SInce the first publishing of the same, which was 1649. hath met with various enter­tainment amongst men, according to the various judgments of the readers thereof; as Books of polemical subjects, such as this is, use to do. From some it obtained acceptation and approbation, from others it met with improbation, and opposition. Two things especially have been opposed therein. First, the being of an universal visible Church, which is the subject of the second and third Chapters of this Vindication, and the former Chapter proving it by Scripture, the latter by arguments and reasons. Secondly, the integrality of the univer­sal visible Church, handled in the fourth Chapter is opposed. [Page 2] The essence or being of it, is opposed lately in print, by some Ministers in Norfolk and Suffolk, in their answer to Jus Divi­num Ministerii Evangelici, set forth by the Provinciall Assembly in London, and to Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici, set forth by M. John Collings of Norwich. But because this was not the main scope of their book, only they lighted upon it in their Epistle Dedicatory; I shall leave them to their proper opponents, and only answer to what they say in their Epistle concerning this subject. The integrality of the universall visible Church hath been opposed by M. Stone, a reverend Minister and teacher to the Church of Christ at Hartford in New-England, and my an­tient acquaintance. And this was in a tractate, called, A Con­gregational Church is a Catholick Church; which came forth in print, 1652. To whom I never intended to return an answer in any particular Treatise, partly because I saw his book was on­ly a logical Lecture, and of so abstruse and sublime a subject, that as it was little taken notice of, so it was less understood by any, but those schollars that were versed in those studies, and so must mine answer have been also. And partly because he only or cheifly opposed the arguments which I set down in my fourth Chapter, and dealt not with the whole book, or the main scope of my Vindication, or question: and therein also opposed only those arguments which I brought against M. Ellis, which were taken from principles and grounds which I knew M. Ellis grant­ed, which was warrant sufficient for to me use them, though M. Stone granted them not. And in them also M. Stone mistook my meaning, for by my denying the universal Church to be a genus, I did not deny it to an existing genus, or genus in actu exercito, which M. Stone argued for; for I knew though it were an integral, it must be of one kinde or other, but I denyed that it could put on the notion or consideration of a Church in genere. So, that my question about the integrality of the universal Church was no whit impaired by his arguments, though they had all been granted, only those arguments taken necessarily from principles granted by M. Ellis might have been invalidated thereby. And partly becaus I saw that M. Stone did implicitely grant what I con­tended for, which was, that the universal Church is not the genus of particular Congregations, in that he assigneth another genus [Page 3] to them in the frontispice of his book, and upon the top of every page in his book, and that is Congregation in genere. But I in­tended that if ever this vindication should again com to the Press, I would have explained my meaning more fully, and that I meant by genus Church in genere, and not the integral nature of the genus that existeth in individuals, and so to have inserted an answer to M. Stone in that my fourth Chapter, which now I am prevented in, by this surreptitious coming forth of this second Edition without my knowledge, and therefore I have added this Postscript. I first therefore shall clear that there is a Church-Ca­tholick visible.

Some of our brethren which have lately written, tell us that a particular Church is a particular company of Saints in mutuall union, for mutuall worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God, and the edification of their own souls, and the good of o­thers. I intend not to carp, but shall give as candid an interpre­tation as may be of their words. I suppose by Saints they mean visible Saints, Saints by dedication and consecration, and not absolutely of Saints by regeneration, for as they have no certain rules to judge thereof in others, so also they can never be sure they are in a true Church, but will still be scrupulous in their communion, and cannot dispense or communicate in faith, but doubtingly. They are also very tender in expressing the form, or as some will have it, the Cement of this particular society, and therefore have left out the word Covenant, either explicite or implicite: and so I hope they intend to let in parochial Con­gregations into the definition, though not independent, for there is such a mutual union among them.

For mutual worship, I suppose they mean joining in publick worship, and not as we speak of mutuall duties between man and wife, to be performed to each others, but worship performed by them jointly to God, But I marvell that this definition menti­ons not any relation of this particular Church to some officer or officers to whom they should subject themselves, and by whom they should be taught, edified, and governed, and who should be Gods mouth to them, and their mouth to God. I am loth to be too bold or peremtory in guessing at their meaning: but hap­ly it is because they intend to put the keys of discipline into the [Page 4] body of this Congregation, which can exercise them without of­ficers, or because they can set up un-ordained private members to preach and pray among them, and so make up their mutual wor­ship also without an officer or Ambassadour of Christ, to whom is committed the word of reconciliation; for indeed that is the scope of their book, though they do acknowledge that there ought to be such officers: or haply they feared to be unchurched again by the death of such an officer, if they had put him into their definition. They say also that the end of this mutual union is for the edification of their own souls, but that must imply them all truly converted; but I mervail that they make no provision in their definition, for the education, instruction, and conversion of children born members of their Congregation, and servants of their members, seeing by Gods appointment, and the usage in Old and New Testament, the parent or master brings his whole family into covenant aswel as himself and a part of the Ministers office is to go to the lost sheep of the house Israel, to convert uncon­verted persons, as well as edifie converted. They say nothing al­so of their mutual inspection and watching over one another, for which this way is so highly cryed up above others: haply it is because their members dwel so far remote, in so many parishes, that they see it is impossible to do it.

‘"They grant an universal company of Saints, in a reformed sense, comprehending every individual Saint-member thereof, whether formed into fellowship or unformed: but as Saints, not as Churches of Saints.’

I acknowledge it is true the particular visible believers are the matter of the universal Church, whether formed into Con­gregations or no, for that is but a secondary accidental relation that betideth them, and enters not into the essence of their Chri­stianity.

It is true, their particular membership of this or that Con­gregation coms by their union with it; but were they not mem­bers and subjects of Christs political visible Kingdom before any such union, and initiated into it by one of his officers, yet not as a particular officer of a Congregation, for none are baptized in­to a Congregation but as by an indefinite officer of the univer­sal visible Church of Christ: And an indefinite officer in relati­on [Page 5] to his imployment, and general object, is equivalent to a ge­neral, and that is the prime relation of a Minister, and that to a particular Congregation is secondary, as it consists of a parcel of the universal Church, over whom he takes especial, actual, constant, care and charge.

‘"They say the World is universal, of which all creatures are a part, yet did a man stand where he might see all Countries, and all crearures, he should see but a particular world; really par­ticular, but intellectually universal.’

Answer. If by particular world, they mean in relation to a general world, it is not true; for one particular cannot make up an universal; and there was never any world but this one. But if by particular they mean an individual integral world, it is true, and that is it which I contend for in this Vindication; that the universal or Oecumenical Church cannot put on the notion of a Church in genere, but of a great individual integral: and so both the world, and universal Church are, whether a man stands where he can see them or no: they are integraliter universale as Ames calls the universal Church.

‘"It is true that they say, did a man stand where he might see all the Corporations, and all particular civil societies of men, he might acknowledge the general nature of Corporations existing in either of them (or the integral nature rather, and from them all abstract a general nature) and yet deny an universal Corporation, consisting of them as parts thereof.’

But this comes to pass because the several Corporations or polities are constituted by several Charters, granted from seve­ral sovereigns, under several laws.

But the universal Church hath but one Charter, from one sovereign, under the same systeme of laws, and the officers inde­finite, officers in reference to their imploiment to which they are called by Christ, and may exercise the same towards any of the subjects of that whole Ecclesiastical body, as they have opportu­nity, and a call: which the officers of the several civil Corpora­tions cannot do.

They answer that text, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set in the Church first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, &c. which is usually brought to prove an universal visible Church, by paralleling it with what [Page 6] is said ver. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body. And if that will not conclude a Catholick body, neither will the for­mer conclude a Catholick Church.

I answer, the difference between them is great: for the se­veral bodies, though they may have a general consideration and notion put upon them, or abstracted from them rather, of body in genere, yet are they not united together into one individual bo­dy by any external bond, they are not integrally one, but only generically or specifically one. But the universal Church is united in­to one body by a visible external bond, yea bonds of the same Sovereign, the same Laws, the same Covenant, the same Initiation and enrowlment, and the same indefinite Officers over it. And this is the primary consideration that coms upon it, before any particular distinctions into Congregations, which consist of par­cells of that great body. And therefore that which the Apostle saith, ver. 27. ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular, is meant, ye are of the body of Christ, or part of the body of Christ, not the whole, for Christ hath but one body, in the same respect, and ye are particular members thereof.

They bring diverse arguments against an universall visible Church.

Argu. 1.Their first argument is, because every part is incompleat, not having the power of a whole in it; but every particular Church rightly constituted hath in it the power of a whole Church; therefore it is not a part.

Ans. It is true, every part hath not the extensive power of the whole, it hath the compleatness of a part, and no more. Every civil Corporation is called a body politick, and it is compleat according to the constitution of it, but this hinders it not from being a member of a greater body politick, viz. the Kingdom or Common-wealth whereto it belongeth. So every particular Congregation hath the compleatness of a particular Church in it, but still as it is a part of the whole Church, which is the po­litical Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth. It is an integral or whole in reference to its particular members, but in reference to the rest of the Church it is but a member.

Argu. 2.Again they say, that every whole is really distinct from every part, and from all the parts collectively considered. They are con­stituting, that is constituted.

[Page 7] Ans. So I may say of all the visible believers in the world, they may in consideration be distinguished from the whole, and all the members of the body from the whole, becaus they constitute it: but they being all the constituent members joined in an uni­ty make up the whole constituted Church or body: and there­fore that argument was no better then a fallacy. For I can say the same of all the members of a Congregation both publick and private, they are distinct from the whole, for they are constituent, and that is constituted: but as they are united they are one con­stituted Congregation; so are all the visible private Christians and Ministers united, one universal visible Church: In conside­ration indeed they may be distinct, yet by political conjunction in the political Kingdom of Christ they are one whole.

Again they say, there is no universal meeting to worship God, Argu. 3. therefore there is no universal Church.

So neither is there ever a meeting of all the subjects of a King­dom or Common-wealth to do homage or service to their So­vereign, but they all obey him divisim in their places, Answer. or some smaller conventions, and yet they are a whole Kingdom or Com­mon-wealth nevertheless.

Object. But the word [...] is never used either in a civil, or sacred sense, but propter conventum: and coetus est à co­ëundo.

Answ. [...] properly signifieth a calling out, and not a calling together: And in a sacred sense it signifieth a people cal­led either out of the world, as the invisible Church is, or from Idols as the visible Church is. The members thereof are [...], persons called out; and [...] and [...] are conjugata, and they relate to, and argue one another. The particular Congre­gation is rather [...] in the strictest sense in reference to their meeting together, then [...].

So [...], whence the Scotish word Kirk, and our English word Church comes, properly signifieth the Lord's people. And this notion betideth people not primarily because they are of this or that Congregation, but because they are of the Kingdom of Christ, and have given their hand to the Lord. And the word coetus and congregatio more properly respects them that as they meet together in an Assembly. Heathens may coïre come toge­ther, [Page 8] even into a sacred Assembly, but because they are not [...] called from their Idols to Christ, they are not part of the Church, though they be parts of the Assembly.

Argu. 4.Again, they say, there are no distinct office [...]s appointed for such a distinct Church, therefore there is no such Church.

Answ. Though there are no distinct officers of the univer­sal Church besides the officers of particular Churches, or ordina­ry Ministers of the Word, yet every Minister hath an indefinite office, which stands in relation to his imployment, which he may put forth any where in the whole Church, as occasion serveth, and he hath a call thereto, which is equivalent to a generall office.

Every Minister of the Word hath power in actu primo to dispense the Word and Sacraments, to pray and bless the people in any sa­cred convention, though the members of that Assembly be not members of any one particular Congregation, and though the Mi­nister himself be not fixed to, or set actually over any particular Congregation. And that meeting shal be a sacred convention, not only in respect of the Ordinances or Minister, but in respect of the members of it, because they are all the Lord's people [...] and [...], in the proper & primary sense, and he the Lord's Ambassa­dor designed to that imployment. The body of the whole Church being so great, and consisting of persons of several Countries, and languages, and under several civil governours, haply at variance between themselves, it was not convenient, nor scarce possible to have any constant ordinary actual officers of the whole, but that is salved by their habitual power of office, which may be drawn forth any where into act as occasion serveth.

Argu. 5.Again, they say, there is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church, but that is particular, Mat. 18.17. which place say they, if it meaneth the Congregation, it excludeth all other, if it meaneth any other it excludes the Congregation.

Answ. I shall let M. Parker answer this argument, who saith in Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 355. though he held particular Congregations the prime Churches in reference to Synods, yet grounds the more general or greater Assemblies for discipline upon this text, per gradationem, & per sequeiam ratiocinandi & per consequentiam, as [Page 9] I noted in my vind. 163. And this appears by the gradation in the text from one to two or three, and from two or three to the Church, and if the Church cannot end it, as some­times they cannot, then by the like manner of reasoning it is to be referred to a greater number of Elders convened.

For doubtless Christ did not mean by Church the body of the Church, but the Elders, for the body of the people never had a­ny right of judicature among the Jews, nor in the Christian Churches, though I suppose some of our brethren would infer so from this text. And it is very probable that our Lord Christ speak­ing to the people of the Jews, spake to them in their own dialect, of Courts then set up, where there were appeals from the three Judges to 23, and from the 23 to the Sanedrin or seventy one El­ders. For Christ had not then instituted any Christian Congre­gations or jurisdictions; and if Christ had spoken of what was not in being as the people he spake to could have no relief there­by, so they could not understand him. Now if primarily he meant the three Judges or Rulers of the Synagogue, yet that did not exclude the 23, and if he meant primarily the 23, that did not exclude the Sanedrin; so in Christian jurisdictions, which for the general nature were to be like the Jewish, though not in e­very particular circumstance, the bringing a cause to a Congre­gationall Eldership excludes not the Classis, nor the Classis a Provincial Synod. Though the Jewish politie was not long af­ter to be pulled down, and the Christian to succeed, yet it was not then pulled down, but stood jure divino, though many of the persons in those offices were corrupt, and the people as yet were bound by Gods law to make use of them, and be determined by them. Our Lord Christ sends the cleansed Lepers to the Priests to offer for them, though they were generally wicked. And in his sermon, Mat. 5.22. he clearly alludes to their present judicatures.

Afterward the same Authours except against the definition of the office of the Ministry set down by the Province of London, in their Jus Divinum &c. Because they make it a relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry. But whether you call it right or power, or authority given them by commission, or what gene­ral nature or notion can be put upon it, it is certain it was in relation to the whole imployment of the Ministry, as they well [Page 10] clear it up. That was the subject wherein they had power by their office or sunction to deal, and be exercised in. To them was committed the word of reconciliation. And therefore the Ministeri­all office is set out in Scripture thereby, Luk. 1.2. Act. 6.4. 2 Cor. 3.6. 1 Thes. 3.2. as I noted more at large in vind. 233. And though there must needs be an object, viz. persons to whom they are to administer the Word, yet that object in their commission is not set down in Scripture to be particular Congregations on­ly, but go teach all Nations and baptize them, &c. and lo, I am with you always to the end of the World, Mat 28.19, 20. And go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, Mar. 16.15. And so likewise administer the other Otdinances to them when you have made them capable of them.

And the Argument which those Brethren insist upon from re­laeta is of no force; for though as they are particular Ministers of such a flock, indeed that particular relation ceaseth, if the flock ceaseth &c. but the generall relation to the whole remain­eth, so that there is a correlate object still as long as there are a­ny believers that stand in need of edifying by their office, or any meer visible believers, or their children or servants that stand in need of instruction, exhortation, reproofe, or internall conver­sion, &c. And if all those should cease, yet they shall find objects for their Ministry, as long as there be any reasonable creatures under heaven; as M. Norton in his answer to Apollon. pag. 81. wel observeth, where he saith, that when they preach to heathens it is a ministerial act in regard of the dispenser and administrer. Habent Ministri potestatem Ministerialem non Ecclesiasticam er­ga universum mundum, & erga omnem creaturam. And therefore he pleadeth that the Ministers have Ministerial power in modo debito erga omnem Ecclesiam, Or else saith he, the heathens should be in better case then the neighbour Churches, if it were Ministerial preaching to them, and not to neighbour Churches. He saith, no duty of Ministerial acts of office in other Churches is to be denied, p. 82. so it be regulated.

When Paul and Barnabas were called forth by the holy Ghost, Act. 13. and sent out with fasting and praier, and imposition of hands to go to the heathen; was it a Ministerial work which they performed, or a Chari [...]ative? If a Ministerial work of their [Page 11] office, then not onely the particular Congregation, or the uni­versal Church, but the very heathens are the object of the Mini­sterial office, as it is an office.

The Scripture speaking so indefinitely of the office of the Mini­sters, under the name of Ministry, makes it appear that their office related to the imployment or subject thereof, & not only to a few persons in Congregational Covenant, or particular mutual u­nion with them. See Act. 20.24. and 21.19. Rom. 12.7. 2 Cor. 5.18. Eph. 4.12. 1 Tim. 1.12. And hath not the Minister the same subject and object that the Ministry hath, seeing the Mini­stry is committed to him.

If a Minister of the Church in England should baptize a con­verted Jew, Turk, or heathen, he doth not do it as a Minister of a particular Congregation, or of the Church in England, but as an indefinite Officer of Christ, to whom he hath committed that employment: and so the office reacheth that forreigner, not as a member of the Church in England, for so he never was, and haply never will be, but as a new subject added to Christ's visible Kingdom.

Secondly, I shal shew that the universal Church is an integral, and not Church in genere.

But before I enter upon this Chapter, which hath been oppo­sed in print by M. Stone a reverend Minister in New-England; it will be requisite for me to premise somthing in general, and then answer his particular Objections against the several arguments as they lie in order.

It was mine unhappiness to fall into the hands of two reve­rend Divines, whose principles of Logick, and especially concer­ning Genus, were different from each other; and so while I pro­ved the universal Church to be no genus according to the princi­ples and express grants of the former in his Vindiciae Catholicae which I cited, who was an Aristotelian; the other understanding genus in another sense, being a Ramist, opposeth my arguments, denying the Aristotelian principles, which the former went up­on and granted, whereas it was sufficient for one to prove the universal Church not to be a genus by his own principles whom I answered.

So it fareth with me, as I have seen it with a Country man [Page 12] in a crowd, who being stricken a box on one ear, and turning himself to see who struck him, and to defend himself on that hand, was stricken by another on the other ear, and so was fain to turn again to defend himself on that side also. M. Ellis took genus to be a logical or metaphysical abstract non-existing notion, as he acknowledges in print, and upon his own grant: I dealt with him; M. Stone taketh genus to be an existing being, ap­pearing, and shewing his face in every individual, whether wee see it or no, and thereupon disputes against my arguments, other­wise then M. Ellis could have done, and so puts me upon a new Vindication, by denying the principles upon which my argu­ments were built, which principles the former granted freely. If I had thought the word genus would have met with such oppo­sition, I should have set down my meaning more warily, and for genus have set general, or in genere, or in general consideration, which was my meaning, and so he whom I answered understood it, and M. Stone might have seen that was my meaning also. The paucity of words, and multitude of things is the cause why the same word is used for many things, and so is taken in a different sense, and so it falls out in the word genus, for somtimes it signifieth a Stock, Linage, Parentage, Kindred, or Family as M. Stone in his Tractate, p. 2. from Act. 4.6. and Phil. 3.5. notes. And somtime it is taken for that common nature which existeth in the individuals, as humane nature in Peter and Paul, and animal in man and brute, &c. And somtime it signifyeth an ab­stract notion arising from this community of nature, or a thing in genere, or general consideration, and in that sense M. Ellis took it, and so I formed my arguments in his own sense. But concerning the existing genus which M. Stone speaks of, I cannot see how it can agree with the definition which himself giveth of it out of Ramus; which is, Genus est totum partibus, i. e. speciebus essentiale.

For that which doth exist, existeth in some individual, and there is neither a totum or whole, nor essential to the species. It is not a totum, for Totum est quod habet partes: indeed it may have its parts, that is members, as it is an integral, but the parts of a genus are his species. The existing animal that is in Peter is not a generical whole, for it is but a part of Peter, and hath no species [Page 13] under it. The truth is, it is an essential part of Peter, for where­as totum continet suas partes, that animal in Peter is wholly con­tained in Peter, and holden there by Peters form; and as soon as Peters form left him, that animal was gone. Again, totum est majus qualibet parte, but Peter is major hoc animale, he contains the animal and more than it. Hence Downam upon Ramus saith, hinc apparet genus speciei & totum & partem esse, totum quidem prae­dicatione, & communi significatione, quâ species continet: pars ve­rò si ad constitutionem respiciamus.

Now the giving essence, or being essential to a thing respecteth the constitution in every existing thing. Boëthus also saith, Genus in divisione totum est in definitione pars. Species contra, in divisi­one pars est, in definitione totum. Neither is that genus that existeth in an individual partibus i. e. speciebus essentiale, for it giveth its essence to that individual, and hath no influence upon any o­thers, when those men and brutes that are now alive die, then die those physical existing genus's indeed, but the logical abstra­cted genus of them dyeth not: the physical individual genus's are renewed by generation, but the logical genus of them is not ge­nerated but abstracted, and is the same from the beginning of the world to the end: it ever was, and ever will be a true axiome, homo est animal rationale.

Here M. Stone helpeth himself with a distinction of genus in actu signato & actu exercito, p. 7. I know not well what he mean­eth thereby, or how he will apply it to the cause in hand. But Scheibler in his Metaph. l. 1. c. 14. art. 5. saith, Apprehenditur res in actu signato, cum concipitur sic, prout communi definitione signa­tur, & sub proprio signo i. e. nomine apprehenditur. In actu exercito apprehenditur cum concipitur aliquid non communi, sed particulari, dimisso communi nomine. So that it layeth aside his common name and notion of a genus in actu exercito, and is but an integral un­der it. Jacob. Martin. in disput. 2 metaph, thes. 60. saith Actus signatus vocatur a singularibus abstractus. Actus exercitus est actus in singularibus multiplicatus i. e. in individuals and integrals un­der that kinde. And further Scheibler giveth this instance to clear it. Genus praedicatur de specie. Hoc verum est, loquendo de eo in actu exercito, non in actu signato, hoc est genus praedicatur de specie non su­mendo communes notiones, sive nomina generis & speciei, sed particu­laria [Page 14] exempla, which particular examples are the integrals under that kinde.

But this distinction will not help him; for if genus in actu ex­ercito be not a totum or whole, but a part, and be not essentiale speciebus but only uni individuo, then it is not genus. If the defini­tion and notion of genus cannot agree to it, it is not genus. The definition of integrum agreeth to every example of an integrum, it is a whole made up of his members, but the definition of genus a­grees to none of those which he calls examples of genus. In that it wanteth or loseth its universality, it wants and loseth its genus and its difference or form: for the very essence of genus (by his logick) is to be a whole, and to give essence to its species. It hath but a piece of the genus, and a piece of the form: it hath integram naturam generis, non universam, as M. Stone saith p. 4. and Richardson out of whom he had it saith the same. Then if it hath only the integral nature, and not the universal, it hath it not as it is a genus, but as it is an integral, for the na­ture of genus lyeth in the universality, which the individual hath not. Though there be an Ens, substance, body, and animal in Peter, yet they are as individual as Peter: and the Ens, substance, body, and animal in Peter, differ every way as much as the hu­manity in Peter differs from that which is in Paul, or as Petriety differs from Pauliety, or Socratiety from Platoniety, to use his own expressions. Socrates consisteth of hoc Ens, haec substantia, hoc cor­pus, hoc animal, and hic homo; and so all these kindes are under contraction and individuation. Quicquid est in Socrate singulare est. Fonsec. Metaph. Take all the individuals of one sort that ever were, are, or shall be in the world, and you cannot make one totum universale of them, but by abstraction, & actu praecisi­onis & denudationis, and so by the minde you may draw them to an unity, and make a totum of them, for there is a foundation layd in the individuals for such an abstraction, but no formal general nature or unity; you must divest them of their existence, and individuality first. There is not Ens, or substantia, or corpus, or animal in genere, or general consideration existing in any one man, or in all of them, but as they are abstracted. Plato non est homo in genere &c. Put many sticks together, and you may make a faggot or cart-load of them, but not make wood in genere, yea, [Page 15] put all the wood in the world together, and you may make a great heap and integral of them, but you cannot make wood in genere, but by mental abstraction, and that a man may do from a little as well as a great deal. Genus is another thing then all the individuals gathered together. Genus is not by conjunction, apposition, or aggregation, but by abstraction. Peter or Paul may say, this is my entity, my substance, my body, mine animal, my humanity, as well as my Petriety, or my Pauliety.

It is true a man may abstract, and as it were cut out a genus or general nature out of the individuals, and consider that alone be­cause there is a foundation for it, and a potentiality, so a work­man when he seeth a piece of Timber may conceive in his mind, that if such and such parts were hewen and plained or carved a­way, there would be an Image of the Virgin Mary, or a crucifix, &c. yet no man wil say that there are any such existing Images there, for then it were fit to be burnt. So the Chimist saith, that Sal, Sulphur, and Mercury are in every thing, and boasteth that he can extract hony out of album graekum, but they are not formally there, but may possibly be extracted by the dissolution of those things; so by mental dissolution or abstraction a man may fetch a genus or general out of individuals, but it is not formally in them. It cānot be denyed but the object of the understanding pre­cedeth the act of it, but it never findeth it existing, but it is con­tracted by an individual, and to draw forth the general nature, the understanding pareth off the contracting differences by ab­straction, precision, or denudation. Apprehenduntur universalia, non apprehensis ullis particularium differentiis. Fonsec. Metaphys.

But I conceive that there is a great difference between animal genus and animal in genere, between an existing genus and that thing considered in genere. The individual animal existeth, but a­nimal in genere existeth not but in the understanding. There is existence in every thing, but where dwells existence in genere? Concretes exist, but where do abstracts exist? I will not con­tend whether universals be entia realia, or entia rationis, because there is a foundation for them in ente reali, but they are not formally one but by abstraction.

Indeed in reference to other genus's a genus is capable of nu­merical unity; Ens is one genus, and substance is one genus &c. [Page 16] but in reference to particulars existing under them, you can­not say there is one genus in Socrates, and another in Plato, for numerical unity in the strictest sense is proper to individuals as integrals.

But I will not contend with M. Stone about these notions of existing or extracted genus's, I shall leave it to younger heads which have been more lately versed in those studies. But if you take genus, for the existing physical, political, mathematical, or arti­ficial genus's as M. Stone doth, then it is impossible to deny any thing in the world to be a genus, for it is of one kinde or other. And by that notion every integral is nothing else but a cluster of genus's bound together by the last individual form: and so we may make every thing not onely a genus, but a heap of genus's; and so a man hath more genus's in him, then he hath limbs, sences, and faculties. For there is Ens, substance, body, vivens, and animal besides humanity: and then every limb, and sense, and faculty, have limb, and sense, and faculty kinde in it.

There is head kinde, and foot kinde, and arm kinde, and leg kinde, &c. and after his constitution, he is dressed up with no­thing but genus's from head to foot. And by the like reasoning every thing should be as full of genus's as ever it can hold. M. Stone could not think that I did deny this sort of genus to be in the universal Church, for I clearly expressed so much Vind. p. 82. ‘"Indeed if you consider this society or religion, it is a distinct kinde in regard of the Authour, laws, qualifications of mem­bers, but in reference to its members, it is an integral. If this be all that is meant by totum genericum existens it may passe with­out any dammage to this question. So the several companies in London are distinct from other companies, yet in reference to their own members they are integrals, and in reference to the whole City they are parts, i. e. members.’

But all this dispute on which side soever it be cast, hurts not my question at all, though it may seem to strike at this Chapter of arguments, which were taken from grounds which were gran­ted by him against whom I then argued, we both by genus meant a thing in genere, or general consideration, and to that sense I fra­med my arguments, and then comes M. Stone and disputes from an existing genus in actu exercito, that hath neither the genus nor [Page 17] form of a genus in it, and he strikes at my aguments by that which is not ad idem. If M. Ellis's genus and M. Stones were put into a syllogism, there would be four terms, for they are not the same, and had I argued with M. Ellis from an existing integral genus, he would have thought me wilde. And therefore this is but a logo­machy about the word genus, one takes it in one sense, and the other in another. I clearly layd down my meaning in the explication of the question: for chap 1. sect. 3. I gave different senses of Catholick or general. ‘"First, the Orthodox Churches were called catholick Churches. Secondly, the Patriarchs Vicar general was called catholick. Thirdly, Catholick is ta­ken for a logical second notion abstracted by the minde, com­prehending diverse different species under it (in which sense M. Ellis took it.) Fourthly it is taken in the same sense that we use to take Oecumenical, and I took the latter sense, and therefore put Oecumenical into the terms of the question: and said there, that in the question in my sense the Church-catholick existing on earth at the same time is compared with particular Churches existing at the same time also, pag. 11. 12.’ And in denying this Catholick Church to be a genus, I took genus in the third sense as M. Ellis did.

And I shall a little more plainly set it down now. The que­stion is, Whether the whole company of visible believers in the whole world, which is the one visible Kingdom of Christ on earth, and is usually called the Catholick or universal Church, being considered in respect of the particular visible believers in the par­ticular Nations, Towns, or Congregations, be the genus of them, or a great integral whereof they are but members. Here was the hinge of the question handled in this chapter. And the thing that made the doubt was the diversity of the use and signification of general and particular. For somtime general refers to species and particulars under it, and then it is called genus, or that thing in genere. And somtime general is taken for a large integral, as when we speak of a general Court in a Corporation, and a gene­ral summons, a general meeting, a general muster, a general humi­liation, a general pardon, our general calling, a general Covenant, the general judgment, &c. These phrases are not meant of these things in genere, for they are so many individuals, but in respect of [Page 18] the extent of the subject or object of them. And you may as well make the general Covenant a genus or Covenant in genere, as the generall Church to be a genus or Church in genere. It is cal­led the general Covenant, not because it is Covenant in genere, but because it reacheth all the members of the Church, and they are entred into it; and so the universal Church is called general, not because it is Church in genere, but because it is made up of all that are entred into that general Covenant, in the whole world. So that as the general Covenant is one individual Covenant, so the generall or universall Church is one individual Church or society, whereof particular Congregations contain but par­cells of the members.

And somtimes particular relates to a general, as a particular man, a particular horse, to man or horse in genere, or the gene­ral nature of them; and in this sense it is true, Omne particulare habet suum generale. But somtime it relates to an integral, and signifieth a member; as a particular room in a house, a par­ticular street in a Town, a particular ward in a City, a particu­lar drop in a measure, a particular sand in a heap, a particular man in a Town or Family. And so we say the particulars in a bill, or sum, or bundle, so many, and then sum up all in general so much: the particular Brigades or Regiments in an Army so many, and then cast up the Army in general so many. Now be­cause all the visible believers in the world, both Officers and pri­vate Christians are called the generall, and in that sense the uni­versall and Catholick Church, and those that live in severall Countries or Congregations are called particular Churches; the question is whether general or universal as it is given to the whole Church or political Kingdom of Christ on earth signifieth a genus or Church in genere, or an integral: and whether the particular Churches are to be accounted species of that general, or members of that integral.

But then coms M. Stone and neither affirms nor denieth the whole visible Church to be either a genus or general, or an inte­gral; nor the particular Churches to be either species or mem­bers, but starts a new hare, and saith, that a Congregational Church is a Catholick Church. That is to say, as I conceive, because every particular Church is a Congregationall Church, [Page 19] and Congregational Church may be predicated of every parti­cular Church, therefore Congregational Church is the genus of them all. He dared not make the whole Church to be a genus of the particular Churches, and he would not make it the inte­gral.

And whereas I had proved chap. 2. that there is an universal visible Church, and that it is one, I expected that either it should have been denyed that there is such an universal Church, or that it is one, or if it be one, then to have it declared whether it be one generically, or one integrally and numerically; but M. Stone waves them both, and saith, a Congregational Church is a Ca­tholick Church, and so puts a surreptitions question in the room of it. Whereby he doth implicitely grant what I affirmed, that the whole universal Church is not the genus of the particular Congregationall Churches, but Church in genere or generall notion.

It is true if we refer a street, or ward in a City, or a Brigade or Regiment in an Army, to Street, Ward, Brigade or Regiment in genere, they are particulars under such generals; but if we re­fer them to the City or Army whereof they are parts, so they are members. So if we refer particular Congregations to Congre­gations in genere, they are particulars; or, if you will have it so, species, or individuals rather of Congregations in genere, but if we refer them to the whole Church they are members thereof. And it cannot be denyed but particular Congregations may, yea must bear relation unto both.

And by the same way of reasoning that he makes a Congrega­tional Church to be a Catholick Church, a man may make a par­ticular Church an individual Church, a Church that is one nu­merically to be a Catholick Church, for all these may be predi­cated of every Congregational Church, and that essentially as they are such. And so a man may say an individual man is a Ca­tholick man, an individual horse a catholick horse, an indivi­dual house a catholick house, an individual eye a catholick eye, an individual foot a catholick foot, because individual may be predicated of all these, and that essentially as such. And so we may make hic homo to be the genus of all the men in the world, because it may be predicated of every man. And so we may set [Page 20] individual, and unum numero above Ens the highest genus of all, because every Ens is individual and unum numero, if it doth exist. And so genus shall be a pretty Proteus. Omnia transformat sese in miracula rerum. And every man shal be an individual particular general Catholick man.

There is a second thing about which M. Stone bestoweth much pains in his book to invalidate this chapter, and that is to prove that individua are species. I am not willing to contend with him about the logomachy, and the rather because though it cros­seth something said in this chapter, yet it invalidates not the cause at all.

That there is an essential predication of that which Logicians call species infima, and he genus infimum upon the individuals, so that it doth the office of a genus thereunto cannot be denied, and therefore as it respects the individuals it is called species praedica­bilis, as the other, as they respect the superiour genus are called species subjicibilis, Burgersd.

For the Logicians carrying the name species no lower then ab­stract natures which have some universality in them, though the lowest that may be and neerest individuals, did not account indi­viduals to be species, for though universals may be distributed lower and lower into less universals; yet are not, in their opinion distributed into species singulares, or into several integrals, which are a totum of another opposite nature. But they conceive genus to be natura universalior sub quâ alia minùs universalis continetur Keckerm▪ and species to be natura universalis alteri universaliori subjecta: and the lowest species to be that which hath obtained the lowest and utmost perfection among the universals ultimum universalium. And indeed there is a difference between species and individuum. Quamvis species conservari potest in uno individuo, genus tamen non potest conservari in una specie, Burgersd. 45. So that as M. Stone confesseth that animal was not a compleat genus untill man was made, yet man was compleat as soon as Adam was made.

Again, they say that species [...] perfectior est genere, sed individuum non est [...] perfectius sua specie, i. e. man is more perfect in regard of essence then animal, that is, hath a further perfection added to him then was in animal, yet Socrates [Page 21] is not more perfect in essence then man in general. The species hath the integral nature of the genus, and besides that it hath an essential difference perfecting it, and thrusting it on a degree fur­ther, but the individual hath no such essential difference added to the lowest species to perfect that, or thrust it on further, but the species essentiam ejus absolvit; it hath nothing but individu­ality and existence added, whereby it becomes an integral; there is no essential perfecting part found in one that is not found in another, but only the soul and body of Peter is not the soul and body of Paul. And for ought I know he may make the animal, substance, and Ens in Peter, differ as much from the animal, sub­stance, and Ens in Paul, as the humane nature in Peter from that which is in Paul, seeing they are all alike under con­traction, as well as the humane nature, and so make several species of them also.

Genus is like a Bell that ringeth out, and strikes on both sides, and so Ens or being in general strikes double, it is either primum, vel à primo ortum; à primo ortum is double, substantia, vel acci­dens; substantia is double, corporea, vel incorporea sive spiritualis; corporea is double, simplex, vel mista; mista is double, vivens, non vivens; vivens is double, vegetativa, vel sensitiva; sensitiva is double, homo, vel brutum; and then you are fallen as low as uni­versals go, which the Logicians commonly make the lowest spe­cies; and then the Bell, as it were falls into a single touling of individuals, which are stroaks of the same side, and man sound­eth Peter, Paul, John, Robert; so that the peal of genus's that struck double before, at last when they are fallen as low as they can fall into a single chime, strokes on the same side: and indivi­duals differ no more from one another, then single strokes of the Bell one from another.

Genus bears twinns which are opposite, nay contrary one to the other, and so struggle in the womb, like Esau and Jacob, of two contrary natures, hairy and smooth, but the lowest species beareth only single Children of the same nature.

If a man in his mind travells from Ens or being which is the highest genus, he finds it divide presently into two opposite ways, one as it were on the right hand, the other on the left, viz, sub­stance [Page 22] and accident; if he will trace the one way viz. substance, he findes it presently divided again into two opposite ways, viz. Corporeal, Spiritual; if he traceth Corporeal, he findes it di­vide again immediately into simple, and mixt; if he traceth mixt, he findes it divide into that which hath life, and that which hath none; if he traceth that which hath life, it divideth imme­diately into vegetative and sensitive; if he traceth sensitive, it di­videth immediately into man and brute, now if he will trace man, he findes him no more to divide as the former into opposite perfecting differences, thrusting that nature on further, but he goes on from generation to generation, still the same in kinde and essence, like a right on path, that goes further and further, but divideth not into cross paths. Or to make the similitude more full, it leadeth him out into a plain or heath where are ma­ny ways to ride a brest in, but they all come from the same head, and lead to the same town: and these are the individuals which proceed from the lowest species, but divide not into lower differ­ing perfecting species. So that though they agree with other species, in that they are comprehended by something more general, and that is predicated on them, yet they are not predicated upon any inferiours; they may be cut in pieces into members, but not distributed into further perfecting distinguish­ing essential forms.

So that call individuals, species, or what you will, yet you see they are not like other species.

And to prove them to be species, M. Stone makes them not di­versa quae solâ ratione dissentiunt, i. e. though all men have humane nature, yet they are not the same: But opposita quae re & ratione dissentiunt. And truly if it were ever true of men, it is true in our age, where almost every man is opposite to each other; Quot homines, tot sententiae. But this is not an essential but accidental opposition. And though he cannot make them contraries, Quo­rum unum uni opponitur, yet he makes them Disparata, Quorum u­num multis pariter opponitur. By reason of their distinct forms and essences: well, be it so, but then he must make two or three kindes of Disparata. For formerly we were wont to account things that are under divers genus's to be disparata, as homo, arbor, lapis: or intermediate different species under the same genus, as yellow, [Page 23] blew, green, red, under colour, as M. Stone acknowledgeth, p. 26. But by this opinion the several yellows, blews, greens, and reds, are each of disparata to themselves, and so are opposite to them­selves though dyed in the same fatt at the same time. And by the same reason he may say that every thred of a cloth both warp and woof of the same cloth are opposite colours, and every pun­ctum of every one of those threds are of an opposite colour. I should rather have said that they are similia, and that unum multis pariter assimilatur, potius quam opponitur. But I shall let him enjoy his notion, because it hurteth me not. He yieldeth the conse­quence of this opinion p. 23. that there are so many species of water, wine, or milk, as there are drops of them in the whole world; and so a hundred thousand species of water in a pail full of water, and these have all opposite essential forms, and yet are similar; which is as much as to say, they have similar, opposite essential forms, Gravia bella fratrum.

But what if the individuals be species, yea so many genus's, yea comprehend a bundle of genus's in the belly of every one of them, as by this Logick they must. Will this be any hinderance that many of these individuals may be brought into one in­tegral?

Suppose every brick hath brick-kinde, and body-kinde, and substance-kinde, and Ens-kinde in it; yet may not an hundred thousand [...] bricks make one brick-house; and a hundred thousand [...] [...]ake one tiled roof; and a thousand pieces of timber make one timber-house; and many individual men be in one family, one town, one army, one Kingdom, or Common­wealth? So may many individual visible believers be in one Congregation, and many Congregations of them bee in one Classis, and many Classis in one Province, and many Provinces be in one Nation.

And all the Christian Nations in the world be one universal visible Church, and that be an integral.

When the first Gospel-Church (which might be called general or Catholick in contradistinction to the National Church of the Jews; and because then the partition wal between Jew and Gen­tile was broken down, and the cōmission issued forth for teaching all Nations and baptizing them) grew too big to meet in one [Page 24] place for all Ordinances, it divided it self into many less Assem­blies, called, though improperly and at second hand, Churches, yet then this division was of an integral into its members, not of a genus or general into its species.

I acknowledge the matter of the visible Church militant uni­versal, or visible Kingdom of Christ on earth, to be the particu­lar visible believers, and the external form thereof to be their joint submitting unto Christ's regiment and laws under his Officers where they dwell, but this whole Church when it comes to bee divided, it is considered according to the places where those members dwell, either in England, Scotland, Ireland, or New-England, &c, and so receive particular denomination from those places; but this division is of an integral into its members, as the parts respect the whole, and of adjuncts into their subject places if they be considered in reference to the places wherein they are contained.

Look at the Church in genesi, saith M. Cawdrey, vindic. vindi­ciarum, 72. and the single members are the causes thereof as an integral, but look on it in analysi, in the distribution of it into Congregations, and so it giveth essence unto them, and they are parcells of that greater integral. Though in the constitu­tion of an integral the parts are before the whole, as the essen­tial causes thereof, yet in the distribution the whole is before the parts, Cawd. p. 82.

And whereas I had proved that the universal [...] is not a genus or Church in genere, because it doth exist, or hath an indi­vidual existence of its own, which a thing in genere hath not, vind. p. 79. l. 8. To this argument M. Stone answers, by affirming that genus doth exist. But when he comes to prove it, he proves only that the integral nature of the genus doth exist in the indivi­duals, and leaves us from them to abstract the genus, which is an universal, but proves not that the universal doth exist any where, but in the mind of man, or Angel. Now as it doth exist in the se­veral individuals, it is contracted, and is an integral, and must be loosed from his contraction by abstraction, before it can be a logical genus, or that thing considered in genere.

This is as if he should say, as it is an integeal it is a genus, which he confesseth differs very much. There is that which may be ab­stracted, [Page 25] but it doth not exist as abstracted but as contracted. So I may in my minde consider a prisoner that is bound with many chains, without his chains, and so a free-man, but I dare not say he existeth a free-man. I can abstract a man from his riches, learn­ing, piety, nobility, that is endued with them, but I cannot say he existeth so. Where a thing in genere, or general notion, or general consideration doth exist, but in the understanding, I, as yet know not.

Moreover as such a nature doth exist in individuals, it is ma­nifold, but as I have abstracted it, it is but one. As it doth exist in individuals each differ from other (as M. Stone acknowledg­eth) ne & ratione, and by his own Logick all those individuals are opposites, and so dissentanies, now dissentaneum est quod à re dissentit, but one is not a dissentanie, much less an opposite to itself. Now genus is one, because it is totum quod habet partes.

Therefore you must divest it of existency, before you can con­sider it as a genus, or general, or thing in genere.

And to apply it to the whole Church in reference to the mem­bers of it: the whole Church hath an existence of its own, as an integral, being individuum, as Ames confesseth, but as M. Stone's genus hath no existence, but in the species. The existence of the whole Church resulteth from the conjoined existence of the members, but the existence of a genus is abstracted from the species. The whole Oecumenical visible Church hath no species or indi­vidual Churches under it, whereof it's the genus; but is made up of individual visible believers, and then divided into several pieces or parcell, which we call particular Congregations Like a piece of ice divided or marked out into many little pieces; the great piece of ice is not the genus of them, but the integral, and they are the members. Though the whole Ocean were frozen it would make but a great integral, and the several parcels thereof mem­bers.

But it would not be the genus of those parcells, for ice in genere is the genus. A pail of water is not the genus of the several drops that are in it, but is an integral, and they are members, but water in genere is the genus. A heap of sand (though there were no more sand in the world but that) is not the genus of the particular sands in it, but sand in genere. So the universal Church is not [Page 26] the genus of particular believers, but believer in genere, nor of the particular Congregations, but Congregation in genere.

And whereas I had said in my second Argument vind. p. 79. l. 30. that Quod habet partes extra partes est totum integrale. M. Stone denies it to be a true definition. I answer I had it out of Burgersdicius p. 47. and I conceive he defines it so in opposition to that which he calls totum essentiale, quod constat ex materiâ & formâ, for there the parts do mutuo se pervadere, & loco, & situ non differunt, as the soul and body in man, but the parts of an inte­gral quâ integral do differ in both. But to make the Argument past his exceptions, I shall change onely one word, and in that change only express Burgersd. his meaning more clearly. Quod habet membra extra membra est totum integrale, sed ecclesia univer­salis visibilis habet, &c. Ergo. The universal Church hath its members one distinct and several beside and without each other, whether you consider them to be particular believers, which are the prime members, or Congregations, &c. which are secon­dary.

And whereas I had said in my third Argument that the whole Church is made up of the visible believers in particular Congre­gations, and of such as are not fixed members in any particular Congregation, vind. p. 80. l. 17.

M. Stone answereth, That individual Christians which are not members of any particular Congregation, are not formally po­litical Church-members. Now if by political Church-members he means actual members of this or that particular Congregati­on it is true, but they are political members of the Church-Ca­tholick visible, for they have taken Christ to be their King, and his laws to rule them, they are enrowled by baptisme, and at­tend on Christs Ordinances, and subject themselves to his Mini­sters, where they become, though some occasion may not suffer them to be fixed in a particular Congregation. They are poli­tical members of Christs visible Kingdom primarily, by being members of the Church-Catholick, the membership in particu­lar Congregations is secondary, and but accidental to the for­mer. He saith they are members materialiter non formaliter, be­cause they are not confederate. But I answer, they are confede­rate i. e. in Covenant with Christ the head and King of the [Page 27] Church, and confederate with the members in the general Co­venant, into which they are entred, and any other Covenant or confederation to constitute a political Church-member I finde none in Scripture, neither scrip nor scrawl. And I conceive all Congregational confederations and Congregations, to be but accidental to the universal Church, by reason of the numerosity of its members, for could we conceive that all the members of the whole-Church could meet in one place, and partake of the same numerical Ordinances orderly, the meeting in several places should cease.

The woman of Canaan which M. Stone instanceth in, by being a visible Saint and believer, though she was not forma [...]ly thereby a member of the Jewish Church, as he saith, yet was she a member of the Evangelical Church, and that compleatly if she were ba­ptized, if not baptized, then but incompleatly, and materi­alites.

The place which is brought by M. Stone to prove the Apostles to be fixed members of the particular Church in Jerusalem; Act. 1.2.3.13.14. proves it not, but onely that they abode in Jeru­salem untill the coming down of the holy Ghost at Pentecost, to inable them to discharge their Apostleships, but then they travel­led over the world, and joined in Ordinances with the Churches which they converted, as Officers administring both word and seals, and were no more fixed members of the Church of Jerusa­lem, then of any other Church where they became. They were never dwellers at Jerusalem, but men of Galilee, only stayd a while at Jerusalem upon occasion.

And whereas I sayd in my fourth Argument, that the Church universal is not genus, or Church in genere, becaus it hath accidents and adjuncts existing in it as its own, vind. p. 80. l. 28.

M. Stone affirmeth that a genus is capable of inherent accidents as its own, p. 35. and more largely p. 21. with a wonder at me for that opinion. But I must cleave to mine opinion, as I meant it, for all that he hath sayd against it. For I have proved that we must divest the integral of the genus from its existence, before it can be a genus or thing in genere, and divesting it of existence we must necessarily divest its adjuncts from existence also. Now as animal in a man furnished with all his adjuncts and accidents [Page 28] doth exist, it is integrum animal, it is not animal in genere. It is true we abstract the proper accidents with the nature, and say they belong to that nature primarily, as visibility to humane na­ture, but visibility existeth only in on integral man. No man e­ver heard homo in genere laugh. And in a Logical abstract sense I granted vind. p. 106. as much as M. Stone contends for; but if homo in genere doth not exist, visibility in genere doth not exist neither. But the Oecumenical Church is not Church in genere, neither doth M. Stone think it is Church in genere, and yet p. 35. he doth grant a Church in genere, and saith that the particular Churches are species of it. Now should Church in genere, and Oecumenical or Catholick, or Synholick Church, as M. Stone calls it p. 40. in which sense I took it, and it is usually taken, be brought into a Syllogism together, there would be four terms.

Again, whereas I said in the prosecution of this fourth Argu­ment, that the universal Church cannot be a genus or Church in genere, because it is capable of being major and minor, of greater or less extent, vind. p. 81. l. 11. To this M. Stone answers, that a genus is capable of being majus and minus in actu exercito. Man­kind is capable of increase, virtue shal increase at the calling of the Jews: and sin may increase, because the particular virtues and vices may increase.

I answer, the question is not about genus in actu exercito, for that properly is not genus, but an Integral under that genus.

And there is no more put into the definition of man then ani­mal rationale, now there are hundred Millions of men in the world then there was when there was but one man: so there is no more put into the definition of Church in genere now it con­sisteth of Millions of visible believers, then there was when it had far fewer members, the Integral is inlarged indeed, but not Church in genere. Though a Giant be major homo, yet he is not magis homo, and though a dwarf be minor homo, yet he is not mi­nùs homo.

So for virtue and vice there is nothing more put into the de­finition by the increase of them, and therefore they have no o­ther definition then they had at the lowest ebb; now the defini­tion explicates the essence of the thing. The habits of virtue and [Page 29] vice may grow stronger, but gradus non variant speciem, they may be in more subjects, but that varies not the species neither. So that genus being unum, consistit in indivisibili: take away either animal or rationale and you spoil the definition of man: and so you can add nothing to the essence of it more then is in it, unless you put a further perfecting distinguishing essential form, and so make a new species below man. The majority or minority of a thing respects the members, and so is ascribed to it as an integral; either continuous magnitude as in man or brute, or discreet as in species, by the multiplication of members, and this is the case of the whole Church, it may grow greater or less as the members are multiplyed or decreased.

Also whereas I said in the prosecution of the fourth Argument that the whole Church is not a genus, or Church in genere, becaus it is mutable and fluxile, which are accidents of an Integral only, vind. p. 81. l. 24.

M. Stone answers this Argument by affirming that genus may bee mutable, Totum genus plantarum & brutorum is mutable and fluxile.

I answer, that the Integrals under each of those generals is mutable and fluxile, but still the genus of them, or things in ge­nere is not so.

There is nothing taken out of the definition of it by the change or death of the individual Integrals under those generals, nor nothing added by the renewal of more.

Object. It may be objected, that in this sense no Integral is mutable neither, because the definition of it is not changed, though the individual Integral be changed or perish, and be ex­tinct.

Ans. I answer, That every individual Integral is an example and instance of an Integral, and hath the definition of an Inte­gral belong unto it, but every individual existing genus, or genus in actu exercito, as M. Stone calls it, is not an example of the ge­nus, much less the thing in genere, for the definition of ge­nus, cannot agree thereto, seeing a genus is an universal, and that is but particular, yea an individual of, or under that genus, and so is but an Integral. If any essential part of an existing Integral be changed then it is not an Integral of the same kinde it was, [Page 30] and so the peculiar definition of it must be changed, yet still it is an Integral.

There cannot in propriety of speech be an example of the same genus, because it is but one, but there may be many examples of Integrals under that genus, and they indeed are mutable and flu­xile, as they are Integrals that exist. How can an individual man be an example of genus humanum, since, by his own logick, it is but the lowest species, & species est pars generis, and pars est quae contine­tur à toto, therefore a part cannot be the whole, nor an example of the whole. And to speak properly, if you would give an exampl of a genus, you must give an example of an universal, not of an in­dividual e. g. Ens is a genus, and substance, and accident, and spirit, and body, and animal, &c. considered in the general na­ture of them. And if you will call individuals species, then is man in general consideration a genus, but you must not bring an in­dividual man to be an example of man in genere, which is an universal. I say, an individual is no instance of an univer­sal, it hath integrality in it, but no universality. Ʋniver­salia sunt perpetua quae per se ipsa nec gignuntur nec intereunt. Fonse­ca Metaph. l. 5. c. 28.

And whereas I had said vind. p. 81. l. 36. in prosecution of the same Argument, that the whole Church is not a genus, or Church in genere; because it is measured by time and place. M. Stone saith p. 11. that genus as well as integrum is an existing thing measured by time and place.

I answer, that the integrals of such or such a kinde, or under that general, are indeed measured by time and place; but the kind considered in genere is not so. My question was, whether the whole Oecumenical Church existing at the same time, be Church in ge­nere, or a great integral consisting of many members.

But how particular time and place comes to take a measure of Church or man in genere; I as yet perceive not. As it was not drawn from the universal Church of one or two or ten ages, so it is not measured by them: so that though this or that Church ceaseth, yea all the members of the whole Church that are now existing should dye, and the whole Church consist of new mem­bers, yet Church in genere ceaseth not, nei [...]her is altered, unless you will say that the whole time of this world takes a measure [Page 31] of it, because it shall exist in this kinde no longer then this world endures. Though individuals under a genus be Corporeal, yet the universals of them non sunt ex iis corporeis quae per se loco & tempori subjecta sunt, ut per seipsas digito designari possunt, saith Fon­seca, Meta. l. 5. c. 28. qu. 2. They are onely individuals, and so Integrals that are tyed to hic & nunc.

And whereas I had proved the whole Church to be an Inte­gral because there is admission into it, nutrition and edification of members in it, and ejection of members out of it, vind. p. 82. l. 13. ‘"M. Stone saith p. 9. that a genus is capable of admission, nutrition, and ejection. Animal admitted man and beast under his wing. A man at birth is admitted into mankind, so is a lyon and a horse into their kind when they come into the world, and by death are excommunicated out of that kind.’

I answer, the Integrals of such a kind are admitted and ejected, but not the universals; every Integral must be of, or under one kinde or other: If indeed there were a new creature made, differing in kinde from all creatures that ever were made, then were there a new genus admitted into the world, or if any of the former kindes were quite destroyed, then were a genus ejected indeed. But by adding the word members admitted, nourished, edified, or ejected, this Argument is put beyond his exceptions: and this is the case of the whole Church, there are members continually admitted and edified, and somtime by censure ejected, therefore it is an Integral; for member and Integral are relata.

And whereas I said in my sixth Argument, that the whole Church militant on earth at the same time is not Church in ge­nere, because it is capable of Officers, and had once actual Officers over it, and hath still Officers that are indefinitely and habitu­ally i. e. in actu primo Officers to the whole, vind. p. 82. l. 23.

‘"M. Stone answers, that a genus may be capable of Officers. Every compleat Ecclesiastical society or Church is furnished with Officers; But Boston Congregation is a compleat entire Church, or a compleat Ecclesiastical society; therefore Boston Church is furnished with Officers, p. 36. And this be endeavours to make out, p. 33. And there he tells us, that an individual Church is a species, as it respects Church in genere under which [Page 32] it is comprehended, and yet as it contains members it is an Integral.’

‘"Hence it is that every individual Church contains members, because it is an integrum, and yet it is a species as it stands in reference to a Church in genere. Hence also a Church in genere may be said to have members and Officers in it, not considered under the nature of genus, but because the species specialissima containeth members, it is an Integrum.’

And whereas I had said a genus is not capable of Officers, he answers: ‘"It is true in actu signato, but that which is genus com­prehending the species and individuals which contains mem­bers, may in that respect be said to comprehend members and Officers.’

Ans. I am glad to see M. Stone at length finde out the notion of a Church in genere, a Vine in genere, a body in genere; I hope it may prove a clew to help us out of this Labyrinth. But how doth this vine in genere give essence to the individual vines, or this Church in genere give essence to the particulars, or this body in genere give essence to the individuals? Surely not by generation (except by generation in genere also) but because the entire nature existing in an individual vine, Church, body, giveth essence to it; so that it will follow, that the entire Integral existing nature comprehended under these kindes gives essence to the individu­als, and not those natures in general consideration, or in genere. And therefore either Ramus hath not given us a right definition of genus (as some better Logicians then I conceive) or else he giveth a definition only of an existing integral nature of a genus, which is onely an Integral of or under such a genus, and so hath passed by the topick of a thing in genere, or general consideration in abstracto.

But then I argue, that if that which is genus comprehends the species and individuals which contain members, may in that re­spect be said to comprehend members and Officers, then the ge­nus and integrum are all one; for the genus hath members, yea, principal members, even Officers as well as integrum, saith he. But here M. Stone helpeth himself with a distinction, and saith, this is not as considered under the nature of a genus, but because [Page 33] the species specialissima contains members as it is an integrum. And I desire to make use of the same distinction also, and say, that the Officers are not Officers of it as it is a genus, or as it is considered in genere, but as it is an integrum under such a genus. And so let me strengthen all my former Arguments against which he hath so much excepted, by his own distinction, and say, that the exi­stence of the whole Church, the having membra extra membra, the having existing accidents, the being majus & minus, the being mutable & fluxile, the being measured by time and place, the ad­mission, nutrition, edification, and ejection of members, and the doing, actions, and operations, betide to the whole Church, not as considered under the notion of a genus or Church in genere, but because it is an individuum, and so an integrum under such a genus.

The same existing thing being considered in several respects, may be a cause, an effect, a subject, an adjunct, a consent any, a dissentany, an integrum, and a genus in M. Stone's sense, in actu exercito, but it cannot be that thing in genere. The whole univer­sal Church in reference to society or polity in general is a species or individual, but in reference to its members both private and publick, it is an integrum.

But before he leaves this Argument, he adds a suppliment to make his answer full, pag. 36. viz. ‘"That there are no ha­bituall Officers in the Church, all Officers in the Church are actual, habitual Officers are non ens possibile, quod non est, sed potest esse.’

I answer, that they are all actual Officers▪ and might, if they were able and had a call, officiate in any part of the Church; and do actually serve the whole Church, by admitting members into it, and watching over a company of the members of it in their own places, and administring Word and Seals in many Congregations, yea Counties, and somtimes many Nations, but exert not the exercise of their power to the extent of the whole Church actually, in every part of their office.

So Justices of the Peace for the County do not ordinarily ex­ecute their Office in every Town of the County, and yet have power by their Commission, if they could do it, and had a call thereto. But as watch-men in particular wards do safe-guard [Page 34] the whole City as well as their particular wards, though they stand not in every part of the City, and are called the City watch-men; so do Christs Ministers serve the whole Church in their particular places, though they cannot reside, or act in every place of the whole Church, but could do it in regard of the ex­tent of their office and commission, if they had ability of body and minde, & a cal or opportunity. I mean not by habitual power that which is never drawn into act, but the power in one officer is not drawn into act in every part of the Church, nor in every part of the exercise of his office. And the lett is not any want of power by their office, but want of ability in themselvs, and of call and opportunity in the severall places. And so they divide that full execution of their office among the officers, and spiritual watch-men of this City of God, and some take care of some pla­ces and members of the whole Church, and others of other actually, for order and covenience sake, and their better edifi­cation.

And whereas I had said in my seventh argument vind. p. 84. l. 8. That the whole Church is an integrall, because it hath actions and operations of its own, for a thing considered in ge­nere is not capable thereof.

‘"To this M. Stone answers, that a genus is capable of actions and operations of its own, because operatio sequitur esse, & om­ne ens agit. A genus hath properties and qualities, and therefore can act; where there is no [...] there can be no [...], but that is the end of all being p. 21. 22. It is true saith he, the Church-Catholick hath actions and operations of its own; and that it exists and acts its individualls, yet his properties are his own, and so likewise are his operations. p. 36.’

I answer, that these actions and operations are properly the operations of the integrall under that genus. Now because all the integralls of that kind have those operations, therefore they are attributed in notion to that genus, and said to belong there­to, but that thing in genere opperates not, but in the individu­alls or integrals under it. But the whole Church may, as I there proved, act in one and the same individuall act, as a City or Kingdome may do, therefore it is one integrall. A genus or ge­nerall may act, as it may be said to have members which are the [Page 35] instruments of actions; but as himself confesseth, that though the members be in the genus, or comprehended under the genus, yet they respect it not as a genus, but as an integrall, so I say the o­perations are the operations of such an integral of such a kind, and not of the genus as a general. The generall in abstracto work­eth not any [...] or [...] (except notionall) but the in­tegralls work them.

And whereas I proved in my eight argument. vind. 86. l. 8. that the whole Church is one integrall, by the severall appella­tions given to it in Scripture, as Body, [...] Kingdom, tabernacle, house, building, temple, army, sheep-fold, wheat-field, &c.

‘"M. Stone p. 33. saith, that these and such appellations are indeed firstly and properly appellations of an integrum, having analogy to totum integrale: but saith he this totum integrale is species specialissima, or every individuall Church being species specialissima, is also an integrum, and containeth members, and the genus comprehending all his species under him, it compre­hendeth the individuals with all their members under it, or within it self. Hence those appellations which are given to an individual Church are given to the Church in general, &c. If a Church be a body, then this or that individual is a body, and all the members of it are [...], one and the same body, of one and the same Corporation.’

I answer, that then it wil follow that the whole Church is firstly and properly an integral, of or under such a kinde, viz. Society, or polity, because those appellations are firstly and properly meant of that, and of particular Congregations but at second hand.

For first men are drawn into that, and into Congregations as a secondary and accidental thing, containing but parcels of the members of that great society, or polity. It is clear that [...] is not meant in Scripture of a particular Congregation, but of the whole Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles entred into the Kingdom of Christ.

We finde not a particular Congregation called the body of Christ, for then Christ should have innumerable bodies, who hath but one, in the same kind, and that fitly join'd together and [Page 36] compacted by that which every joint supplyeth, Eph. 4.16. which M. Hooker, as I said before, calls the external political Kingdom of Christ. Neither are particular Congregations called the King­doms of Christ, for then he should have many Kingdoms, in the same respect, whereas the Church militant is but one, consisting of many members. And Christ tells us the wheat-field is the world, and not particular Congregations. If a King hath ma­ny Kingdoms, Cities, or Armies, though he speaks of things that concern them all, and all alike, he doth not say my Kingdom, City, Army, but Kingdoms, Cities, Armies. If a man hath ma­ny fields, houses, floors, netts, loavs, and speak of that which concerneth them all, de doth not say my field, house, floor, nett, loaf, but in the plural number, as of many: so would Christ have done if he had spoken or meant it primarily and intentio­nally of many Churches or Congregations, but he bindes them up in the singular number, because he meant but an Integral by all those tearms, and the particular Congregations are but par­cells thereof; And differ no more, then when a cart-load of wheat is put into diverse sacks, whereof every one contains se­veral parcels of the load, because it could not conveniently be all put into one, which though severed is accounted as, and sold for one load of wheat, and when it is shot out makes but one heap. Or as a great common field divided by several meers or baulks, or a great meadow into several acres by dools, or marks, and so one man cutts and tends one acre, and another another, but these hinder not the integrality of the whole, much less do they make the whole meadow the genus, and the parts of it the species: so neither do the accidental and secondary differences between particular Congregations hinder the integrality of the whole Church, much lesse make that the genus, and them the species.

A ninth Argument I brought to prove the whole Church an Integral, was from the severall words which the Scripture useth to expresse the union of the members of the whole Church together, as added, builded together, fitly framed together, com­pacted, all the body by joints and bands knit together, &c. vind. p. 87. l. 18.

To this Argument M. Stone, p. 36. giveth the same answer, that he did to the former Argument.

[Page 37]But it is clear that the phrases are meant of the whole Church primarily and immediately, and not of particular Congrega­tions.

This adding, joining, jointing, and building of the converted ones is first to the Kingdom, Body, and House of Christ, and there is no other essential form added to them beside Christiani­ty, by being severed out partiatim, by parcells into several Con­gregations; that is a most accidental thing to them as Christi­ans, brought in by convenience, and necessity. Particular Con­gregations; are but as several ridges in a wheat-field, which hin­der not the integrality of the whole field at all. As the dwelling of several men in several Towns in a Kingdom or Common-wealth, which Towns contain only some parcells of the subjects of that Kingdom or Common-wealth hinders not the integrali­ty of the whole, though they be under particular officers for civil affairs: no more do the deistinction of visible Christians, into se­veral Congregations under several particular officers for Eccle­siasticall affairs, hinder the integrality of the whole Church. First, men are subjects or denisons of the Nation or Kingdom, and then have liberty according to their conveniences to live in what petty society they please. So, &c.

Though a man should have several houses in never so many Counties or Towns, and at somtime or other resort to them all, and dwell for a time in them, yet this varies not his membership of the Kingdom or Common-wealth, being meerly accidental to that relation. So, &c.

It cannot be denyed but that the several Congregations are integrals in reference to their own members, and so is any village in reference to the inhabitants, but in reference to the whole Church or Kingdom of Christ they are members, as the villages are of a Kingdom, or Common-wealth.

How many bodies politick, and societies in a Nation are mem­bers of the greater body politick and society of that Nation? so many less bodies Ecclesiastical make up the greater body Eccle­siastical in a Nation; For it was foretold that the Kingdoms of this world should become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, Revel. 11.15. The Ecclesiastical polities in converted Kingdoms, are said to be commensurable to the civil. And by the same rea­son [Page 38] all the Christians in all territories on earth make up the whole Church or whole visible Kingdom of Christ in the Chri­stian world, because it contains all the members thereof, who are Christ's subjects.

And whereas M. Stone saith, p. 37. that Baptism is a priviledg of a political member, as Circumcision was a priviledg of the members of the Jewish Church, Gen. 17. Those Act. 2. were admit­ted into the Church, and then baptized.

Answ. It is not said, they that were admitted into the Church were baptized, but they that gladly received his Word were baptized, verse 14. so that Baptisme admitted them into their first relation, and that was into the visible Church.

Neither can it be absolutely said that Circumcision was a pri­viledge of the Jewish Church, for the second person, Ishmael, that was circumcised was not of it, nor any of the other Chil­dren of Abraham, by Keturah, nor Esau, and yet were circum­cised. Can wee thinke that Job and his friends so eminent for piety, and who sacrificed to the true God with acceptance were uncircumcised?

And were all those nations among whom they were chief men, if not rulers, which were of Abrahams posterity by Ketu­rah, and of Esau's stock, heathens, uncircumcised? The very name of Elihu sheweth the contrary, which signifieth my God is Jeho­vah. So that it is more then probable that there were religious persons and Countries after Abrahams time, beside the Jews, if not before them, as M. Baxter hath well observed in his treatise upon Infants Baptism, and these no doubdt were circum­cised.

It's true Religion did not very long continue among them, as among the Jews, but God would not have cast off them, if they had not forsaken him.

I grant that the seal of admission is to be given to none but such as are in covenant with God. But what covenant? The generall divine covenant, or the particular humane covenant? Surely into the generall covenant with God. The many thou­sands bapttzed by John, and Christs disciples, and the three thou­sand in Acts [...] were indeed in covenant with the national Church [Page 39] of the Jews before baptism, because the Church was then Natio­nall, but by this new signs they were admitted into the Evange­licall Church by a new and Catholick seal, to which their for­mer standing gave them no right. And though as M. Stone, saith Obsignation with the initial seal of Baptism implyeth confedera­tion, and admission into the Church, yet it implyeth not confe­deration with this, or that, or any particular Church, or admissi­on into it. Though Saul was baptized by Ananias at Damascus, yet was it not as confederate either with the Church at Jerusalem, or Damascus whereof he had been a bitter persecutor, but as a Convert to Jesus Christ,

And though haply Cornelius Acts 10. might be confederate with the Jewish Church, being a Proselite, yet we know of no such confederation of his kinsmen and near friends mentioned vers. 24, who were Gentiles, and yet were all baptized. Neither do I think there was any implicite covenant to bind the Jewish Church together, or the Proselites to the Jewish Church, besides the divine general covenant with God, and yet for ought I know it had been as requisite for the members of every Synagogue as for particular Congregations now, seeing they were lyable to censures there.

With what particular Church were the Samaritans, and Simon Magus confederate Act. 8.12? who were a little before bewitch­ed by Simons sorceries, yet upon Philips preaching unto them, and their conversion unto Christ, they were baptized both men and women; the witch, and the bewitched.

Surely Samaria was not confederate with Jerusalem, they did not love one another so well: neither was there any instituted Church (as the new phrase is) as yet in Samaria: neither was it a Congregationall Church, but the whole City with one accord: neither were there any particular officers set over them then, nei­ther could they enter into a particular Church covenant, as it is called, untill they were baptized, the generall covenant must precede the particular, and therefore were in no capacity to choose any officers over them, and yet they were baptized, and therefore baptism is no priviledge of a particular politicall Church-member, but of the general. And with what Church was the Jaylour as Philippi and his rude family in covenant? Act. 16.33. [Page 40] who was a ruffianly heathen. Yet being converted at midnight, was baptized the same hour of the night, without asking leave of the Church there, if there were any.

And for this particular covenant, though M. Stone saith p. 37. that it is a covenant not only between man & man, but also between God & man▪ But quojure? where is the institution of it, or any hint of it in Scripture? It may be a promise before God, but not be­tween God & them; but between the people among themselvs, & be­tween the people & their Minister. The first and general covenant is between God and man, and is of divine institution, but the se­cond and particular is but humane and prudentiall, and there­fore cannot divolve any such priviledg upon people unless the Lord had instituted it to that end. The universal Church is the whole politicall visible kingdom of Christ on earth, and the vi­sible beleevers are the matter thereof, and these believers are con­verted, or, at least, initiated into it by Christs officers, not un­der the notion of particular officers, but as Christs Ministers and Ambassadours, to whom is committed the word of reconciliation; and are bound by their generall covenant to believe what God hath revealed, and obey what God hath commanded. As a Denison of England is bound to obey the Lawes of England, by being a subject thereof, and then these subjects are placed in several towns under particular civill officers, but no particular covenant is re­quired of them to make them severall villages, which for ought I know is as requisite as a particular Church covenant. And those towns consist of English subjects, but they are not bound to the laws, because members of those towns, but because subjects to the soveraign power of the whole nation. So Christi­ans are bound to perform obedience to Christ in all their rela­tions and places, as subjects to Christ, and not by a particular covenant, except Christ had instituted any such, as between man and wife, and there they are bound by both.

M. Stone bringeth two Aenigmaticall places to prove this co­venant to be between God and man. Zech. 11.7.10.14 Of beauty & bands. And Isa. 62.5. As a bride-groom rejoyceth over his bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee: and as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee. But I can find no evidence or hint in either of these places for a Congregationall Covenant. No nor [Page 41] in all the instances that are usually given, viz, Gods Covenant with Abraham, but we know that was the generall covenant be­tween God and man, and not Congregationall. And the cove­nants made in the days of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah; Nehemiah, are nothing to the purpose, for they were not Congre­gationall, but renewalls of their National Covenant with God, and they were the Church of God before they renewed this co­venant, and not constituted by the renewall of it.

Neither doth Act. 9.26. which is alledged some, prove it. It is said indeed that when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to joyn himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and be­lieved not that he was a disciple. But this joyning him to the dis­ciples, was to have comunion and society with them, and not to be a particular Church member there. It is not said he assayed to join himself to the Church, as a member, but to the disciples, much lesse is any particular covenant mentioned there.

But as if one that was known to be an Apparitour, or Purse­vant, or Persecutour in the Bishops days should assay to join him­self with private Christians in converse, or some private meeting, they would be afraid of him; so was that case. But before that journey to Jerusalem, ver. 15. it was shewed them, and by Christ to Ananias that he was a chosen vessel to bear Christ's name be­fore the Gentiles and Kings, as well as the children of Israel. And therefore might not join with the Church at Jerusalem nei­ther as an officer or private member. Neither is it mentioned to which of the Congregations in Jerusalem he assayed to join him­self, whereof no doubt there were great store, seeing they had not great publick houses to meet in, but private houses onely, but it was to the Disciples or Christians there.

Others bring a proof for this way from Isai. 42.16. I will bring the blinde by a way that they knew not, I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. But this will not prove it, but may as well serve for any way that men can fancy. They may as well prove themselves blind by this text, as prove a Congregational Cove­nant from thence.

Others argue that Church-relation is not a natural relation but a voluntary, and therefore must be by a Covenant or mutu­al agreement.

[Page 42]A man say they will be my brother or kinsman whether I wil or no, because it is a natural relation, but it is not so in this re­lation.

I answer, so a man being born within the Church will be a Church-member by federal holiness, and so a brother in a spiri­tual sense whether I will or no, being in the general Covenant. O! but say they, how can a woman become my wife, or a man be­come my servant, but by a voluntary Covenant? Ans. no more can a man or woman of age be a Christian, or member of the whole Church, but by being in Covenant with Christ the hus­band and Lord of his Church, but what is this to a Congregati­onal Covenant between member and member? Do servants when they enter into a family, or souldiers into a band or troop, make one covenant with the master or captain, and another with their fellow-servants, and fellow-souldiers? If haply they should covenant together to be faithful in their places, and helpful one to another, and this should tend to the great advantage of the master, or captain, and benefit of each other, yet this is not that which makes them that masters servants, or that captains souldi­ers, but the covenant with the master, or captain. Neither doth any master or captain require any such secondary covenant be­tween his servants or souldiers, and yet it is a voluntary relation, they enter into, but it is voluntary in respect of the master and servant, the captain and souldier, not in regard of the fellow-ser­vants, and fellow-souldiers, that falls in necessarily.

O! but it is voluntary what particular members I will join withall in a particular Congregation, I may choose of what par­ticular society I will be a member.

Answ. so I may choose in what Town in a Kingdom I will dwel, but I must take the inhabitants thereof to be my fellow-neighbours necessarily.

So all the Churches of Christ ever took the Christians cohabi­ting with them within the civil bounds, to be their fellow-members of those Churches.

The Church of Jerusalem consisted of the Christians inhabiting in Jerusalem, and so it may be said of Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, &c. they did not pick and choose some out of one vicinity some out of another. If any were heretical or scandalous they had cen­sures to remove or amend them.

[Page 43]Now our civil bounds for Towns and Vicinities have been an­ciently set for civil transactions, and cannot be by particular men altered, but by authority, and if all the inhabitants with­in those limits be in the visible covenant with Christ and under his seal, and have publick houses or Churches, as they are ordi­narily, but tropically called for publick worship, and a mainte­nance appointed out of the revenues of those Towns to maintain a Minister over them, and have a Minister of their own set over them, to whom, and his predecessors the Christians of that pre­cinct have from generation to generation submitted in the Lord, and enjoyed Gods Ordinances from them, I cannot see how without breach of order, and removing the ancient land-marks, and introducing confusion, any particular member either of that Town or Church can of their own heads alter this, and pick Church-members whom they list, and where they list, and bring them into a particular Covenant to make a new particular Church, under colour to make a pure Church.

I believe all the Church-members in Jerusalem, Corinth, Phi­lippi, &c. were not really godly, but many only externally, and many very loose, and guilty of foul faults, 1 Cor, 11. Tit. 1.16. 2 Tim. 3.5 Phil. 3.18, 19. Jude 12.13, 16.

Yet they did not leave them out, and institute new Churches of choice members, but sought to reclaim them. I scarce think all the members of the Churches in New-England are really god­ly, or so judged of their Pastors or fellow-members, and yet they do not pick the good from among the rest, & make new Churches of them, but keep the particular Churches still answerable to the civil bounds. It is a bad way of cure to cut off the sound mem­bers from the diseased, and unite them together in a new body.

It's true the civil bounds are heterogeneal to the Church, but so they were in Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, &c. and yet they bounded them then, and denominated them, and so they do still in New-England; and so the several showres are to the severall Seas, yet they bound and denominate them also. Indeed if Towns and Churches were to be constituted, they might have o­ther bounds and quantities allowed them, and so might the Towns in New-England have, for there is no precept left in the [Page 44] word to limit either of them, but the Churches would be compre­hended in those towns: this is not to measure Churches by the acre, as some foolishly object. But we have both precept, exam­ple and necessity requiring that the Churches should be in a vici­nity, and not scattered abroad, so as the cannot conveniently meet together publickly on the Lords day, or watch over one a­nother.

Yea, say some, if Churches were rightly constituted at first, we ought not to separate from them, or gather Churches out of Churches, but ours were not so.

Ans. There are three things that I hear objected against our con­stitution of Churches: First, that it was not voluntary, but forced by authority.

Answer, The members were not forced from heathenisme to christianity, but they became christians many generations ago voluntarily, for ought I know: and for reforming of them, their predecessours, or successours, either from Popery, which was a spirituall leprosy over-spreading the Church, or any other su­perstition, and reforming of them by authority and compulsion, I think it is no more then the Magistrate might, yea ought to do, and the godly Kings and Rulers in the Old Testament did, and were commended and blest for doing. Indeed a man cannot re­gularly compell a woman to be his wife against her will; nor a man compell another to be his servant, or apprentice, but if they have once bound themselvs by marriage, promise, or indenture, they may compel them to hold so, and to obey and reform them­selvs. So is the case between Christ and his visible Church.

Secondly it is objected that we are not fit matter for a Church, and therefore not fit to be made Churches, or to be joined with­all.

Answer, was there not as unfit matter in the Jewish Church be­fore Christs coming, and yet the Church for the essence of it was the same then and now? yea was there not as unfit matter in the Churches in the Apostles time at Corinth and Phillippi &c? see the texts before named, and tell me if we have worse matter then there was, and yet what the Gospell there saith, it saith to them that are under the Gospell. Give an instance of any man or wo­man that ever professed beleef in, and subjection to Christ in all [Page 45] the New Testament that ever was denyed admission into the vi­sible Church, or that was cast out meerly for want of the power of godliness. The Apostles instructed, informed, reproved, and sought to amend them, and if they were hereticall, or no­torious and obstinate, excommunicated them; and that we allow and could heartily wish were still done, and hope may in due time.

Doth a shepherd turn the diseased sheep out of his flock quite, and feed only the sound ones? no, he is to strengthen the diseased, and heal the sick, and bind up the broken, and bring again that which was driven away, and seek up that which is lost, Ezek. 34.4. Indeed it is requisite he should separate the scabbed and diseased from the rest for a time, lest they infect the rest, and then having cured them to put them together into the same fold. Ministers are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as Christ commandeth, Mat. 10.6. and not to feed the sound ones only that went not astray: and what manner of people Christ meant by those lost sheep, I need not tell you, such I believe as many in our age would have passed by, as the Priest and Levite did the wounded man in the parable, or counted goats rather then sheep.

Yea but the members of the Churches in the New Testament that grew so corrupt, did not appear so at their admission into the Church.

Ans. We know they were new Converts to the faith of Christ, and immediately admitted by baptism, even by thousands of a day, and that when they were men grown, without any strict enquiry of the truth of grace in them, and without any waiting for experience of their godly conversation.

Philip baptized Simon the Sorcerer after his profession of his belief in Christ, who yet was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and of all men one would have thought he should have been well tryed first, but was not.

And the Apostle saith of some members in the Church of Co­rinth, that they had not the knowledg of God, he spake it to their shame. Surely if they had had it at their first admission into Church, they would not have lost it afterward, under the Mini­stry of their teachers. Indeed they might corrupt in manners, or in judgment, but not lose their knowledg, and grow sotts.

[Page 46]But there is a great deal of difference between a Church at the first constitution of it, when possibly they may pick choice mem­bers, as they did at first in N. E. when they went over thither, men converted by the Ministry in Old England before they went thither; and a successive Church in after ages, which consist of a new generation, and seed of the former, aetas parentum pejor avis, tulit nos nequiores, mox daturos progeniem vitiosiorem. The Chur­ches succeeding the Apostles age were not so pure as in the Apo­stles times, and yet then they were bad enough: and I fear the succeeding Churches in N. E. will not prove altogether so pure and eminent for sincerity of grace and holy conversation as their first were; and yet our brethren do not hold that corrupt mem­bers in such a successive Church doth unchurch them; and alas that is our condition in this nation, the Lord in mercy reform and amend us.

Thirdly it is objected against us, that we are not rightly con­stituted, because we want an explicite Congregational covenant, and so the true form.

Answer, Thus you see I am inforced to return to speak of the Covenant again.

But I answer, that all our Brethren for the Congregationall way do not unchurch us for want of that; and I think I may clear our Brethren in N. E. from that aspersion: and some of our Brethren at home who have lately written, require but a mutuall agreement for joint worship of God, and I am sure that may be found in our Congregations, and both have been, and might be more, but for these new scruples put into their minds.

For my part I am not against an explicite Covenant in our Congregations, but wish they were as willing to it, as they are in many places willing to come to an agreement with their Mini­sters for their tithes, if they can get advantage thereby, as most what they do abundantly. For by such a covenant, I conceive they should be more bound to their Ministers, as well as their Ministers to them, and it might haply be a means to cause them to submit the better to our instructions, reproofs, admonitions, inspection and discipline; but I dare not stamp jus divinum upon it, neither do I find any hint of it in Scripture or primitive times, and therefore cannot believe there was any: but that they stood [Page 47] bound by their general Covenant to submit to the Ministers that were set over them in the Lord, in their several places. Neither dare I think it is that which gives people right to Gods Ordinan­ces, nor that it can divolve such a priviledge upon the members that enter into it, to invest them with the power of the keys, to admit members, make officers, to invest and divest them, and have all Church power radically in themselvs.

I know M. Stone doth not make it the form of a particular Congregation, but the Cement rather; but truly as it is used or abused rather, by many about us, I fear it wil prove but untem­pered morter. For first people are so eager of it, that some people will join with Antipaedobaptists, Millenaries, and fift monarchy-men, or any sect so they may but be in a covenant. Secondly, it is raised up as a partition wall between them and all the rest of the Churches of Christ (though they be in implicite covenant, and agreement together, and with their Pastors) so that they will not communicate with them, though never so religious, re­formed, and eminent Congregations, nor suffer any of them, though never so godly and so acknowledged by them to com­municate with themselves. They will not baptize any of our children, nor suffer us to baptize any of theirs: nay they will not so much as stay to see any of our children baptized, if they be occasionally at a Lecture where any such child is to be baptized, though they know the parents be very godly, and the Minister bee godly that is to baptize them, and though there bee no­thing offensive in the manner of administration of Baptism, but run out, as if the Church were on fire over their heads. Thirdly, as it occasioneth the breach of many marriages that else would be suitable, so it many times causeth great breaches after marriages between man and wife, even to the antichristiani­zing, or at least to the unchurching one of another, and causeth jarrs and alienation of affections, and vain janglings and di­sputes, and unchristian heats and animosities instead of sweet Christian love, unity, and communion, and mutual edificati­on. Fourthly, it exceedingly hinders family-duties, that they can neither join so cordially together in praier, having such sini­ster thoughts one of another, nor yet in Catechizing of their fa­milies; nor calling over the Word publickly taught, or calling [Page 48] children and servants to an account for what they have heard publickly, because one runs to one Town to the publick Ordi­nances, and another to another, and one draws some of the fami­ly one way, and the other another. Fiftly it is used as a means to enthral the members that are entred into it, so that though they marry out of that Town, or remove their dwellings out by necessity or for convenience, and dwell never so far distant from them, yet must they remain members of that Congregation, and may not join with any other Church, without their leave and dismission, which they will not give, except that Church with which they would join be constituted, or instituted, as the new phrase is, by an explicite Covenant, as sad experience hath pro­ved: nay, are not permitted to join with a Congregation, though never so eminent for godliness and reformation; no, not though the person acknowledgeth, not only the Minister to be godly and eminent, but also the instrument under God of the work of grace in him formerly.

Yea it is accounted no less then spiritual adultery to depart from them after they are thus joined, without their dismission, which they will not give, except to a new instituted Church of the same kind.

If it be such a snare, it is good for single persons to keep out of that bond untill they see how and where God will dispose of them by marriage: and for married persons to get as long leases of their farmes as they can, and keep their yoke-fellows as long as they can, for if they dye, they lay a great bar in their own way against a second marriage, except to one of their own Church, or one of like constitution. I do not conceive that God ever bound any man or woman to such inconveniences, onely they must not marry, but in the Lord, saith the Apostle; nor yet do our brethren in New-England put any such yoke upon the Disciples necks, as far as I understand; neither do I think a brother or sister is in bondage in such a case, but this use or rather abuse is made of this Covenant by some in our Country.

It is a harsh censure which M. Sam. Mather, a young man as I hear, hath given against such as are not of his judgement in this point, in his preface before M. Stones Book, ‘"As if the [Page 49] dreadful revenges of God, either for personal pollutions, or for sinfull complyance with former devices, or wayes of men in the things of his house, or for secret contempt of the simplici­ty and power of the Gospel, are gone forth in penal blindness, and other blasting strokes, upon the souls of some in these times.’

As if this were the very pattern shewed in the Mount, and the very fashion and form of the house shewed to the Prophet Ezekiel, Ezek. 43.10.11. as is there intimated. But we pray you is it a pattern revealed in the Word of God, or by inspiration onely? If it be set down in the Word of God, we beseech you be pleased to shew it unto us, and point us to the texts of Scri­pture that hold it forth: we hope some of us desire to fear and serve God in truth, as well as among you. How many worthy Martyrs, Ministers, and eminent Christians have dyed for the faith, and in the faith, and gone to heaven, before either M. Ma­ther, or this Covenant were born; were they all strucken with the dreadfull revenges of God in penal blindness and blasting strokes? I believe our brethren will not say so.

And if this Church-Covenant hath no better effects else­where, then it hath in these parts, as I shewed before, tru­ly it were better it never had been devised, or were made Nehushtan.

M. Stone calls the Universal Church, Totum genericum existens, as M. Hooker did also in his book; of which I said vind. 40 that it is nothing else but integrum similare. But I do acknow­ledg that though totum genericum existens may be integrum simi­lare, yet is not always so. It is so when all of that kind that ex­isteth is bound together in one copula or bond.

As if all the Sand in the world were on one heap, or all the Gold in the world were of one lump, they were integralls.

Or if there be such a bird as the Phoenix, it is totum genericum existens, and yet it is an integrall. But if there be no such bond, then it is not an integral▪ yet they are not that thing in genere, nor the genus of all that kind. But the universall visible Church, though it be totum genericum existens, i. e. all of that kind of soci­ety or body that existeth, yet it is an integral, because it is bound together by an externall visible bond, yea bonds, as hath been [Page 50] shewed before; & that Covenant with God in Christ, & the seal of Baptisme, which makes them of that kind compleatly, makes them also of that integral, eâ formali ratione, and they cannot be of that kind, except they enter in as members of that integrall.

I acknowledg also that the instance of the nature of a flock not reserved in one sheep, or of a Corporation reserved in one man, mentioned vind p. 79, which M. Stone puts me twice in mind of, was misplaced and misapplied there; for the flock is not the genus of sheep, nor the Corporation of the men in it; but both flock and Corporation are each of them integrals, and so is the whole Church.

M. Stone also findes fault that I said vind. p. 78, that that which existeth in the individuall is ipsa causa materialis individui. If he like not that expression, let him take the former mentioned but three lines before it, it is pars essentialis individui, for it goeth to the constitution of the essence of it, but it is not the genus of the integral, or that thing in genere.

And whereas I said vind. p. 216. that I do not mean that the universall Church is first in regard of constitution of the whole politicall Kingdome of Christ by aggregation and combinati­on, because the particular Congregations must exist before they can be combined and aggregated. I now declare that the first matter of the universall Church are particular visible bleleevers, that are drawn into the generall Covenant, and these are secon­darily combined into particular combinations, and so the com­binations of Congregations in the universall Church is not the first combination, but a secondary, and in the distribution or a­nalysis of the Church-Catholick, they are accounted members of the distribution, but in the genesis or constitution, the particular members are first constitutive.

I shall also be willing that the eighth way whereby the whole Church may be accounted the prime Church, namely cognitione sive noscibilitate perfecta, mentioned vind. 218. 219. and 253 may be left out, because it is more proper to a genericall nature then an integrall: and so may be said of the Church as it is a kind of society differing from others, rather then as it is an integral con­sisting of members, for there the members are first considered.

And to M. Stones objection against what I said vin. p. 219 and [Page 51] 220, that the priority of the Church-Catholick in respect of the particular, is like the priority of a Kingdome to the parts of it, or of a Corporation to the parts of it, which said I is not meant in a mathematicall or techtonicall consideration.

I answer once again, that the members of the universal Church which are the particular visible believers, are, as it is an integral, in consideration before the whole, because the whole is made up of them, as a kingdom of all the members of the kingdom, and all the towns in it are made up of the members of the kingdom, and so are all particular Congregations of the members of the universal Church; and in the distribution of the whole into parts there the whole is considered first, and then is distributed not onely into particular members, but into combined members dwelling in severall Countries, or less secondary combinations, and so even those secondary combinations may be said to make up that whole, for of such parts as the whole is distributed into, of such it is also constituted.

But the particular Congregations are made up onely of such as are members of the whole Church, and they are entred into that body, before they are considered as members of the petty several societies.

And for the unity and priority of the Catholick Church. M. Cotton upon Cant. 6.9 p. 191. hath this passage. ‘"The Church is one, i. e. at unity or brotherly love one with another, as one body, though scattered into many places, as England, Scotland Germany, &c. in all Christendom. Some Churches are more chast, mild, and unspotted then others, even of the same Coun­try▪ and yet such are but few, and though few, yet at entire u­nity as one body. The onely one of her mother, the choicest one of her that bare her. In the Hebrew phrase, saith he, the whole is the mother, the parts are the members. The true Catholick Church of Christ is the mother of all the reformed daughters, and these daughter-Churches that are most chast, and mild, and undefiled they are best esteemed, and best beloved of the mother Catholick Church.’

Whence we note, that there is a Church-Catholick, and that particular Churches are the daughters of that Church, and these daughters are parts and members of that one body, and therefore [Page 52] not species, and this must consist of the same nature that the mem­bers do which constitute it, and so be visible, else I know not what sense to make of M. Cottons words.

It seemeth very strange to me that whereas the Scripture speak­eth so much of the Kingdom of Christ, the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of his dear Son, and Christ's everlasting Kingdom, and of the amplitude thereof from sea to sea, and from the flood to the worlds end, that all this should be nothing else but a King­dom in genere, or a general Kingdom in a Logical notion, compre­hending none but a few particular Congregations, consisting of 7. 10. 20. 40. or 60. persons therein, united in an explicite Con­gregational Covenant, and no universal or large integral King­dom whereof they are but members or parcels.

As if a King should be famous for a large and glorious King­dom, and when all coms to all, it is nothing but a few little Islands that stand independent at a distance one from another, and have no other union together but that they are all ruled by the same King, and are as so many petty kingdoms under him, having no­thing to do one with another, but only to live in love and peace together. I conceive this is a very great eclipsing of the glory of Christ in his Kingly office and honour. I should listen after the interpretation that our brethren give of Act. 8.3. and Gal. 1.13. of Saul's persecuting the Church; and Act. 2.47. of the adding of people to the Church; and 1 Cor. 12.28. of God's setting Officers in the Church to be meant [...], if the Scripture did not so abundantly speak of the unity and amplitude of the Church, and bonds whereby all of that sort are bound together in an Integral. But for my part I cannot see how it is possible for a man to enter compleatly into that [...] or kind, but he must withal enter into that Integral, and that this Integral must receive not only several Congregations, but even whole Christian Nations, and even single persons converted, though they should not bee joined in any particular Congregations. I should have added many other things, but that I would not exceed the bounds of a Postscript, and the Press stayeth for this. The Lord guide us into all truth.