wide gap to tyranny, as M. Ellis affirms, any more then associating of families into Congregations, where the irregularities and mis­carriages even in their particular houses are reproveable and cens [...]rable, is a spoiling of families of their liberties, and a ty­rannizing over them. The actual union of a Congregation, and the constant, near inspection of the Officers over the the particu­lar families, will more (in the eye of reason) intrench upon fa­mily-liberties, and call them oftner to censure, then the habitu­al [...] of the whole body, or association of Churches remote, [Page 213] who can when they meet (which is but seldom) handle only matters of joint concernment, and of presumed male admini­stration brought to them by complaint, can infringe the liberties of those Congregations. And if the Church in general be a soci­ety to all its members, to which there belong certain common rights and priviledges, as spiritual food, the Word and Sacra­ments (as M. Ellis confesseth) why not spiritual physick also, which is as necessary?

Obj. The whole world is one humane society under God the creatour and governour thereof, 1 Chron. 29 11. All that is in the heaven, and in the earth is thine: thine is the Kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. And yet this makes them not one Kingdom politically, no not habitually; but they are di­stinct Kingdoms, notwithstanding they have the same head, and the same Law of nature common to them all. And therefore the identity of the head and Laws of the Church-Catholike are not sufficient to make them one Ecclesiastical visible (though but) habitual Kingdom or body.

Ans. There is not parratio. For first, the laws of nature are not one entire, explicite body of written Laws, as Christs Laws for his visible Church are, but internal and invisible written in the heart only, and that but dimly, and not apprehended by all, in all the parts thereof alike, through ignorance, rudenesse, barba­rism, or evil customes.

Secondly, There are no Officers of the whole world, as it is a society, directed by the internal Law of nature: but so there are of the visible Church: and Therefore the visible Church is more then a society, it is Christs external, political King­dom.

Thirdly, There are several chief governours over the several Kingdoms of the world, which are Gods vicegerents, and Gods annointed ones in their Kingdoms; and written municipal laws belonging to every Kingdom, distinct from other Kingdoms; and priviledges proper to the several Kingdoms, wherein the subjects of other Kingdoms partake not. But Christ hath set no such seve­ral, supream, annointed ones over the several Churches, nor per­mitted the several Churches to make any different laws from his, nor from those laws which are common to the whole Church. [Page 214] And the priviledges of the Church are common to all the mem­bers of the several Churches, and they have freedom to com­municate together in the holy Ordinances, whereever they dwell.

Fourthly, The Law of nature is given by God as an invisible Creator, the Laws of the Church are given by Christ, a God man, as a Mediator. As he is God he hath an essential right to be governour of angels and men, and all other creatures, but as Mediatour he hath a donative Kingdom of grace, and is a political head of an external visible Kingdom, which is but one.

Fifthly, All mankinde are not entred into one body by one external instituted sign, badge, enrowlment, and initial seal, not are entred into one explicit, actual Covenant, nor make an ex­plicit, actual profession of subjection to the same God, or to the same systeme of written Laws. And therefore that parallel which these two reverend Ministers M. Allen and M. Shepard (whom I love and reverence much in the Lord) endeavour to draw between mankinde and the Oecumenical Church in their Defence unto the nine questions or positions, p. 79. will not suit and agree in all things.

6. Yet as all men are one society, though they want Officers, as such, yet are they bound to combine, even from that inter­nal union, to preserve themselves, and maintain the Law of nature. Suppose there were some circumcelliones or some conju­rers that sought to destroy mankinde in general, not because they are of this or that Kingdom, upon some particular quarrel, but because they are men: or that endeavoured to poison and infect the air, or let in the sea to drown the earth, or take a­way the light of the Sun (if such things were possible) or any kinde of wilde beast should multiply that would destroy all mankinde; then all mankinde setting aside their particular im­munities, combinations, Laws, yea, and quarrels, ought and would unite themselves as men to preserve mankinde, and op­pose such common enemies of mankinde. Forreign Nations will combine to vindicate Jus Gentium if it be violated. All Nations combine against Pirates, notwithstanding particular distinctions and oppositions, yea, so far as mens positive laws are general, as [Page 215] the civil Law reacheth far over many Kingdoms, if there be any oppositions or obstructions that hinder the exercise thereof, for common good; all that submit themselves thereunto would not­withstanding their particular distinctions joyn together to re­move the same.

Much more then ought there to be an union and combination between the several parts of the Church, which hath the same head and King over the whole, of our own nature, who hath given us one systeme of written laws, and but one charter for the whole, and made Officers for the good of the whole, en­duing them with an habitual power of office to administer all his Ordinances in any part of the Church upon a call. And if they could meet together, they might actually teach and rule the whole Church, as one Congregation, as M Ellis granteth: and because they cannot so meet, yet by the same reason if a great part of them meet together, the Elders set over them may teach and rule them joyntly together, as well as severally asunder. For the greater number of Churches being considered as combined and consociated parts of the whole, bear the same relation in a proportion to the lesse, that the greater number in the same Con­gregation do to the lesse: and therefore if the major part in the Congregational Eldership shall overrule the lesse by their votes, so by proportion shall the greater number of any greater Pres­bytery whether Classical, Provincial, or National, &c. being in actual consociation and combination, overrule the lesse, if they dissent.

But because there are so many superstitions, errours and here­sies in the Asian, African, European and American Churches, as M. A. and M. S. in their defence p 92. do take notice of, (which book I confesse it was mine unhappinesse not to hear of until this tractate of mine was transcribed for the presse, and who have dealt exceeding candidly upon this question, and seem to yield the fairest concessions toward the universality, unity, inte­grality, and priority of the whole Church in some respects of reason, pag. 77. though not so much as is contended for) yet I say for these things sake, I should be very tender in defining (as the case now standeth) what Churches, or how farre the vi­sible Churches may with convenience or safety enter into a­ctual [Page 216] combination, Quest. 2. lest the truths of God, or the liberties of the more sound and pure Churches should be prejudiced thereby.