case of his owne otherwise unavoidable peril of life Or 2. Ordinary which is that which it is actually and constantly endued with and which it is daily to exercise as occasion serves And this againe is 1. Imperative or by way of command and imposition of truthes or duties in the name of Christ 2. Coercive and executive by censure by admonition and excommunication or cutting off from the body of Christ And thus far of the explication of the termes now we come to the stating of the Question And 1. negatively what is not the question The doubt then is not 1. whether there be a company of persons in several or in all parts of the World that diuisim and in their several places do visibly outwardly and openly professe for substance the same faith seals worship and Government and so may be said to be one company one society one congregation in Nature and Essence i. e. Acknowledgement of the same Faith as we say the Turke or Turkes are one company of men because their profession of Religion is one though those of Constantinople and of Persia have no dependance one on another either Civil or Religious in point of Government Nor 2. is it the Quaere whether the several Companies or Churches of this Profession as they are one in Nature so also in Spirit and affection and thereupon in the engagement of mutual care one of another and to take notice what doctines are dispersed what conversation used among the Churches Brethren of the same first Family are bound to do this though they be every one master in his owne house Nor 3. Is it doubtful whether such Churches may voluntarily as occasion shall require associate together for mutual assistance and act in many things by common and joynt consent as it was at the first in the Church of Geneva This the Scripture and the light of Nature dictates even then when the same Scripture and light of Nature reserves entire and distinct liberties to the particulars as in the present conjunction of England and Scotland And so in the conjunction of the Apostles and Churches at Jerusalem Acts 15. nothing was done there of particular Jurisdiction as the decreeing of Excommunication or the like to those that should be refractory this was left to the particular Churches Now to these two latter and not to the point of Government properly so called belongs those testimonies out of the Ancients alledged by Crakanthorp to prove that all the Bishops joyntly and severally are set over the whole Church in common and not the Pope onely for these Testimonies expresse onely a generall obligation of duty and charity not of special office 4. Neither is it the scruple whether all or most of the Churches in the world may not possibly become occasionally one by their messengers in a general Councel though such a thing never yet was nor perhaps ought to be of which hereafter Thus of the first four termes In regard of the last viz. the Power of the Church the question is not 1. whether an Association of Churches lesse or more and especially a general Counsel have not a power more then barely consultative or by way of meer Counsel and advice and whether they have not so far as the object of their Commission reacheth an Authoritative power at least virtual from Christ to act In all Faculâ—ies there is a certain power given both by God and man to the allowed Professors of them to give Authoritative not advice only but directions and rules to which the Conscience is bound to submit unlesse special cause disswade us and this Authority is the more August and solemn though not greater or more or lesse vary not the kind the greater the number is and the more publicke the manner of giving forth the precepts shall bee As for instance an allowed Lawyer or Physician have not onely ability to give advice in point of estate or health by vertue of their skill which others possibly may doe materially as well but have authoritie and legall power from God and man to appoint direct determine and prescribe rules and waies to be observed in both to which the person ought to be obedient that seeks advice and this the more if it shall be done by an Assembly of Lawyers or Judges or Colledge of Physitians by publick consent convened for that purpose though neither the one nor other have power to compell the clyent or patient to follow their directions nor obtain they any new and superiour power by being gathered so in the affaires of the Church of God In doubtfull cases or upon occasion of grosser errours and scandalls God hath by or dinance virtual appointed recourse to others especially Churches whose prescriptions not disagreeing from the word are to be obeyed not only because they are materially good but formally theirs that is the determinations of many of those who are appointed by God for such offices in their severall places so that their acting is the acting of Officers but not as Officers for such they are only in their severall Churches but yet by reason of 〈◊〉 relation they are the more fit for that work but do not act in another and superiour right and relation when assembled and therefore have not any power coercive more then before to constraine by Church-sure Excommunication c. to their decrees Neither do we find that the Apostles themselves when holding such a Councel in our Brethrens opinion did more then in the Name of the Holy Ghost Decree and command but did not impose any such penalty by authority of the Councel upon the disobedient in the particular Churches 2. Neither is the question properly what power the Catholick Church may possibly have in unusual and extraordinary case or accident and which in ordinary it cannot do nor is the proper subject of such power as we saw before in the instance of necessary self defence 3. Yea further ad hominem in respect of the practise and condition of most of those Bretheren who plead this Catholick visible onenesse of the Church The question would not be what power the Vniversal visible Church might have if possibly convenable together as it was at Jerusalem in which case we grant what is contended for as what the parts of it have asunder and without endeavouring the joyning with the other For even in a Kingdom though all the Corporations gathered in one have power over all particulars yet not some of these much lesse a few of them asunder which is the way our Bretheren now practise None of these is the point in controversie But Secondly It is positively this viz. Whether the whole company of Christians on earth are in their ordinary and setled Church constitution so one entire single Common-wealth Corporation and Congregation as that of Right and by the will and appointment of Iesus Christ it is the first subject of all Church power by authority
this Argument If it follow not when we say God hath set in the World some Emperours some Kings some Princes some inferiour officers and Magistrates therefore the whole world is but one Governing Kingdome and all particular Kingdomes do but governe in the right of the Kingdome of the world in Common the Officers whereof are the Kings of the severall Kingdomes who being gathered together or a part of them have the povver of giving Lavves to other Kingdomes according to the Lavv of God and nature which are the rules of all just Government and this also to bee done by the Kings and Princes themselves vvithout any authority from or any dependency on the people unlesse for quietnes sake and as far as they see cause If as was said this follow not neither doth it follow that because the scripture saith God hath set some in the Church Apostles c. Therefore the Church throughout the world is but one Congregation to whose Officers first as the generall Officers of the whole Church not by way of distribution but as a Notionally at least collected body of Officers the power of Government is committed by Authoritie whereof and dependence upon which common officers and body the officers of every particular Church do act and those without any dependency upon the concurrence of the people as co-operating and acting with them unlesse for peace sake By which means let it be observed by all sorts The power being given not to any one Church but to the whole Church as one body and not to the members with the Officers but to the Officers onely there is derived a very Transcendent power and Authoritie upon every particular Minister more then any Parliament-man hath yea more then a King who is limited to his dominion It makes every Minister one of the standing Officers of the Christian world to whom with his Collegues not severally and by distribution but joyntly and as one body is committed the Government of the whole Christian world and managing of the Affaires of the Son of God throughout the face of the earth And so hee is one of Christs Vicars Generall and not particular onely which I acknowledge every Minister to be in his place magnum surely et memorabile nomen But if this bee so great reason is it that the Church of the whole world should choose these Vniversall Officers and so the Church of a nation the Nationall Officers c. by whom they are to be Governed in that which is of Dearest and highest moment viz. the precious soule or else their condition is most sad If every one that can get a little learning and desires to live upon the Sweat and cost of others and to become a minister though I professe that calling to be most difficult on earth and also that the Lord hath appointed that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and so being willing to submit to such conditions as is required shall have a friend patron or a purse to make one and come into the ministery and a living which is the Kings Road in some Churches and is the way whereby many of those who now are to be Presbyters came in he shall become a Parliament man and joynt Governour of the whole Church on earth by whose one vote all the liberties and truth of Religion in them may be destroyed A glympe whereof we have seen in the Convocations or Synods in our owne Nation This I say is sad yea more sad then the condition of men in their Civil Liberties In our owne Kingdom where none attains the honour of being an universal Officer a Parliament man but by the consent formal or virtual of all or the major part of them there having been a precedent act by joynt consent of the whole Nation that persons chosen by the free Vote of the major part of Corporations c. should if loyal be Officers pro tempore to their owne Corporations and to the whole But such agreement hath not been made no not tacitely by the Catholick Church nor no such institution of Christ hath appeared yet And these answers also are applyable to what the same Author hath else where from the word CHVRCH as when he denieth a Particular Church to be the proper subject of the covenant of grace and priviledges of it because saith he the CHVRCH to which these promises are made is perpetual Jer. 31. 36. The strength of which reasoning lies on this that the word Church and not Churches is used in these places and so it is represented as one Answ. As if it were not common to call that perpetual which is so by succession of those of the like Nature and Kinde because the Lord saith Day and Night shall not cease to the Worlds end doth it therefore follow that all the essential properties of day or night do not agree to this or that particular day Is it not a rule in Nature and Reason that all the essential properties of general and common beings are really existent in the individual and partilars Man is to continue on earth to the end of the World does not therefore the essential properties of man agree to Peter or Paul because they were not to continue His second and third Argument there is That a particular Church cannot be the subject of the covenant of Grace and consequently of Church power for the reason is the same because the Church which hath these is sanctified is the spouse of Christ hath the Law written in the heart of it c. but a particular Church as it is particular cannot be said to be such Answ. But 1. It was never said that one particular Church is so the subject of these as that another is not Secondly To speak properly The Church not as visible nor as particular nor as invisible nor as universal is the subject of these things but as a Church i. e. A society of Beleevers and under that nation a particular Church considered as a Church hath right to all and is the subject of all these All are yours saith the Apostle to the Corinthians whether Paul or Christ c. So that this Author by adding this clause as particular hath praevaricated and altered the state of the Question His last Argument in that place is from the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden and Amesius To which I answer That the former say nothing but that the covenant and promises and priviledges belong to true beleevers and the invisible Church whether in a particular Church or dispersed through the world So that this Testimony seems rather to make against him The other is expresly against him and speaks our very sense yea and terms almost insomuch that I wonder this Author is brought in as a witnesse His words are even as they are cited by Apollonius himself These things agree not to the whole multitude that professe Christ but onely to those that are truly
yet actually instituted Officers neither of this or the whole Church which appears vers 4. 8. Tarry ye saith he in Jerusalem till you have received power from on high But it was indeed that first Church from whence all Churches were to be produced and the Apostles especially and the rest of these members were those who were severally or joyntly to plant those Churches for some members of this Church did plant other Churches and not the Apostles onely as is expressed chap 8. as one man that is father by generation of many Families neither is an universal man nor doth ever represent them neither is he the Governour alwaies of them but for a certain time onely 2. If it were the Representative of the universal Church because the Apostles the universal Officers were there yet it was their priviledge as was shewed above to be the universal Officers and that severally so that though the Churches were one body under one number of Officers then yet they having no successors in the latitude of their power the Church now becomes many else you may as well conclude that all the world must still be one under one sort of Governours because it was so in the time of Adam and Noah 3. This act declares very small power in the Apostles or universal Church for they could not make an universal Officer whereas every particular Church can make its particular Officers and this shews there was then no Catholick government properly such but that was reserved to Christ alone 4. If it conclude it argues that the Catholick Church is formally to chuse its Catholick Officers for so they did and to come together for that purpose 5. It puts the brethren into great liberty and priviledge for they choose and the Apostles onely put them upon the work and prayed over it But to avoid this else-where labour is used to prove that here were onely the Apostles or Elders in this election quid non mortalia pectora cogis Regni sacra fames The second Argument there is that the businesse of the universal Church was transacted scil. the election of an Apostle Answ. Adam did represent all mankinde and transacted the affairs and businesse of the universal Catholick world both before and after his fall so likewise Noah and his family after the flood Gen. 8. doth it therefore follow that the whole world should be but one Kingdom or Corporation It is usual for Kingdoms to send out Colonies into forraigne parts and to give them power to become Common-wealths of themselves without dependence unlesse voluntary upon that Kingdom from whence they had their Original as New-England So fathers of Families yeild their sons an entire governement in their owne families without necessarily engageing them to the families of their brethren further then mutuall love and relations shall require But before the Colonies be sent out the Nation from whence they arise doth represent and transact the businesse both of themselves and of all those Colonies and the father of the Families both represents and transacts the businesse of the Families that spring from him yet are both the one and other afterward without any absolute and necessary dependence either upon the one or other So in the matter of Christs Church The Church of Jerusalem was as it were the mother to the rest The Apostles c. spiritual fathers who represented and transacted the affairs of all Churches that should flow from that but so that when such Churches came to be planted they shewed by their practise that the Apostles had instated them in entyre power without any necessary dependence on other Churches whether single or combined as is evident out of the first and second chapters of the Revelation noted before and other places 3. The third particular is of little moment for the brethren that are called Galileans vers. 11. were so by countrey but now were by habitation and dwelling in all probability of Hierusalem And howsoever the thing is not much material seeing there was then no other Church or societie of Christians visible but that at Hierusalem Besides the former answers take off this also And thus the first scripture viz. from Act. 1. is answered The second followes out of Act. 15. 22. Where that Assembly of Apostles Elders and Brethren which by ordinary power prescribed Ecclesiasticall Cannons and decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles and by authority imposed them on them this Assembly is called the Church but to doe so could not bee in the power of any Provinciall or Nationall Assembly much lesse of a Congregationall but it is the Act of the Catholique Church which therefore this Assembly represented Answ 1. The former answers touching the prerogative of the Apostles and of the mother Church are equally applyable to this also 2. It is not called The Church indefinitely but with reference to THAT PLACE scil. of Hierusalem as by the context appeares for vers. 22. 'T is said It seems good to the Church to send chosen men of their OWN company but the whole Assembly as constituted of the Church of Hierusalem and the messengers of Antioch c. is not called the Church 3. It was not then the representative of the Catholick Church as it was in the first chapter there beeing now other Churches planted which were not there by their messengers Neither was the Colledge of the Apostles there the standing and supreme Court of the Catholick Church to which all Churches were to appeale and to whose judgement they were to stand but every one of the Apostles in the Churches they planted For Paul as he went not up to Hierusalem himselfe at first as was noted above and therefore could not teach the Churches any such duty of necessity binding them so neither did he now either himselfe or others therefore go up from Antioch to Hierusalem as if he had not plenary and full power to have determined the controversie but for satisfaction of the Brethren who either were told by those that came from Hierusalem as it seems by what the Apostles wrote in their letter vers. 24. to whom we gave no such commandement implying that those persons had given out that they had such command from the Apostles or else they desired the mind of the other Apostles also for further confirmation Therefore doth Paul goe up Also in divers of his Epistles hee joynes Timothy Sylvanus and Sosthenes c. with himself yea and all the Brethren Gal. 1. 1. as here the Apostles joyned the Elders and Brethren yet these examples doe not argue that the Apostle or the Apostles had not absolute power of themselves to have determined the controversie 4. It is denyed that this Assembly did act by an ordinary power for if the Apostles presence made not the Assembly extraordinary then was it but an ordinary and particular Church or two or three partcular Churches at the most there being many other Churches then planted who had no Elders there
nor were sent to so farre as is related and then it will fall out either that they did conclude and injoyne onely Doctrinally though with authority or else that a particular and ordinary Church or two or three Churches by ordinary power may prescribe and by authoritie injoyne Lawes to all Churches in the world by way of Jurisdiction It will not be easie to get safe from betwixt the hornes of this argument 5. But it will not prejudice me to yeeld it an ordinary Assembly for it is granted to any Assembly of one Church or more to do as much as is here expressed this councell to have done viz. 1. To meet for the discussion of any Doctrine that afflicts the Churches especially if they bee sent unto as these were 2. To conferre scriptures together which concerns those points 3. Light appearing by the spirit of God and Scripture they may represent their results as the will of God and minde of the Holy Ghost and so may 4. MINISTERIALLY IMPOSE and enjoyn to all other Churches what appears to be the clear mind of Christ as Paul did 1 Cor. 7. having no expresse command and as any of our Brethren do when they preach the Word Do they not injoyne obedience in the name of Christ but withall they disclaim having sole Jurisdiction so as to Excommunicate any alone by themselves if they obey not and yet they do the former by Authority because the Ministery of the Word is an Ordinance of God Object But it was an Assembly representing the Catholick Church because of the Apostles who were the Catholick Officers and the whole acted by the ordinary power of the Catholick Church Answ. 1. The Reason overthrowes the Argument For if it was therefore an Assembly of the Catholick Church because of the presence of the Apostles Then if the Apostles had been absent it had been but the Assembly of a particular Church And the Apostles when assembled alone had made an Assembly of the Catholick Church So the universality or Catholicisme of the Assembly depended wholely and solely on the Apostles Or else secondly The Apostles if alone out of this Assembly neither severally nor joyntly should have been able to determine and do what was here done Or else thirdly The Apostles in this Assembly did denude and strip themselves of their Apostolical power or at least suspend it it for that time and acted onely as ordinary Elders of the Catholick Church but then it would follow either that that particular Church of Jerusalem was the Catholick Church as Rome is said to be for there were messengers from few if from more then one other Churches Or that the Apostles though laying aside their being Elders of the universal Church for that was their Apostleship did yet act as Elders of the universal Church all which are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} crasse interferings I thinke this Church acted 1. As the mother Church 2. As having an accesse of Authority by the presence of the Apostles 3. As being the Church from which the scandal enquired about was conceived to arise Neither doth the joyning of the Elders and Brethren wholy take off the eminency and authority of the Apostles above the rest for their speeches onely are recorded no more then Paul's joyning others with him in his Epistles though it do argue that the Church of Antioch had not that esteem of them as infallible alone And thus much also for that other place brought for confirmation of the third Argument A Representative Catholick Church in Scripture The fourth and last Argument is from the Testimony of some Reformed Divines viz. Walaeus and the Professors of Leydon But the first speaks nothing for him but what all acknowledge and was granted above scil. The Church saith he may be considered two waies 1. Vniversally for the Church which by the preaching of the Gospel is called out of the world throughout the world which in a certain sense or in some respect may even be called Catholick or for a particular Flock tyed unto one place In which sense I know none denie a Catholick Church it being one of the Articles of the ordinary Creed that there is a Catholick Church that is that the Church is now no longer bound to any one place as under the Jewish Government But that the Church in respect of the several members and societies of it is dispersed over the face of the earth But this doth no more conclude that therefore they are one Visible Corporation then when we say Mankinde is spread over all the World that therefore all men are one company or body politick 2. The Professors of Leyden are against him for they distinguish betweene a Visible and particular Church and betweene the Invisible and universal and say That a Visible Church is considered two waies 1. As a company or Society of one Towne City or Province which are united not onely in the unity of Faith and Sacraments but also in the Forme of outward Government or else it is considered as a certain Oecumenical and Vniversal body dispersed in several places throughout the whole World Although THEY DIFFER IN THE EXTERNALL FORME IT SELFE OF CHVRCH-GOVERNEMENT and circumstantial Rites very much yet agreeing in the ESSENTIAL VNITY OF FAITH and of the Sacraments Whence that is common in Cyprian Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Wâ—ich words evidently destroy this opinion For first they make the Essentialunion or forme of the Society and onenesse of the Church to consist in the onenesse of Faith and Sacraments Secondly They imply That Government is one as it is in Christ but divers as it is in severall Churches and in the hands of severall Officers for so Calvine in Ephes. 4. 11. expounds that of Cyprian The Episcopacie he gives to Christ alone in the administring whereof every one hath his part Thirdly And which chiefly assaulteth the heart of the cause for which it is brought by this Author They make the very difference betwixt the universal Church and a particular Church to be this That they disagree in the outward or visible forme of Church-Government therefore in the sense of the Professors of Leyden the Vniversal Church is not one Governing Body for then the Government must be one not only in Essence Nature and Kinde but one in Number Existence single and Indivual being And thus much for answer in particular to Apollonius who indeed hath the substance of what hath been said for this opinion others that follow having taken his grounds and dilated them a little but not much strengthened them thereby as will appear in the sequele 2. The next Defendant of this opinion is M. Hudson cited in the first chapter his sense is the same his words and expressions not so distinct as the former Before I come to his Arguments such as seem to differ from those before 1. note that the
the good of the whole 2. As pride and independency are inseperable so also pride and usurpation pride and invasion of the rights of particulars under notion of a common society pride and Tyranny which hath its way paved in the Church by this notion as hath beene found by experience and 't is acknowledged by this Author in this chapter to have beene the occasion of the rising of the man of sinne viz. some of the Ancients their high doting on the unity of the visible Church 3. Some kinde of Independency may bee without pride such as was in the Apostles and is in the severall Kingdomes and free States in the world whereof New England the place of this Authours habitation is one and all kinde of it and an absolute independency is disavowed by persons of the greatest note in that way as the Apologists expresly call absolute independency as a proud and insolent title so the Elders of New-England and particularly M. * Cotton This Author therefore should either have explained himself touching Independency or else have used some other expression then that which he could not but know would be ad salviam indeed to the palate of some but ad contumeliam an addition to the pressure that others good and sober men are oppressed with But it may be the superstition of certain of the old * heathen takes at this day who in sowing some kinde of graine apprehended it would grow the better if it were done with reviling and reproaching each other I would willingly hope that example of Tertullian is so well known to Mr Noyes that no provocation from the Church should excite him to satisfie himself upon it Injuriae parentum ferendae sunt Argum. 9. The Covenant or profession of all Israel together was to walk before the Lord And converts in the Primitive Church promised to walk with all Saints in all the Ordinances The Church is one Citie having many gates or particular Churches by any gate or Church entrance is had into the whole Church c. Answ. 1. There must be difference made betwixt the state of the Jewish and Christian Church because they were joyntly One Common-wealth and one PARTICVLAR Congregation and not the universal Church unlesse by accident in as much as there was then no other visible Church except as we said before we follow those who hold that Iethro Iob c. lived in those times and were particular Churches 2. Whether the Covenant in the Primitive time ran in such a forme doth not appear to me but for the sense of it it may be admitted according to what hath been often said men are ingaged and may promise to do the duties of their relations to those to whom they have any tye and so in that respect are one with them and yet it followeth not that this body is a visible body or Corporation it may be a mystical one or it may be visible in some respect and not in point of Government or yet the government may be visible in several parts but not as one in the whole All the Apostles were engaged to assist one another yet did they not depend one on another in point of Government as after I had said this above I found M. Cotton to have taught it before whom then I had not read All men are bound to offices to all men Do good to all men saith the Apostle are therefore all men one visible corporation or body politick 3. By one Church we are let into all Churches in respect of their essential being Rights and common priviledges mystical union c. not in respect of particular jurisdiction A man that is borne of one Parent is let into the whole society of men and all common Prerogatives but not into the Rights of each Citie c. His 10. and last Argument It is generally supposed that all Churches have power to act together and to expect power of Jurisdiction in a general councel Calvin is expresse Inst. l. 4. c. 8. and 9. therefore the Church is one visible body else it could not so act Operari sequitur esse Answ. 1. It hath been granted that a company in some sense may be a visible body or Corporation in respect of some more common and lesser acts but not properly so and in respect of the parts of Government and Jurisdiction properly so called 2. The acting of a general Councel yea though it were to the highest points of Jurisdiction as Ordination and excommunication may proceed on our grounds and not on the visible and integral onenesse of all Churches into a Corporation for it may proceed on the ground of Voluntary association and communion of Churches whereby all particular Churches are willing to unite freely and not of necessity their power and to act for the use of their particular bodies and in order to the whole but not as being one incorporated Reipublick nor as having any new or properly larger power being met as such a body but onely by accident as being aggregated and collected together After which manner was the first Presbyterian Church erected viz. at Geneva the several congregations uniting voluntarily as so many distinct bodies into one aggregated body And as the Kingdom of England and Scotland and some free Cities in Germany upper and lower act together which neither makes a new or greater power in the assembled or general body nor destroyes the entire power of the particular societies in which sense our opinion would admit of the power of a general Councel but I cannot owne it because it is partly groundlesse in Scripture partly impossible and partly dangerous in the thing it self as hath been observed above 3. Not all acting together nor all acts that in some sense may be said to be acts of power doth imply an onenesse of Corporation or jurisdiction properly so called I have shewed before that a Colledge of Physicians may meet to consult and give advice in point of health which they have power by their profession and by the Lawes to do and the patient is obliged by the lawes of Nature prudence and conscience unlesse there appear a sufficient impediment but this neither argueth that all these Physicians are of one Colledge yea or Kingdom nor that they have power to constrain the Patient to obey Calvin in the very chapters quoted by this Author he laies down ground for the overthrow of this opinion as where he teacheth That as the writings of men though godly so neither the authority either of particular Churches or of the whole Church in general is such as was the authority of the Apostles for they may not establish any new Article of Faith c. And also answers divers of the Arguments of this Author and the other by affirming that the promises of not leaving the Church of guiding it in all truth c. and so we might add all the other almost before mentioned are made NO LESSE
at once first stop the inundation that will drowne all though the enemie in the mean time prevail the more The CONTENTS 1. THe Occasion and first Authors of the opinion of one Catholick Visible GOVERNING Church Together with the intent and scope of this Treatise as also the Authors call to this service Chap. 1. Page 1. 2. The State of the Question Chap. 2. page 4. 3. The just prejudices and strong probabilities against the former Notion Chap. 3. page 10. 4. Demonstrations against it from the efficient cause of Church Government from the material from the formal and final Chap. 4. page 19. 5. Answers to the Arguments produced for it Chap. 5. 1. By Apollonius page 33. 2. By M. Hudson page 51. 3. The Reverend Assembly page 60. 4. M. Noyes page 70. 5. The London Ministers page 78. 6. The Conclusion Chap. 6. page 83. 1. Illatory or by way of Corrollary 2. Hortatory to the Brethren of this opinion To the Reader Whereas I have reckoned chap. 1. Mr Randal in his treatise of the Church among mine Adversaries in the Argument I handle upon better search I finde him not to be so but to hold the Catholicke Church as others did and my selfe doe as by a marginall quotation I have made appear CHAP. I. The occasion and first Authors of the Question Together with the intent and scope of this Treatise As also the Authors call unto this service SECT. I. GOD having put it into the heart and hand of the Parliament of England to set upon Reformation of the Church as well as of the Common-wealth they for that end conveened an Assembly of such Learned and Godly men as they adjudged meet for their direction in that work and those of known different Judgements Episcopal Presbyterial and Congregational that they might by their opposition the better discern what way of Church Government and Reformation they should countenance and strengthen with their Authority Now the Episcopal way â—aving rendered it self odious by its imperiousnesse and otherwise the contest remained betwixt the other two whereof the Presbyterian being practised in some things in certain Reformed States and Churches who were partly constrained thereunto there being some hints of Scripture also that might be apprehended to look that way Some other things withal concurring got place either in the interests or affections of a great part of the Assembly Parliament City and Ministers in the Country Hereby also they were eyed the more by the Churches abroad that were of that way and had the opportunity to improve their endeavours for their assistance The Congregational way in the mean time though it wanted not Assertors very learned and godly and of great name in the Church and had the advantage of an amiable pattern of it in the new-English Plantations and withall the daily accesse and addition of the most knowing and conscencious sort of Professors Yet by reason of the former disadvantages it was not rendered so considerable among the Churches abroad as to depart from received Principles or neglect to appear in the defence of the former for consideration of it Hereupon the Walachrian Classis in Holland among others being sollicited by the Presbyterian partie here for their assistance they appoint G. Apollonius Pastor of the Church at Middelburgh to take on him this province and having according to his principles acquitted himself of that service in a Tractate intituled A consideration of certain controversies which concern the Government of the Church of God agitated in England the approbate of the Classis is added to the book and published 1644. both in Latin and English This Author observing as it seems that the assault on the way of the Presbyterian Government was like to be strong and fearing that the former basis and foundations of it viz. That the Government of the Church was to be by the Elders and they in equal povver 2. That it is alvvaies convenient if attainable and sometimes necessarie that Churches be associated and act in combination vvith joynt consent 3. That as Princes and States have an Independent povver within their owne limits so Churches under the Government of one Prince or State have no absolute or necessary dependance on other Churches in point of Ecclesiastick Power and Government c. These grounds as was said being doubted whether defensible the Author in the third Chapter of his discourse which treates of the Visible Instituted Church betakes himself to a larger medium and of all men that I know of the Presbyterian and almost of the Protestant judgement he first layes down this conclusion That there is a certain universal outward Church dispersed through the whole World described in the Scriptures which in a certain visible Government doth make one onely Corporation Ministerial Church-body or Political society under which all particular Churches Classical Provincial and National as it were parts of the vvhole are conteyned Apollonius is followed herein by M. Hudson in his Book written on this Subject Intituled the Essence and Vnitie of the Church Catholick visible also by the Reverend Assembly of Divines as we shall see afterward Again by M. Noyes a Minister of New-England in his book intituled the Temple measured and lastly by certain London Ministers in their Tract of the Divine Right of the Presbyterian Government by which it seems the Notion is so amiable that there is as it were a kind of Ambition who should appear first in being the Authors or Owners of it Though the truth is this conceit for substance hath been before all these the Tenet of some others whom it is not any great honour to be followers of in this as first the Papists generally also a few Episcopal men as Crakanthorpe M. Randall and perhaps some others And it may be by some absolute Royalists for that spirit must needs work in Church affairs to some such opinion I remember one of them being in conference about Church-government acknowledged indeed the Church of Rome to have abused its power that way but conceived that it was necessary for the Catholick Church to have some one standing Court and place of residence whereunto to have recourse on all occasions and which might have authority over and influence upon the vvhole to this effect was his discourse which opinion cannot be avoyded if the notion of one Catholick visible Church be granted as shall appear hereafter Now the scope of this Treatrse is not to unfasten the ground of all Church combinations and to lay a foundation for absolute Independencie The conveniencie and somtime the necessity of Classes and Synods for direction and determination and that by Divine Authority is freely acknowledged though not with power properly juridical yea I add that Episcopacie it self was and might be maintained as also Presbyterie if confined to a particular Church and not subjected to superior Ecclesiastical power which was the most ancient way of it without the notion
all Churches must act from the Authority and by vertue of Commission from the Catholick Church for they act in the name of the Catholick Church So the Assertors of this opinion Expressely but then it follows unavoydably that all particular Churches whether National or Congregational that shall innovate change and alter any material thing in Doctrine Worship or Government without the consent of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and if they be resolute in it against what might be said to the contrary they are HERETICKS as those have done that have changed in part Doctrine Worship and that Government which those general Councells did owne and establish much more those who have sworne to such alterations expresly against such things as the universal Church in those Councels did decree 5. Then all Magistrates are deprived of power of Reformation within their Jurisdictions before authority derived from the Church either in General Councel or from their Committee And hence is that cited out of our owne Lawyers Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet That which concernes all must be allowed of all viz. That are of the same visible corporation 6. Lastly That I may add no more There must be a solemne meeting for the election of such general Officers as are to governe the universal Church in the absence of the universal Ministerial Representative Church For if one Corporation should choose Burgesses that should vote in the businesse of the whole Kingdome it would not be valid if there had not been first an agreement of the whole Kingdome in Parliament gathered that these so and so chosen should be Officers General and have votes in the publick Object If it bee said that Christ himselfe hath appointed such Generall officers by appointing Ministers in every Congregation and then Synods for publicke occasions It is answered This follows not 1. Because an Officer chosen in one particular Corporation as a Major or Alderman is not an Officer in the whole Kingdome No though all the Majors in the Kingdom were gathered together are they Officers of the whole Kingdome unlesse by way of distribution and as in relation to their severall places and but remotely and by accident only to the whole Kingdome so though all the Corporations of the Kingdome were gathered yet are they not a Parliament and supreme Court simply because they are meerly gathered together but it must be on former consent according to such Lawes whereby they become a New and a Superiour body to all the Kingdome both joyntly so long as they continue a Parliament and severally much lesse should they have any more power because they are many but dis-joyned farre asunder So it is in the Church 2. They may be officers of Synods and Councels though never so generall and yet not be officers generall of the whole world in point of jurisdiction as one entire body Because their meeting doth not make them a New body nor give them as such a body any superiour juridical power but onely Consultative and Decretory whether we look on any Scripture Precept or Practise of the Churches in the New Testament 3. It is denyed that Christ hath instituted any such Catholicke Visible body or the Representative thereof An Oecumenicall or Generall Councell much lesse the abstract of it a Catholick committee or Presbyterie and there is reason for it for the multitude of persons difference of spirits Languages c. danger and want of ground to Delegate from hand to hand Ecclesiasticke Power would occasion great confusion and such as God is not the Authour of The fourth and last sort of arguments are taken from the end the Authours of this opinion aime at from the Issue of the opinion it selfe and from the true scope of Church Government The former seems to be either to found the Right of such Presbyteriall Government as is now endeavoured and to deprive particular Churches of intire power in themselves or at least of Independency in their Government from other Churches or else it is to lay Groundwork of a more effectuall cure and remedy then hitherto for all distempers of particular Churches whether nationall or other Touching the first What will it profit if they gaine by this notion the jurisdiction of the whole world for a while and afterward loose their own and others liberty and perhaps souls also for the former being lost truth will be soone oppressed as is to be seen in the Papacy of which straightway Again Absolute Independency so as no other Church shall have any thing to do with an erring or delinquent Church is disavowed both in Doctrine and Practise by the greatest Patrons of that way in this Kingdome and beyond the seas * Concerning the second All distempers of Churches as farre as the Apostolicall Churches were cured of them have beene healed sufficiently without this opinion yea and better then by those who have owned and practised this principle for they have cured some but made others greater and stronger then they were before as we see in the Church of Rome 2. But whatsoever their aime be they should remember that the true end of Church Government is not only to avoid Confusion and Disorder c. but also to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of particular Persons and Churches to prevent Tyranny and invasion that way evils that are as dangerous to the Church and as introductive to Heresie as the former unto which this opinion in the Issue of it opens a wide gappe My Baynes whom the London Ministers quote with Honour saith Dioces Triall Q. 1. pag. 21. That those who subject themselves to a Presbytery as being under it by Subordination may in effect as well be subject to an Episcopall and by consequence I say to a Papall Consistory For if the Church universall be one visible Governing body a man will readily conclude it must have universall Officers and among many there must be some one chief and Christ that hath ordered this hath surely designed by some intimation or other who this should be and where the seat of the Vniversall Church should reside and then how readily will that place of Matthew 16. Thou art Peter c. be understood to place it upon him and his successors and then the question is where hee was Bishop and because the scripture saith nothing therefore * Ecclesiasticall Writers must be credited and then the place is Rome and the rather because 1. Their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World 2. There was the seat of the Empire c. So that this opinion if not in the end of the Authours yet in the Issue of the things leads a man by the hand back to Egypt and Babylon again as it hath done many If it bee replyed No For that in this Vniversall body politique all Churches and their Elders shall be Equall and so in the Generall Councell conveened whereas in the Papacy all
The 5. and last are the Professors of Leyden who say that in the Synod is the top of Authoritie the unitie of the whole Church the establishment of order But they speake of particular Synods in particular Churches And do not subvert what was shewed out of them above In fine he acknowledgeth that the PAPISTS would build their Babell on THIS foundation which I thinke they well may or some-what like it and so I remit this Author to the Reverend Elders of New England who are much more able to deale with him and of some of whom hee will heare about this Argument I suppose very shortly The 5. and last that to my view have appeared in defence of this notion are the London Ministers Before I come to their arguments I shall after the example of a Reverend member of the Assembly do right to some of both sides Principal men there are in those waies and even of the Assembly it selfe whose judgements and practise have not beene truely represented by the Ministers in their Collation of the opinion of the Presbyterians and the Independents I will instance onely in one present question The Independents are said to hold no other Visible Church of Christ but only a single Congregation meeting together in one place to partake of all Ordinances But this is not their opinion That it is essentially required to the very being of a visible Church that it meet in one place they hold it de benè esse for conveniency not absolutely necessary now it is not ingenuous to fasten upon a way or man generally that which some such as wil be in any profession particular and perhaps weak or passionate men may hold 2. These brethren observe not that themselves are in the whole fault of that which the Independents owne in this charge scil. making no other a visible Church then a single Congregation for if the Brethrens opinion bee true the Catholique Visible Church is made but one single Congregation or Corporation though too bigge to meet together but in their Deputies For if it have the same visible Lawes under the same visible order of Officers and these Officers one visible societie or Colledge over each and over the whole then is it as much one particular and single Corporation as Stepny or Cripple-gate Now on the contrary for that opinion that is opposed to this and said to be the judgement of the Presbyterians viz. that there is one General visible Church of Christ on earth whereof all particular Churches and single Congregations are but as similar parts of the whole There is not onely no one Presbyterian could hitherto be shewed to be of that judgement till the sitting of this Assembly in favour of whom Apolonius wrote but also divers above evidenced to be against it and acknowledged so by the Authors of this opinion Plain dealing is the best policie But to their arguments 1. They urge the forenamed place 1 Cor. 12. and say the Apostle speaks of one Generall Church because he saith Church not Churches 2. Because he speaks of it in such a latitude as to comprehend all gifts of the spirit all members all officers ordinary and extraordinary which cannot agree to a particular Church Answ. 1. Wee have shewed that the Church taken essentially is one though Integrally and in respect of its existence and particular government it is as manifold as there are particular Churches Now to the Church in the former sence are those things given all men in essence and nature are one to man in this respects is given Governours and Government arts and gifts c. must all therefore be one Common wealth 2. Or else which I rather adhered to the Church is taken in that place mystically for the whole society or family in heaven and earth as was then evidenced 3. All these Officers and gifts were given to the Church of Corinth immediately though not solely and onely The light of the Sun is given immediately to that particular place on which it shines with all the brightnesse and influence of it but not solely 4. In this superintendency over the whole Church whether severally or joyntly the Scripture hath instituted no Successors to the Apostles 5. By Apostles might be meant the chief Officers of Corinth A second place and wherein they handle this subject more expresly is part 2. chap. 8. where their first Argument is drawne onely from those places that name the Church indefinitely as on this Rock will I build my Church He hath set some in the Church Apostles c. And their second taken from such places as compare all visible Professors to one Organical body which are some of the same places they used in the first Argument as 1 Cor. 12. We being many are one body so Rom. 12. 4. Ephes. 4. 11. Answ. 1. These have been replyed to above 2. They do not make the whole Visible Catholick Church one Organical but one Similar body in our Brethrens first assertion But Organical and Similar are opposite as was shewed in answer to M. Hudson whom in this inconsistencie opinion and expression they have either followed or he some of them 3. Next they endeavour to prove that the word Ministry Ordinances and particularly Baptisme are given to the generall visible Church the method Mr Hudson used Moses mother was his Nurse also whence it will follow that there is a Generall Visible or Catholique Church Therefore I shall take this for a third head of Arguments and Answer to it 1. The word Ministery Ordinances c. all of them are given immediately to every particular Church where they are and where there may be use of them though not solely and the first two places quoted speak immediately of the Church of Ephesus and the third immediately of the Church of Corinth the fourth of the Church at Rome 2. They are given to the Church as one Essentiall or Mysticall body But no way concludes they must bee one Visibly no more then the gifts of Reason Arts Speech the Government of Emperours Kings Princes the order of Inferior and superiour members given by God to mankinde doth prove that therefore all men are one Visible General Corporation or Common-wealth or Integral Organical Similar bodie consisting of parts as a similar body altogether alike and as an organical body of parts heterogene and nothing alike which even a plain Reader will perceive to be as uncouth Logick as Divinity CHAP. VI The Conclusion 1. Corrollaryes 2. A word to the Authors of this Opinion ANd thus by the assistance of God an answer hath been given though 't is like they will not so be answered to these Brethren And therein I hope I have spoken as the oracles of God both for truth and sobernesse Sure I am I have endeavoured though perhaps not without some failing to observe that of the Father Worthy saith one to be written on the chairs of all Divines and Disputants
whereof and commission from which all particular Churches act and to the determinations of the major part whereof they are to yeeld obedience if not apparently contrary to the Word and the Catholick governing power whereof resides immediately as in its proper subject under Christ onely in the Ministers and Elders and they not taken severally but joyntly as one entire Colledge or Presbyterie to whose charge severally and joyntly the whole and every particular Church is committed c or more briefly Whether the whole be one Corporation whereof the Elders joyntly are Governors and the members gouerned CHAP. III. Just Prejudices and strong probabilities against an universal visible Governing Church IT is the custome of warre to skirmish first and to begin with the lighter armed Souldiers this method shall be here followed and first such things as render this opinion vehemently suspicious and questionable Whereof the first is The NOVELTY of it The saying of Tertullian is received Quod Antiquiss Veriss Truth is Ancient and error Novel but M. Noyes would avoid this prejudice where he saith that the Fathers so predicated the unity of an universal Church that they laid foundations for an universal Bishop I shall therefore endeavour to shew the Novelty of it and first absolutely considered in it self Secondly relatively and that first in respect of the Protestant and then of the Presbyterian party 1. Absolutely If we credit the * Centurists the particular Churches in the first hundred of years after the Apostles did exercise all Church-Gouernment within themselves * They did ordain and depose Ministers admonish and excommunicate obstinate offenders held Synods or meetings wherein they determined the affairs of their own body In doubtful cases they consulted with other Churches not by reason of their superiority but upon the ground of common charity But no hint of this Catholick Governing body among them Object But in occasions which concerned many Churches they held that they should be transacted in Synods and Councels and they did accordingly in such meetings exercise superior power in the particular Churches as excommunication ordination deposition of Ministers determining of controversies c. Besides several expressions of the Ancients imply as much To which I answer First To the Synods and Councells That what concerns many should be debated by many c. doth not conclude them a Corporation no more then the common Treaties of Nations in things of joynt concernment Secondly Their exercising the acts above mentioned in their particular Churches and their acting these things in Synods were it is certain at some distance of time and seeing the former way of Government is mentioned first it may well be that the latter came in as the discipline of Churches began to be corrupted and decline to WORLDLY POLICIE which happened in this first age also say the same * Authors 3. It might be by Decree and judgement onely not by actual execution of such things as 1 Cor. 5. I haue determined that when ye are gathered c. and John 4. 2. Christ baptized more Disciples then Iohn though Christ himself baptized not but his Disciples 4. Howsoever their practise in this if it were at the same time and not after Discipline declined must be expounded to be consistent with their other practise within themselves whereby they owned entire and of right Independent power from any other Church or Churches So that in such united Synods or Councells each Church might act its owne power though in union with other and all act as so many several and distinct Churches united not as one entyre universal body in the nature and notion of it different distinct and superior to the particular Churches So that being gathered they had a larger power but not a greater nor another power as a general Councel but as so many particular Churches or Elders congregated They acted not as a Parliament but as a Dyett of so many Free-States Or to take M. Hudsons owne similitude As a heap of stones have no more inward vertue because they are an heap then if they were each one by themselves they have a larger but not a more excellent one or of another kind neither doth the power of working what ever their vertue be agree to them first bebecause they are an heap but because they are stones of such and such a nature So here They might excommunicate then but it might be from their owne heap as we may so speak or Societies onely not as out of the Catholick Visible Church also unlesse per accidens in as much as he that is rightly excommunicated out of one Church is really excommunicated out of all because they are essentially and mystically one and to go by the same rule though formally he may not be so As he that is justly condemned for a Traytor in one of the Kings Dominions is really and vertually condemned in the rest because these Domions are politically one in their head yet may they be Independent one from another in their proper Governments and Rights as was said above concerning England and Scotland Fifthly It was but a voluntary association or by right of Fraternity only and not of onenesse of Corporation which appears by astringing and confining even in after times in some Councells the power of Bishops and Ministers to and within their owne Diocesses and Churches so as to pronounce all the acts they did elsewhere unlesse by call or permission void and of none effect Whether it were judgement ordination excommunication it shall be say they of no force As the Councels and Canon Law are cited by Crakanthorp himself one of our adversaries in this cause So Cyprian saith that Stephan Bishop of Rome put his sithe into other mens Harvest when he endeavoured by authority to restore two whom the Bishops of Spain had deposed Now if they had apprehended the whole Church to be but One Corporation or great Congregation and all the Bishops and Ministers to be over this one Church in common why then though in regard that each man was assigned by the Church to his particular place for the avoyding of confusion such acts out of their owne Churches might be disorderly and irregular yet could they not be formally void for that the whole Church being committed to each and to all they had been within their charge seeing they had an habitual and fundamental right thereunto as being Officers per se and properly of the whole Church and not of any particular Church but by accident onely And let it be remembred that these Constitutions were much later then the Churches we spake of before This for Churches and Councells We come now to particular and those the most eminent persons Let us hear themselves speak First CHRYSOSTOME The Sacrifice or Passeouer was to be eaten in one house and not to be conveied out that is the house is one that hath Christ and the
being in the particulars as a heap of stones in particulars stones the element of water in the particular drops Churches in particular families and families in particular persons and whole things in their parts But t is much that this Authour or Authours a Man-Midvvife may be father also doth not see that his owne similitudes overthroweth his opinion and fully cleareth what is here asserted for none of these things were one if they were not together in one place Were it one heap of stones if one lay at M. Hudsons dore another at M. Calamies the licenser of his book which are many miles asunder and another at a third mans Object 2. But he saith that the Catholick visible Church hath sometimes met as in a general Councel by their Commissioners as a Ministerial Church Catholick Answ. 1. It is utterly denyed that ever there was any general Councel which might be said to be the Catholick Church unto which as himself seems to insinuate the particular Churches sent their Commissioners For 1. They were never sent to all It was the first general and most famous which was called by Constantine called the first Councel of Nice wherein there were 318 Bishops but how many places were there that were Christian over whom Constantine reigned not and he sent but to those under his Dominion 2. It is probable he sent not to all neither for after the Synod he wrote to those that were not there but to the most conspicuous places now we know in a free and lawful Parliament of the Kingdome the smallest Corporations must be sent to 3. He called for the Bishops chieflie if not onely and I hope our Brethren will not defend their being the orderly Representatives of so many Churches as were under them M. Cartwright on Act. 15. and Matth. 18. requires the presence also of the people 4. He not they assumed Governing Catholick power at least Supreme in calling and dissolving the Councel he received the Papers he concluded he dismissed the Bishops c. Moreover here the whole Catholick Church Representative if it were such had one Visible head and that not a Minister but a Magistrate though afterward it turned to a Minister in the Popes of Rome and so in our owne Kingdom It being granted that the whole Nation is one Church the Magistrate being Head of the Nation declareth himself Head of the Church also And this or the other is like to be the issue of this opinion 2. That Society whose members never can have an actual being as such that is not to be defended either to be or to be the first Subject of Church power But the universal Visible Church can never have a being as such that is as one congregated united body consisting of the Elders at least of every particular Church For what place could be capacious to hold them now it hath been shewed that they must all at somtime meet so Now the company though but the Elders of each Church would be innumerable for who shall exclude any Church from sending that professe the name of Christ till excommunicated and who shall do that 2. If we shall adde to this that no Church can delegate or commit to Commissioners their Church power it will strengthen much more the Argument for thence it will follow that they must all personally meet c. A third sort of Arguments is from the Form and Nature of all bodies corporate which consists in order of superior and inferior they are truly described in that definition of Bellarmine before recited a little altered viz. A society of men professing the same Faith Laws partaking of the same Sacraments * oath under lawful Pastors common Magistrates and especially under one chief Priest supreme Magistrate Now in such a body the nature and forme lies not in so many several men or families indued with particular priviledges of their owne and onely coming together and joyning their several interests and priviledges to make up one aggregated priviledge as a heap of stones of many stones or a company of constables of many constables who have no greater or new power by being gathered then if they were but single but the forme and nature of a corporation is that all are bound in one single body under lawes and officers common to all and that of one place distinct from others and their officers made by the consent of the whole or by him or them that represents the whole and are officers to the whole some above other Officers of Officers if the body be great and one for the time above the rest in place and power at least in some kinde and respect as the Speakers in the Houses of Parliament besides the Officers of the particular parts of the Corporation as besides the Aldermen or Constables of several Wards there is the Major c. Object If it be objected that Christ is the absolute King of his Church and that he hath instituted his Corporation different from others by that place Matth. 20. 26. It shall not be so among you Answ. We say so hath he made it different from other Societies in this also that it is not one single corporation as a Kingdome of this World but many in number though one in Nature But if it must be one Corporation though Aristocratical and as a Parliament yet then there ariseth these inconveniences 1. They must existe in some one place at least at some time in their owne persons and alwaies in the persons of those who in the absence of the whole Society are to be the Officers for the execution of the decrees of the Catholick Church and then if any Prince arise that is more potent he will make the seat of the universal Governing Church where he pleases it may be at Rome as Constantine did at Nice for a season 2. Then must the whole Church be governed by some constant and standing Officers that are not Officers but of the whole at least for the time they sit as Corporations that are lesse are governed in ordinary by the Aldermen and Major or Bayliffes Kingdoms in absence of the Representative Kingdom which is a Parliament answerable to a general Councel according to our Brethrens opinion by a King and Councel So must the Church by a Committee at least and a Chayr-man And these two are further evident in as much as whilest the Church-Government had any appearance of Vniversal there was such a set company of Officers and they had a certain place of Residence that they might be resorted to viz. The Apostles at Hierusalem 3. There must be one common form of Faith Discipline Worship and Profession in all particulars the same agreed on and to be formally propounded and taken as occasion shall require by all the beleevers in the World and this forme to be made either in a general Councel or by that Representative Church or Presbyterie 4. Then
TO EACH BELEEVER THEN TO THE WHOLE CHVRCH which I desire may be observed Again He makes the authoritie of a general Councel to depend on that promise When two or three are gathered in my name c. And then saith That this as well agreeth to any particular company of Christians as to a generall Councel 2. It doth not appear to me in those chapters that hee ownes general Councells on any such grounds nor do I see how he can by what he saith on Eph. 4. 11. above cited 3. If these Councells he there approves did excommunicate c. yet he doth not mention his approbation of them in those things and wee may apprehend he might count such actions among those particulars of their failings which he there enumerates 2. After his Argument he makes the objection M. Hudson had done viz. The whole Church hath no visible head Ergo It is no one Visible Corporation or body He replies to this 1. Particular Churches are visible Churches though destitute of Officers But I Reply should they be so if they had not one common bond of particular laws administred by one person or one visible Society of Officers 2. They may all meet as one visible body the universal Church then must either meet so or else have some visible officers universal over the whole Secondly he saith Christ is supposed the Visible Head in some respect Answ. But that is not the question but what visible existent head there is on earth by whom it may appear one Visible bodie As we saw before out of Calvin on Ephes. 4. 11. 2. How can we contain Christ visible properly 3. He saith The Church is one so as to act ordinarily as one divisim dividedly and yet by reason of the mutual consent in all Churches one act of power done in one Church is by authority of the universal Church and reaches to all Churches as excommunication out of one is excommunication out of all But 1. There was never any Society or Corporation that acted as one dividedly and in parts unlesse it did first act as one joyntly together and in a body wherein power was given to such divided bodies to act so unlesse it were upon some sudden and extraordinary accident that required immediate action before the body could convene 2. Every Society though it may act in parts as a Kingdome in severall Corporations and a Corporation in severall Wards or Halls and Companies yet hath it withall one common ordinary and standing officer or officers visible to governe in chiefe to whom all maine causes are referred c. But 3. That the particular Church that acteth in the right of the universall Church by reason of mutuall consent in all Churches is not proved by that medium for mutuall consent may be voluntary and accidentall and so a figure onely whereas hee is to prove that all Churches are necessarily essentially by way of institution and for ever to be one body whether they consent or consent not But a particular Church acteth first In the right of Christ who is the first subject of Church power Matth. 28. 28. Secondly it acteth in the right of a Church that is of a Societie that hath embraced the faith of Christ which as a Church indefinitely and essentially is the next subject of Church power because we see such power committed to every Church so we heard even now Calvin to expound that promise Matth. 18. when tvvo or three are gathered c. which I finde also the forepraised Author to have said before me whom at the writing of this above I had not seene in the particular 4. That he that is excommunicated out of one Church if duely is excluded out of all is not because the whole Church is one visible body but because all the particular Churches agree in nature and essence of Doctrine Worship and Government so that he that is unfit to be a member of one is so of all because they all require the same essentiall conditions as he that is cut off by the hand of Justice for violation of the Lawes of nature in one Common wealth is cut out of all yet it doth not follow that all men are one Common wealth Or as hee that is out-lawed in one Corporation justly is outlawed in all Congregations virtually and upon the matter though not directly and formally till hee be so declared by them if those Corporations go all by the same lawes for substance and government though it doth not follow that these severall corporations are therefore one or under one generall body which as I take it is the case betwixt England and Scotland where by reason of union under one King though the governments remaine distinct yet one that is borne in either Kingdome is not an Alien but a Free-borne Denizon of both and so by consequence as I apprehend for I may be mistaken in a Law notion and I bring it but for illustration hee that is out-lawed in one Kingdome cannot remaine under the protection of the Lawes of the other and yet the bodies are distinct in power and government though not divided wholy but in some respect So in the Church In the third and last place he comes to authorities But here either he cites those who are nothing for him or when they dispute the point professedly are expressly against him as his first Author Chamier who though he say that if not every Pastor yet all of them are set over the whole Church yet when he argueth the point he explaineth himselfe to mean all distributively every one in his charge as all the Maâ—ors and Sheriffes governe the whole Kingdome but not joyntly but severally for hee denyeth such an one visible universall Church as Mr Hudson acknowledged and as we saw before The 2. Are other moderne Divines whom Mr Noyes would have not to consist with themselves whilest they deny an universall visible Church and yet grants Judiciall Power to Synods But it hath beene shewed before that this may be granted though the other be denyed c. The 3. Are the Fathers who he saith so predicated an universall visible Church they laid the foundation for an universall Bishop If so then let this Author take heed he lay not a foundation to raise him out of the grave againe in his Image as I have heard a Reverend Elder of New England called an universal visible Church in respect of the Papacy and to bury the liberties of all the Christian Churches in his grave The 4. Author is Polanus who saith the things of God are administered Synodali {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the determination of the Synod but are confirmed Regia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the Kings authoritie Wee allow the Power of determining with Calvin above cited according to the word of God to Synods and are well content and thankfull that Kings will become Nursing Fathers to the Church