Church-Catholike be one in the external accidental form it must needs be integrally and visibly one But I come to Scripture proofs which are the most sure Sect. 2. because they are a divine testimony And first I shall shew you that an Occumenical universal Church was frequently foretold in Scripture Psa 22.27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship be fore him Which comprehends all places all the ends of the earth and all persons that should be converted all the kindreds of the Nations and by worshipping is meant embracing the true religion and performance of religious duties So Psa 72.8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth It is a prophecy concerning Christ in the times of the Gospel where he is set forth by his Kingly office and the extent of his Kingdom is set out to be to the ends of the earth This is his external political Kingdom because it is set out by the external prayers and prayses and gifts that should be tendred unto him by his Subjects and by the judgement peace and flourishing estate that he shall bestow upon them So Psa 86.9 All Nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee O Lord and shall glorifie thy name This is a prophecy like the former So Isa 2.2 3 4. It shall come to passe in the last daies that the mountain of the Lords house shall be established on the top of the mountains and shall be exalted above the hils and all Nations shall flow unto it and many people shall go and say Come ye let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob and he will teach us his waies and we will walk in his paths For out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem and he shall judge among the Nations and rebuke many people c. Where is set down Christs call of all the Nations and the time of this call in the last daies i. e. the times under the Gospel as the Apostle Act. 2.17 expounds the like phrase in Joel 2.28 And here is the means of the call by the Law out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem and the answer to this call All Nations shall flow unto it and there is Christs executing his prophetical office by publike teaching them in his house by his Ambassadours and his Kingly office in judging and rebuking So Isa 25.6 So Daniel 7.14 There was given unto him Christ Dominion and glory and a Kingdom that all people nations and languages should serve him And in the New Testament Matt. 28.9 Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. Rom. 15.11 12. Rev. 14.6 But because these places will be turned off with this answer that some of all Nations should embrace the Gospel and be turned unto the Lord not the whole Nations I answer that experience hath proved it true of multitudes of great Nations that wholly did embrace the Gospel and submitted unto it Neither can any of these places be avoided as some plead by the general Kingdom of Christ which is given him over all Nations whereby he is head over all things to the Church Eph. 1.2 For it is clear they are meant of that Kingdom wherein are prayers praises gifts worship service and attendance upon Gods Ordinances flowing unto Christ worshipping before him and glorifying his name as the several texts expresse and these things are proper to the visible Church So also Zech. 14.9 And the Lord shall be King over all the earth in that day shall there be one Lord and his name one which is clearly meant of one religion and way of worship of God in Christ But secondly Sect. 3. I will give you places of Scripture where the word Church is applied both indefinitely and generally which cannot be understood of any particular Churches See first Act. 8.3 Saul made havock of the Church To which may be added that of Gal. 1.13 I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it I shewed before that this must needs be a visible Church for they could not else have been persecuted persecution is a visible opposition of a visible Church And certainly Saul could not discern who were of the invisible company but persecuted promiscuously all that were that way Neither was it a particular Church for this persecution was in Jerusalem and in every Synagogue and it reached to Damascus and even to strange cities Act. 26.11 So that by Church here is meant an indefinite number of visible Churches or Congregations which were in no other community but profession of the same faith and an indefinite is equivalent to a general which axiome although it should not be stretched according to the old rule Omne indefinitum potest esse infinitum it being without limits yet it is true in suo genere it is as large as a general But this we may safely say that by the same reason that the word Church would reach all those Churches it would reach all the Churches in the world Reverend M. Hooker excepteth against these two places and affirms that the word Church is taken here by a Synechdoche for the particular Church of Ierusalem and not all that neither but only such Christians as forsook Moses ceremonial Law and not the Christian Jewish Church Surv. c. 15. p. 269. Because saith he his Commission was to pursue such as he found of that way The answer to this exception will lie in the meaning of these words all that he found of that way whether by that way be meant the forsaking the ceremonial Law or confessing Christ to be the Messiah If the former then Paul would have found but little work in Ierusalem for the Jewish Christians did generally cleave to the ceremonial Law As the Elders told Paul Act. 21.20 Thou seest how many myriads of the Jews do believe and they are all zealous of the Law and therefore he needed not persecute them for neglect thereof for they were zealous therein yea the Apostles themselves observed that in Ierusalem a long time But the persecution was such as that they were all scattered abroad except the Apostles and therefore it was for Christianism that he persecuted them It was to cause them to blaspheme as Paul himself expounds it now though reducing of them to the ceremonial Law had been an errour yet it was not a blasphemy for then the Apostles themselves should have lived in blasphemy Surely it was to cause them to blaspheme the Lord Iesus Christ and deny him to be the Messiah It is most likely that Sauls Commission was according the former decree of the chief Priests Ioh. 9.22 That if any did confesse that he was Christ he should be put out of the Synagogue And this appears by what Ananias saith to Christ concerning Paul Act. 9.14
vipers and yet addeth I indeed baptize you with water Matth. 3.7 11. Indeed they confessed their sins and it is like promised amendment and so will the worst in our Congregations doe though they never perform it The ground therefore upon which this supposal is to be must not be any mans personal particular judgement built upon such evidence as may convince the understanding of a judicious experienced Minister or Christian that the persons are truly godly but an Ecclesiastical judgement in foro Ecclesiae raised upon such grounds as the Ministers of God directed by God have formerly gone upon which conditions if they finde they are not to deny administration of the seals unto which are the seals of the visible not invisible Church The same causes and rules are of admission that are of ejection vice versâ and as no man is to be censured and cast out of the visible Church because the Elders particular judgement makes them think the man hath not the true power of godlinesse and grace of God in sincerity except he commit that which deserves an Ecclesiastical censure so neither is admission to be denyed to any man that desires to dedicate himself unto God and will promise and professe subjection to Christ in all his Ordinances though it be suspected by judicious Christians that he hath not the true work of grace in his heart The Church of God in their Ecclesiastical judgement censureth only ignorance errour and scandal A Scholar that is admitted into a school is not admitted because he is doctus but ut fit doctus and if he will submit to the rules of the school and apply himself to learn it is enough for his admission the like may be said of the Church visible which is Christs school Iohn Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually really and compleatly repented and reformed themselves whom he baptized but he baptized them unto repentance Mat. 3.11 and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavour the practice thereof It were a sad case for Ministers if they were bound to admit none or administer the Lords Supper to none but such as were truly godly or that they judged in their conscience to be so or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so I fear the Elders in New-England do not in their consciences judge so of all their members It is not confederation that can give right to Ordinances if by Gods laws they ought not to have them There is a great difference between the visible and invisible Church the rules of the one will not serve for the other No Minister could ever administer the Sacrament without sin if he ought not to administer it to any but such as are truly godly neither hath God given us any rules to judge certainly of the truth of grace in any man but the most judicious Divine in the world may be deceived by a cunning hypocrite And to salve this by saying we ought to think in our conscience that they are godly is vain for as we have no such rule to go by in Gods word so it is very harsh to passe an Ecclesiastical censure upon that ground and the like may be said of denying admission thereupon and it is also a very doubtful rule for a Minister to go by for some men judge very well of him that others judge but slieghtly of and there will be a division among people in their communicating together according to their several judgements one of another still suspecting that they have fellowship with unbeleevers and both Ministers and peoples judgement very very much concerning the same man according to the variety of his carriage there will sometimes be hopes and sometimes fears but Ecclesiastical judgement is not guided by such uncertain variable rules neither in admission nor ejection but upon clear evidence and palpable grounds which must reach all and may be clearly known and proved There are some I finde that distinguish between the qualifications of the members of the Church-Catholike visible and of the members of particular instituted Churches For the former viz. the general membership they acknowledge that these forenamed qualifications will be sufficient and therefore will admit such and their children to baptism which say they is an Ordinance of the Church-Catholike visible and every Minister being a Minister of the Church-Catholike visible besides his particular relation to his particular Congregation may say they administer baptism to them though they be members of no instituted Churches but to make a member of a particular instituted Congregation they require evident signs of true grace and a consent and submission to the Ordinances of Discipline dispensed by the particular Officers But this distinction of qualifications I finde not grounded upon the word of God nor that any should be fit to be members of the Church-Catholike visible and not to be members of a particular visible Congregation If they be brought into Christs sheepfold they are fit to have some of Christs shepheards to take inspection of them if they be admitted into Christs Kingdom City Family they are fit to be under the regiment of some of his Officers If the Ordinances of worship yea the seal of the Covenant be administred to them I see no ground that these should be freed from the Ordinances of Discipline who in all likelihood will stand in most need thereof The great Objection which M. Hooker urgeth against this assertion that the particular Churches are ortae and whereby he would prove the Church-Catholike to be Orta is because if the Church-Catholike be an integral it is made up of the aggregation of the particulars oritur ex illis And every Integrum is in respect of the parts Symbolum effecti And the parts must have a being before the whole can result out of them Answ My main intention in the Question was to prove the Church-Catholike to be the prime Church in those respects which are enumerated in the explication of this part or the predicate of the Question to which I referre you and that the particular Churches are secondary in the same senses also And for the particular Churches being Orta I have already both in the explication of the terms of the Question Chap. 1. Sect. 4. and in this second part expressed my meaning thereof Sect. 1. c. My meaning is not in regard of the aggregation and combination of the particular Churches to make one aggregated combined integral for so indeed the Church-Catholike puts on the notion of orta But I meant it first in regard the particular Congregations are made up of and arise out of the members of the Church-Entitive or of visible beleevers which are the matter thereof And whereas it is objected against this that that Church is no political body haply never had the sight or knowledge one of another never entred into agreement of government one with another and are wholly destitute according to reason and
if that holy men of God M. Hooker were alive I doubt not but he would passe the same judgement upon this Book which he did upon the former The truth is The Question is full of difficulty and intricacy the path in which he walks is an untrodden path and the pains which he hath taken in the compiling of this work and the learning which he hath discovered herein is so great as I am very confident That whosoever reades the Book will commend the Authour and his abilities though he should not in every thing resent his opinion The Scope of the Book is to contend for the extents and rights of Christs political Kingdom in his Church upon earth and to demonstrate the unity of it and thereby to lay a foundation of unity between particular Churches which is as necessary for the preservation of them as purity and verity For a Church divided against it self cannot stand Sad it is to consider That whereas Jesus Christ hath left two waies for the uniting of Christians in faith and love the devil should make use of both of them to disunite and divide us The first is The Sacrament of the Lords Supper which was instituted to be a Feast of Love and a Band of Vnion between Christians but by Satans cunning it hath proved an apple of strife and of great contention not only between the Papists and the Protestants the Lutherans and the Calvinists but between us also and our dissenting brethren The second is The Government of the Church which was ordained by Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as a golden chain to link them together in purity verity and unity to heal breaches and to make us minde the same things and to be perfectly joyned together in the same minde and in the same judgement But by the devils policy whose property it is to bring evil out of good it is become the great bone of contention and a middle wall of partition between Christians and Christians This is a lamentation and shall be for a lamentation But my comfort is That Jesus Christ came into the world to remove the wall of partition that was between Jew and Gentile and to make both one and he is not only a foundation 〈…〉 his people to build their faith and hope upon but also a corner stone to unite beleevers one to another He it is that will shortly remove all these Wals of partition between brethren and will become not only our Redeemer but our Peace-maker For he hath praied for all those that should beleeve in him That they may be one as thou Father art in me Joh. 17.21 22 and I in thee that they also may be one with us that the â—â—â—â—ld may beleeve that thou hast sent me And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them that they may be one even as we are one This Praier will in due time be fulfilled together with those three soul-comforting Prophecies concerning the times of the New Testament Ier. 32.39 Zeph. 3.9 Zach. 14.9 In the mean time it is our duty to study unity as well as purity To this the Apostle exhorts us with great earnestnesse and affection 1 Cor. 1.10 Phil. 2.1.2 3. Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. This the present times call for with a loud voice And this shall be the care and praier of Your unworthy servant in the work of the Ministry EDMUND CALAMY Errata PAge 10. line 16. for priatively reade privatively p. 14. l. 36. for vale e quantums valeat quantum p. 1â— l. 24. for Foance r. France p. 18. l. 5. for Catechism r. Doctrine of the Church correct the like fault p. 7. l. 10. p. 18. l. 37. put a â—â—ddlepoint after these words Members for your part p. 29. l. 5. blot 〈…〉 â—at aliquid significat p 545 l. 34. for or r. for p. 59. l. 31. for visibly r. visible p. 7â— l. 5. blot out not p. 73. l. 32. blot out there p. 74. l. 11. is consisted r. consisteth p. 87. l. 13. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 91. l 4. for for a particular r. of a particular p. 103. l. 34. for set p. 107. l. 18. for chough r. though p. 127. l. 5. for it r. is l. 16. for integrals r. integral p. 136. l. 17. for as well as r. as well as p. 144. l. 20. for to what r. in what p 163. l. 31. for presbyterio r. presbyterio p. 168. l. 5. for no more it is r. no more then it is p. 176. l. 6. for pâ—stors r. pastors p. 191. l. 16. for and Israel r. in Israel p. 194. l. 1â— for diutâ—s r. diuitâ—s p. 201. l. 14. for good r. goods p. 231. l. 1. for Christ r. Christian p. 238. l. 13. for primally r. primarily p. 260. l. 2. for folds r. fields p. 262. l. 5. for two men r. two women This Leaf being forgotten to be inserted in the former part of this Thesis it was thought fit to adde it here M. Norton a reverend Minister in N. E. in his Treatise of the Doctrine of Godlinesse printed since his answer to Apollonius defineth the Church-Catholike to be the number of the elect and redeemed whom God hath called out of the world unto a supernatural estate and communion of grace and glory with himself in Jesus Christ And affirms that there is but one Catholike Church because there is but one faith And then comes to distinguish this Catholike Church in respect of its adjuncts into invisible and visible And then defines a visible Church to be a similar part of the Catholike Church consisting of a competent number knit together by way of visible Covenant to exercise an holy communion with God in Christ and so one with another according to the order of the Gospel And then distinguisheth this visible Church into pure and impure impure into 3. branches viz. Simply erring Schismatical Heretical And then makes the matter of this visible Church to be Saints i. e. visible beleevers From whence we have these concessions 1. That there is a Church-Catholike which is but one 2. That this Church Catholike is visible yea let me adde further out of his answer to Apollonius Politica visibilitas est adjunctum respectu Ecclesiae Catholicae pag. 87. i. e. political visibility is an adjunct in respect of the Church-Catholike 3. That this Church-Catholike is an integral 4. That the particular Churches are similar parts of that integral 5. That these particular Churches consist of visible beleevers which as himself in his answer to Apollonius confesseth are not all Saints in truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but many of them only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in appearance 6. That some of these visible Churches may be impure not only simply erring but schismatical yea heretical But saving my honourable respect to so worthy a man I cannot see how these things are consistent with his definition of the Church-Catholike for how can the
Church-Catholike consist only of the elect redeemed ones called out of the world into a supernatural estate and yet the particular Churches which are similar and constituent parts of it consist of members that are 〈◊〉 of them only Saints in appearance and not in truth yea some whole Churches erring schismatical 〈…〉 maâ—tâ—â— as the particular visible Churches which are the members of the Catholike consist of such must the Church Catholike consist of which is the similar integral And though such as are only Saints in appearance and not in truth are said by M. Norton in his answer to Apollonius p. 87. to be equivocal members of particular Churches yet are they as truly members of the whole as they are of the parts and they are so for true as that their external communion and administrations if any such be Officers are true and valid both in respect of the particular Churches and the Catholike quond 〈◊〉 â—â—â—station And it is his own rule Resp p. 88. Quicquid inest parti inest toti that which is in the part is in the whole And again he saith Ecclesiae Catholica Ecclesiae particulares communicant essentiâ nomine Ecclesiae particulares pro varijs earum rationibus habent se ut partes ut adjuncta Ecclesiae Catholicae Ex naturâ ex ratione sunt ut res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. similares ut mare appellatur aqua ita qualibet gutta maris appellatur aqua Resp pag. 87. therefore they must needs consist of the same kinde of matter as they are both visible A TABLE Of the chief things contained in this Tractate CHAPTER 1. The explication of the terms of the Question Page 1. Section 1. WHat is meant by Ecclesia or Church It is taken in a civil and theological sense In a theological sense 1 Primarily and properly for the whole company of the elect which is called the Invisible Church 2 2 For the company of visible beleevers 3 For the members as distinct from the Officers of the Church 4 For the Elders or governours of the Church as distinct from the body 3 5 For the faithful in some one family 4 Section 2. What is meant by visible The distinction of the visible and invisible Church opened The difference between visible visum The Churches mentioned in the N. T. were visible Churches 6 An Objection of the absurdity of wicked mens being members of the body of Christ answered by a distinction of Christs body The distinction of the Church into visible and invisible is not exact 8 The invisible members of the Church are also visible What a Church visible is 9 The description vindicated from some objections against it 10 Section 3. What is meant by Catholike universal or oecumenical 11 Four acceptations of the word Catholike and which of them suit the question What the universal visible Church is 12 Diverse descriptions of it and quotations out of Divines both ancient and modern about it 13 What a National Church is 15 Diverse proofs from Scripture for a National Church under the Gospel The description of a particular visible Church given by Gersom Bucerus scanned 17 Mr Cottons description of a visible 18 Four Quaeries about it propounded 1. Whether the matter of it consisteth only of Saints called out of the world 2. Whether every particular visible Church be a mystical body of Christ or but only a part of it seeing Christ hath but one mystical body in the same sense 3. Whether the form of a particular visible Church be a particular Covenant 19 4. Whether all the Ordinances of God can be enjoyed in a particular visible Church 20 Which for some of them seemeth very inconvenient And for others impossible M. Nortons description of a particular Church 22 A Congregational Church standing alone hardly found in the New Testament Section 4. What is meant by prima vel secundaria orta 23 The primity of the Church-Catholike in a threefold respect 24 The difference between this question and M. Parkers Chapter 2. Proofs by Scripture for a Church-Catholike visible 25 Section 1. Our Divines in answer to the Papists mean by Church-Catholike the invisible Church only 26 Yet is there also an external visible Kingdom of Christ as well as an internal and invisible M. Hookers acknowledgement of a political body or Kingdom of Christ on earth 27 D. Ames testimony of a Church-Catholike visible 28 Section 2. Diverse proofs out of the Old Testament for a Church-Catholike visible 29 Section 3. Diverse proofs out of the New Testament for a Church-Catholike visible 31 Act. 8.3 and Gal. 1.13 vindicated Act. 2.47 vindicated 33 1 Cor. 10.32 vindicated 35 Gal. 4.26 opened 37 Eph. 3.10 vindicated 38 Section 4. 1 Cor. 12.28 vindicated 39 Two answers of M. Hookers concerning this text considered 40 Diverse answers to this text by M. Ellis refuted 41 An Objection of M. Hookers about Deacons set in the same Church where Apostles were set answered 51 Section 5. 1 Tim. 3.15 vindicated 53 Diverse texts vindicated where the Church-Catholike is called the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven 55 Mr Hookers answer to those texts considered 1 Cor. 15.24 vindicated 56 Heb. 12.28 vindicated 57 Section 6. 1 Cor. 5.12 vindicated 58 Eph. 4.4 5. vindicated 59 Mat. 16.18 vindicated 60 M. Hookers acknowledgement that this text is meant of the visible Church 61 3. Ep. of John ver 10. vindicated 62 Chapter 3. Proofs by arguments and reason that there is a Church-Catholike visible 64 Section 1. 1 From Gods donation unto Christ of an universal Kingdom 2 From Gods intention in sending Christ and the tenour of Gods exhibition of Christ in his word to the whole world 65 3 From the general preaching and receiving of the Gospel 66 4 From the general Charter whereby the Church is constituted Section 2. 5 From the generality of the Officers of the Church and general donation of the Ministry 67 6 From the general vocation wherewith and general Covenant whereinto all Christians are called 68 7 From the generality of the initial seal admittance and enrowlment 69 8 From the external catholike union between all visible Christians 70 Section 3. 9 From the individual system or body of laws proceeding frrm the same authority whereby the whole is governed 10 From the general external communion intercourse and communication between all Christians 71 11 From the general extension of excommunication 73 12 If there be parts of the Church-Catholike there is a whole Section 4. Many metaphors in Scripture setting forth the whole Church under an unity 74 Chapter 4. That the Church-Catholike visible is one Integral or Totum integrale Section 1. First Negatively that it is not a Genus 77 1 Because a Genus is drawn by mental abstraction of species but the Catholike visible is made up by conjunction or apposition of the several members 2 A Genus hath no existence of its own which the Church-Catholike visible
hath 3 It appears by the definition of a Genus both according to the Ramists and Aristotelians neither of which can agree to the Church-Catholike Section 2. Secondly Affirmatively that it is an Integral 79 1 Because it hath an existence of its own which no Genus hath 2 Because the particular Churches constitute the Oecumenical which hath partes extra partes 3 Because it is made up not only of particular Churches but of particular beleevers also 4 Because it hath accidents and adjuncts of its own existing in it 80 It is capable of being greater or lesse It is mutable and fluxile 81 It is measured by time and place Section 3. 5 Because it hath admission into it nutrition and edification in it and ejection out of it 6 Because it hath a head and Governour of the same nature as man and Officers on earth that are habitually indefinite Officers to the whole 82 7 Because it hath actions and operations of the whole 8 It appears by the several appellations given to it in the Scripture 84 9 It appears by the Scripture-expressions of the union of the members of the whole Church 86 10 Because the invisible Church may in some sense be called an integral therefore much more the visible 87 Section 4. An Objection from the possible contraction of the Church-Catholike into narrow limits answered Whether every essential predication will make the arguments to be Genus and Species 89 Whether the right to the Ordinances and priviledges of the Church arise from the common nature and qualifications in beleevers or from a Covenant 90 If from a Covenant whether from a particular Covenant between man and man or the general Covenant between God and man The variation of situation or accidents vary not the species 91 The method of conveyance of the right of Church-priviledges asserted 94 The particular Churches are similar parts and parcels of the Church-Catholike 95 As the several Synagogues were of the Jewish Church Meer cohabitation makes not a man a member of a Church Yet for a visible beleever to inhabit within the limits of any particular Church and not to be a member of it implyeth it either to be no Church or a very corrupt one 96 Chapter 5. That the Church-Catholike is visible 97 Section 1. There is an invisible company or Church of Christ But that is not meant in this Question Four distinctions of visible 98 What kinde of visibility is here meant Section 2. Arguments to prove the Church-Catholike to be visible 1 Because the matter thereof is visible 99 2 Their conversion is visible 4 Because their profession subjection obedience and conversations are visible 100 4 Because the Officers of the whole Church are visible 101 5 Because the admittance into and ejection out of the whole are visible 102 Section 3. 6. Because the Doctrine Laws Ordinances and Covenant of the whole are visible An Objection of M. Hookers against this answered 103 7. Because all the administrations dispensations and operations of the whole are visible An Objection against this answered 8. Because it is our duty to joyn our selves visibly thereto 104 9. Because the accidents of the whole Church are visible 10. Because the several parts of the whole Church are visible 105 Section 4. Some Objections of M. Ellis answered The Church-Catholike which our Divines in opposition to the Papists speak of is not the same with this which is meant in this question 107 Neither can that Church-Catholike be considered as a Genus which this is affirmed by our brethren to be 109 Section 5. An Objection against the visibility of the Church-Catholike because it wants an existence of its own answered 111 Another Objection from the necessity of the whole to meet together sometimes answered 113 Some exceptions of M. Ellis answered About general Councels and their power 116 Section 6. Another Objection from the necessity of a visible head of the Church-Catholike visible answered 117 How Christ may be said to be a visible head 118 Some exceptions against Christs visible headship answered 119 Another Objection viz. that the Church-Catholike is an article of our faith and therefore cannot be visible answered 121 Chapter 6. That the Church-Catholike visible is an Organical yet similar body Yea one Organical body 123 Section 1. That particular Churches are or ought to be organized Section 2. That particular Churches thus organized are similar integral parts of the whole 124 This assertion vindicated from M. Ellis's charge of a contradiction The similarity of the Churches asserted by D. Ames and M. Bartlet c. 125 It neither crosseth mine own scope nor Apollonius as is suggested 126 Section 3. The Church-Catholike is one Organical body 127 The distinction of the Church into Entitive and Organical Whether the Church or the ministry be first 128 An explication how the Church-Catholike may he said to be one Organical body and how not 129 Section 4. Arguments to prove the Church-Catholike one Organical body 131 1. From the metaphors whereby it is set out in Scripture It is set out by a natural body 133 By a political body as a Kingdom City Army By an Oeconomical body 134 2. Because a baptized person is admitted a member of the whole Also because excommunication ejecteth out of the whole Certificates indeed were sent from one Church to another to signifie the inflicting of the censure but no new act passed 3. It appears by the Identity of the Covenant Charter Promises and Laws of the whole 135 4. By the general communion that all the members of the Church-Catholike have indefinitely with other members or Churches whereever providence cast them 136 5. From the opposition which the adversaries of the Church make against it as one organical body 137 Section 5. 6. By the indefinitenesse of the Office of Ministers This Indefinitenesse appears 1. From the generality of the Donation Institution and Commission of the Evangelical Ministry 138 They bear a double relation one to the whole Church another to the particular 139 M. Rutherford M. Balls Crakenthorp and Salmasius cited 140 Section 6. 2. From the subject matter whereabout their office is exercised which is common to all 141 3. From the end of the ministerial function which cannot otherwise be attained 142 4. From the actions which every Minister doth perform by vertue of his office indefinitely 143 Section 7. 5. From the double relation which private members bear one to whole another to the particular Church 147 6. From the great absurdities which otherwise will follow 148 Section 8. Obj. Then ordinary Ministers differ nothing from Apostles and Evangelists answered 150 Chapter 7. About Combinations of particular Congregations in Classes and of them in Synods 151 Section 1. A double integrality of the Church First Entitive Secondly Organical A double combination one habitual another actual 152 Section 2. The combining of particular Congregations into a Classis 153 Scripture-proofs and Instances thereof 154 Reasons to prove the necessity of it 156
Section 3. Concerning Synods 158 The authours that handle this subject The nature kindes and authority of Synods 159 Section 4. A threefold power of Synods Dogmatical Diatactical Critical 160 A ground of a Synod in Scripture acknowledged by our Protestant Divines 161 The Synod Act. 15. exerted all those three kindes of power 162 Section 5. About the equality of power of single Congregations 163 Their subordination to the combined 164 This subordination is also a coordination Scripture-proofs for this subordination And reasons for it 165 The like subordination found in the Jewish Church And is dictated by light of nature and common to all societies Section 6. Divers Objections answered As 166 Obj. Then there must be 2. kindes of Presbyteries Then every particular Minister hath a very transcendent power and authority 167 Then they are standing-Officers of the Christian world 168 Then they are Christs Vicars general 169 Section 7. Then the Church of the whole world should choose every Officer 170 Divers exceptions of M. Ellis's 171 Section 8. Then the whole is to honour and contribute to the maintenance of of every Minister 173 Then the Ministers perform not their whole office to the Congregation that maintains them 174 This will be too great a burthen for Ministers to meddle in the affairs of many Congregations Then Ministers exercise rule where they do not ordinarily preach so the keys should not be commensurable 175 Section 9. This was a grand objection formerly against the Bishops that they ruled where they preached not 176 Then great and stubborn persons will never be brought to censure This will occasion much trouble and charge to the partie grieved Synods are in danger of erring as well as particular memberships 177 Section 10. The liberty of appeals proved But why then should Christ let his Church want general Councels so long 178 But how then dare particular Churches abrogate the decrees of general Councels 179 Chapter 8. An answer to M. Ellis's Prejudices Probabilities and Demonstrations against an universal visible and as he cals it governing but should have said organical Church And his wrong stating of the Question rectified 180. Section 1. What M. Ellis denyeth to be the question 1. He saith it is not meant of the essential onenesse Answ But this is meant and is the foundation of the other 2 It is not saith he meant of engagement to mutual care one of another 182 Answ Not amicitial or fraternal only but authoritative the greater part to regulate the lesse 3 Nor is it meant saith he of a voluntary association as occasion requires for mutual assistance Answ Their association though it be necessary yet it is voluntary but not arbitrary 4 Nor is it meant saith he whether all or most Churches may occasionally become one by messenger in a general Councel 183 Answ This is the highest effect this unity produceth Section 2. What M. Ellis grants in this question 1 An authoritative power from Christ to make directions and rules to which the conscience is bound to submit and which are to be obeyed not only because materially good but because formally theirs Answ This is even as much as the Presbyterians desire But this he denies to be done by Church-Officers as Officers 184 2 If the universal Church were convenible he grants what is contended for Answ The parts may rule themselves being similar as well as the whole the whole 185 Section 3. M. Ellis's corrupt stating of the question in divers places 186 Apollonius and the London-Ministers vindicated 187 The particular Churches act not by commission from the general 188 The whole company of Christians on earth are not in their ordinary setled Church-constitution one single actual Corporation but habitual 189 Yet there may be causes to draw the Officers of many Congregations together yea haply some Officers from the whole Church if it could be occasionally 190 The Ministers are not actually Ministers of the whole Church but habitually They are given to the whole Church as the Levites to the whole house of Israel 191 Section 4. Answers to M. Ellis's prejudices probabilities and demonstrations 192 His Objection of novelty answered That the Church is one habitually and that the particular Churches bear the relation of members to it is not novel That the Ministers are Ministers beyond their own Congregations and can perform duties authoritatively is not novel Divers instances given thereof out of Scripture Divers Canons regulate Ministers in the exercise of their functions abroad but none deny them power 193 Divers instances out of antiquity 194 Frequent coventions of Synods and Councels anciently and their acting authoritatively 196 Five answers of M. Ellis's hereunto considered of 197 Section 5. M. Ellis's witnesses against the unity and integrality of the Church considered viz Chrysostome Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Augustine Eucherius and the Councel of Trent 198 That it is not novel in respect of Protestant Divines 201 Some quotations out of Calvin c. 202 Section 6. M. Ellis's prejudice from the dangerous consequences of this opinion answered 203 Section 7. Another prejudice that it is Papal and Antiprotestant answered 205 Section 8. M. Ellis's arguments answered 206 His first argument from the silence of the Scripture herein 2 From the institution of Christ 207 3 From the first execution of the greatest act of intire power exerciseâ— in a particular Congregation 1 Cor. 5. 208 4 Because entire power was committed to particular men viz. the Apostles severally and to all joyntly 5 From the reproofs given by Christ to the 7. Churches of Asia in the Revelation Section 9. His second sort of arguments from the matter and members of the Church answered 209 Section 10. A third sort of arguments is from the form and nature of all bodies and corporations which consist of superiour and inferiour answered 210 Six pretended inconveniences answered 211 Section 11. A fourth sort of arguments from the authours of this opinion answered 212 An objection That the whole world is one humane society and yet this makes them not one Kingdom politically answered 213 The second Question Whether the Church-Catholike visible or the particular Churches be first Section 1. What kinde of priority is meant here 216 First Negatively not a priority of time 2 Not in regard of constitution by aggregation and combination 3 Not in regard of ordinary operation But positively the visible Church-Catholike is prime 1 In Gods intention 217 2 In regard of Gods institution 3 In regard of Gods donation of Ordinances and priviledges 4 In regard of dignity 5 In regard of perfection 6 In regard of the essence or entitivenesse 7 In regard of efficient ministerial causality 218 8 In regard of distinct and perfect knowledge or noscibility The difference between ortum and secundarium Section 2. The first argument for the priority of the visible Church-Catholike from the names that are given to the Church in Scripture 219 The second argument is because the Covenant Promises Laws and
Priviledges primarily belong to the Catholike Church The Covenant commission for gathering the Evangelical Church the promises made to it and Laws of it proved to be universal 220 The Priviledges are also catholike First Federal holinesse is a priviledge of the Catholike Church 221 Secondly Right to the Ordinances of Christ 222 Proved in regard of Baptism 223 And the Lords Supper 224 Hearing of the word and joyning in Praier 225 The query about the Ordinances of Discipline discussed 226 1 Every member of the Church though but entitive is bound to submit thereto 2 Every Minister hath an habitual indefinite power annexed to his office to administer them 3 The Ordinances of discipline were first given to general Pastors 227 4 The censures dispensed have influence into the whole Church 5 Otherwise great inconvenience will follow 6 All polities administer justice to strangers offending within their limits And the like power must be allowed to Ecclesiastical polities Section 3. The third argument is because Christs Offices are first intended for and executed on the Church-Catholike 228 The fourth argument is because the signs to difference the true Church from a false belong primarily to the whole 229 The fifth argument is because all the members are members of the Church-Catholike primarily 230 Both those that are born members and those converted This illustrated by three similitudes 231 Section 4. The sixth argument is because the Ministers are primarily Ministers of the Church-Catholike 232 Diverse proofs hereof The absurd consequences of binding the Ministers office to his particular Congregation only 233 The Ministers office and power ceaseth not by the dissolution of his particular flock 235 An Objection against this by M. A. and M. S. taken from the ceasing of the ruling Elder or Deacons office at such dissolution answered 236 It appears because the censure of excommunication inflicted by particular Officers reacheth the whole Church-visible 237 The distinctions of formally and virtually and of antecedenter consequenter discussed 238 It appears also because particular Officers admit into the Church-Catholike by baptism 239 Baptizing is an act of the ministerial office All are baptized into one body Many examples of persons baptized without relation to any particular Congregations Though it be objected that this was done by extraordinary Officers yet this salves it not because if it be an Ordinance belonging to particular congregational members these being not so they could have no right to receive it no jus in re 240 Some are called Ministers in Scripture in regard of more Congregations then one 241 And ruled in common over more Congregations then one Section 5. The seventh argument is because every Christian bears his first relation to the Church Catholike and that relation continueth last and cannot be broken off without sin 242 Hence strangers tried where they reside for the present Ephesus commended for trying strangers Rev 2.2 Non communion is a sentence denounced against strangers Hereticks and false teachers not fixed must not be suffered It is no sin to remove from one Congregation to another 243 The eighth argument is because particular Churches spring from the Church-Catholike and are an additament thereto 244 The Church-Catholike is as the main Ocean and the particular as the arms thereof A double rise of particular Churches out of the Catholike 245 First They are made up of members of the Church-Catholike i. e. of visible beleevers Secondly They finde the Church-Catholike constituted and invested before their addition 1 The Church-Catholike is instrumental to their conversion 2 And gives them ministerially their admittance both into the Church entitive and organical Section 6. What is sufficient in foro externo to make a man a member of the Church-Catholike visible 246 The absurdities of accounting true beleevers only members of the visible Church Apollonius and Mr Norton cited Obj. Holinesse of dedication is founded on holiness of sanctification answered 247 Instances out of the Old and New Testament for the contrary Personal and Ecclesiastical judgement differ 248 The rules of the invisible Church serve not for the visible There are the same qualifications for the members of the Church-Catholike visible as for the particular Churches 249 Two Objections against the priority of the Church-Catholike answered 250 The conclusion of the premises 253 Section 7. Corollaries from the former Thesis 254 24 Corollaries concerning the Church-Catholike 12 Concerning particular Churches 255 7 Concerning the publike Officers of the Church 256 12 Concerning private members 257 Section 8. An application of the Thesis bewailing our division 258 First in judgement 259 Diverse errours reckoned up that are broached Secondly in heart and affections 260 Thirdly in way or practice 261 An exhortation to unity in all these 3. respects 262 THE ESSENCE AND VNITY OF THE Church Catholike visible c. QUEST Vtrum Ecclesia visibilis universalis sive Oecumenica sit prima vel secundaria orta a particularibus Whether the vis Ch. Cath. or the particular Churches be first CHAPTER I. The Explication of the Tearms FOR the handling of this Question here are these four tearms to be opened First What is meant by Ecclesia or Church Secondly What by visibilis or visible Thirdly What is meant by universalis sive oecumenica or universal and oecumenical Fourthly What by prima and orta or the first Church and that which riseth of it or secondary 1. First What a Church is SECT 1. The word Church is taken in a civil or theological sense In a civil sense for a company of people summon'd or gathered together for some civil affairs Acts 19.39 It shall be determined in a lawfull assembly the word in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church Yea even the rout met together Acts 19.41 is called Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He dismissed the assembly or the Church as the word is in the Original Secondly In a theological sense it signifieth a company of people that are called or to be called and joyned together standing in some spiritual relation to God And so the word is taken diversly First and most properly for the whole company of the elect as they are opposed to the reprobates whether Jew or Gentile and in this sense it is taken Ephes 5.25 26. As Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word So vers 23 27. and 32. Again Col. 1.18 His body the Church Interdum cum Ecclesiam nominant eam intelligunt quae rever à est coram Deo in quam nulli recipiantur nisi adoptionis gratiâ filij Dei sunt spiritus sanctificatione vera Christi membra Ac tunc quidem non tantum sanctor qui in terra habitant comprehendit sed electos omnes qui ab origine mundi fuerunt Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect 7. where you may see more of this subject Of these there are three sorts The first are elect uncalled
he speaks as well of in particular Church as of the general And to avoid the dirt of this Fort or Aâ—bâ—â—â—â—â— is he taâ—â— it viz. 1 Cor. 12.28 He brings in two significations of the word Apostle which worth alone saith he is the ground of the Objection And saith if we take the word for such Officers as were sent out with commission from any Church upon special occasion which is the literal signification of the word and is so taken 1 Cor. 8.23 of Barnabas and Phil. 2.25 of Epapbroditum so the Argument hence were voided Answ But there is not the least probability that the Apostle in setting down the Officers of the Church both extraordinary and ordinary should set down occasional messengers first before Prophets and Teachers And in Ephes 4.11 keeping the same Order should preferre them before Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers And leave out in both places the highest office in the Church viz. Apostleship especially considering that the Apostle there doth not set down the Officers â—aptim promiscously but addeth an ordinal numeral with them first Apostles secundarily Prophets But again If it be taken properly in that he applieth his speech particularly though not exclusively to the Corinthians ye are the body of Christ to wit ye are a particular body and members in particular and so Chap. 3.21 22. All are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephar or life or death all are yours and ye Corinthians Christs Where all are the whole Churches and each Churches in particular as their occasions require each in their order He might also have said and each particular member So that the sense is saith he he hath given or set in the Church i. e. in this Church of Corinth and so in that of Ephesus c. Some Apostles c. as their need shall require yet not therefore making them one external society among themselves As some general Officers make not England and Scotland one Kingdom Answ M Ellis goes upon a mistake in all his book The Presbyterians say not that the Church-Catholike visible is one external constant actual society but habitual or in actu primo or constantly and actually in actu secundo sive exercite the regiment is exercised in the particular Churches or vicinities yet hath the whole Church or some great parts of it some common interests that may require to be handled in Synods and Councels by their combined or delegated Officers occasionally and those Officers therein act not as private men but as Officers and may exert their indefinite habitual power annexed to their office for the good of the whole or of so great a part of the Church-Catholike as did delegate them And as for the parallelling Apostles and Prophets in this case with life and death it is not equal for God did not set life and death as Officers in the Church but they are general accidents to the whole world over-ruled by God for the good of his people All things work together for the good of them that love him But in that he grants the word Church to extend to Corinthians and Ephesians c. he must grant it to comprehend all the Churches as well as them and that they all are one Church habitually having then some general Officers over them viz. Apostles Prophets Evangelists and Teachers and the same Apostle the same Prophet and the same Teacher if need required in any of them But fearing he could not keep that battery he retreats to a fourth and saith that though by Church were meant the Church-Catholike visible yet it follows not that because it was so then and in respect of the Apostles that therefore it was to be so to the end of the world and in it self pag. 37. Answ it is true it was not Christs minde that the extraordinary office of Apostleship should continue there were to be no more such men of extraordinary gifts and divine immediate mission of an infallible spirit that had actual regiment over the Churches of the whole world without any delegation from others but by immediate commission from Christ But how comes that which was an integrum in the Apostles daies to be now sublimated into it genus and lose the integrality and so prove a second notion existing only in intellectu nostro Did it cease to be one body as soon as the Apostles were all dead seeing the same doctrine worship laws discipline enrowlment by baptism confirmation and communion in the Lords Supper continued still and the liberty of all the members of the whole Church to communicate in these in any place of the world where they become though but occasionally continue still And by the same reason the habitual power in actu primo which the Officers have to dispense the Ordinances of God may be drawn forth in any part of the Church in actum secundum upon an occasion and call according to their measure which the Apostles had habitually and actually every where both in actu primo secundo extraordinarily Yea but saith he the Churches were not one in themselves but one in the Apostles and that by accident as England and Scotland were one in the King because he governed both Israel and Judah in David the whole world one in Nebuchadnezzar But they are not therefore one considered in themselves Vind. p. 37. Answ I grant the Church was but accidentally and temporarily one in regard of the Apostles but integrally one in it self It was not one because that they were set over it but it was one in it self integrally because Christ is set over it and therefore they by commission from Christ were set over it extraordinarily for the present good and necessity thereof An Empire being made one under one Emperour hath imperial laws and constitutions which being divided under divers governours it loseth again and ceaseth to be an Empire but the Church hath the same laws under the same head that it had then and ever shall have The world was one Empire under Darius by imperial laws not because the three Presidents were set over it neither did it cease to be so by their death or ceasing So c. But fifthly saith he though we grant that while the Apostles were living there was one body of Officers over the whole Church and so in respect of them the Church might be said to be one governed body yet it was never one governing body for whilest the Apostles lived the universal governing power was committed to the Apostles only and not with them to any other Officers or Churches no not to all the Churches together but they with their Officers were all in subjection to them Answ I acknowledge the Church-Catholike was never one governing body although M. Ellis is pleased to set down that expression in capital letters in the frontispiece of his book and upon the top of every page and in divers other places as the opinion of the Presbyterians But where doth he finde any such expression in
their writings It may more truly be affirmed to be the opinion of some of our brethren of the Congregational way who put government into the body of the Congregation whether M. Ellis be of that opinion or no I cannot say and so they are a particular governing body and if all the Churches in the world were of that way as certainly they desire and these Churches might in any sense be called one Church as is confest by all that they may then they must needs be one governing body But as they are now they not only govern their own body but passe the censure of Non-communion against all persons nay whole Churches if they judge there be cause But the Presbyterians hold that governments belong to the Organs i. e. the Officers of the Church not to the body It is for good of the body but belongs not to the body to exercise The Church-Catholike is the subject in quo exercetur or cui datur non ad utendum sed ad fruendum Neither are the Officers of the Church-Catholike one constant collective governing body actually but habitually for constantly and actually they are distributed into several Congregations for the exercise of government there But if the necessity of the whole when it could be or of any great part of the body call the Officers of many particular Churches together which may be by themselves or their Commissioners then can they exercise their office collectively conjunctim yet only according to the word of God And this M. Ellis granteth in effect p. 7.8 only he saith their power being met is only consultatory and suasory not obligatory it is the acting of officers but not as Officers but I suppose he cannot think that consultatory and suasory power is sufficient to cure the Church of the malady of obstinate hereticks whose mouths saith the Apostle must be stopped And though the universal constant actual power of government was given to the Apostles only yet we see they did joyn with the particular Elders in the government of their Churches when they were among them and did also joyn them with themselves in making decrees to binde the Churches Act. 15.6 and Act. 16.4 But fearing lest he had granted something too much in his former answer he plucks away part of it in his sixt and saith that the Apostles were not one joint Ministery For besides that each had intire power some had one part committed to them and some another Thomas sortitus est Parthiam Andreas Scythiam Johannes Asiam c. Answ The Apostles did first act in Jerusalem as one joint combined ministery and did afterward disperse themselves into several parts of the world according to their commission yet retained their power of uniting and acting together jointly without any delegation or commission from any Churches and this power of their 's no ordinary Ministers lay claim to And though the planting and watering of Churches required this dispersion and several lots voluntarily yet were they fixed in no Congregation as Elders are Seventhly He denyeth the consequence of a Church-Catholike visible from that place and that he proves by a parallel supposing such like words had been said of the whole world for civil government his words are these If it follow not when we say God hath set in the world some Emperors some Kings some Princes some inferiour Officers and Magistrates therefore the world is but one governing Kingdom and all particular Kingdoms do but govern in the right of the Kingdom of the world in common the Officers whereof are the Kings of the several Kingdoms c. Neither doth it follow that because the Scripture saith God hath set some in the Church Apostles c. therefore the Church throughout the world is but one Congregation to whose Officers first as the general Officers of the whole Church not by way of distribution but as a notionally at least collected body of Officers the power of government is committed c. Answ He hath not paralleled the question rightly but it should run thus Suppose there were one Emperour over all the Kingdoms of the earth and he should set down one form of government and enrowlment for freedom in the whole world for such as will be his subjects and should first set 12 Presidents over the whole world to abide so for their life time as extaordinary Officers and for ordinary standing Officers should set in the several Provinces or Kingdoms several Officers that should rule under him or them in their several places and yet appoint that as every free member of the whole though his fixed habitation be in one place yet is free of the whole habitually and upon occasion can make use of it to trade freely in any place so the several governours though ordinarily fixedly and actually they constantly govern their own Provinces yet upon occasion of difference danger or for the good of the whole or any great part of the same they shall have power to convene either all if it may be or some of them by way of delegation to act for the good of the whole or so many Provinces as the matter concerns and their delegation is for Whether would not this prove the world one intire Empire and body politick habitually And so is the case of the Church-Catholike But take earthly monarchies as they have been on earth and we finde that the several kingdoms of the Empires did enjoy their several liberties with respect had to the whole that nothing should be prejudicial to the Empire that the Emperour should have no damage Dan. 6.2 And yet in reference to the Emperour and some certain common laws they were one monarchy Because the Emperour could send messengers and Officers of any countrey and commands to them all and all were to take care in their places for the whole though haply there was no general convention of all Officers and to keep as much as lay in them neighbour Kingdoms from rebelling even where they had no ordinary jurisdiction and to subdue them to the Emperour if they did rebel and yet not retain ordinary power over them Now these things agree to this spiritual monarchy the Church yea and much more For they are all one in the head one in all the laws and in one form of government and ought all to do what they do in reference to the whole as to admit every where into the whole by baptism to eject out of the whole by excommunication to keep any neighbour Church from defection and to reduce them if fallen off though they have no ordinary jurisdiction over them Christ can send a Minister out of any Kingdom into any not only occasionally pro tempore as a messenger but settle him there as an Officer and call back or remove him any whither else And therefore the Church-Catholike is one Kingdom in general and yet particular rights and liberties of particular Churches be preserved so far as may stand with the good of the
be spoken in regard of the invisible company only the better part yet to them as visible and as terrible by discipline And 2 Thes 2.4 It is said of Antichrist that he as God sitteth in the temple of God By Temple is meant the Church of God and this a visible Church yet no particular Congregation but the general Church-Catholike or at least the greatest part of it for it is said Rev. 13.3 All the world wondred after the beast And Rev. 17.1 She is said to sit upon many waters which are as is expounded vers 15. Peoples and multitudes and Nations and tongues And Rev. 18.3 It is said that All Nations have drunk of the wine of her fornication and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her Yea the holy Ghost chooseth to joyn many particular Churches together by Nouns collective Nouns of multitude in the singular number Remarkable is that 1 Pet. 5.2 where writing to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia he cals them all one flock Feed the flock of God which is among you And from this place M. Bayns granteth that all the Churches of the world may be called Oecumenical Bayns Diocles Tryal p. 12. conclus 1. And so Act. 20. To the Elders of Ephesus The Churches of Galatia are compared to one lump Gal. 5.5 CHAP. IV. That the Church-Catholike visible is one Integral or totum Integrale NOw because I see it is much stumbled at that I made the Church-Catholike to be Totum integrale and because it will let much light into the Question in hand I shall endeavour to prove that the Church-Catholike visible is an integral or totum integrale And first negatively that it is not a Genus First Sect. 1. a Genus is made or drawn per abstractionem Logicam vel metaphysicam as M. Ellis conceiveth but an Integral is made or constituted per conjunctionem sive appositionem physicam vel politicam Now the Church-Catholike visible is not made or drawn by logical or metaphysical abstraction but by political conjunction combination or apposition of the parts and members thereof So Ames medul lib. 1. cap. 33. Sect. â—8 Sicut per fidem Ecclesia habet statum essentialem per combinationem integralem sic etiam per ministerium habet Organicum quendam statum 2. A Genus hath no existence of its own but so hath the Church-Catholike visible viz. Per combinationem sive aggregationem No genus can be capable of combination or aggregation for that is an accident belonging to an integral 3. It appears by the definition of a genus both according to the Ramists and Aristotelians The Ramists say Genus est totum partibus essentiale The genus is essential to its parts i. e. species But Integrum est totum cui partes sunt essentiales vel integrales Now the several Churches are integrant to the Church-Catholike visible they make and constitute the Oecumenical by aggregation And according to the Aristotelians Genus est totum quod de pluribus specie differentibus potest praedicari in quid Now this cannot agree to the Church-Catholike or Oecumenical for the particular Churches do not differ specieâ— by any specifical forms but only by accidental and numerical differences Unlesse you will say that Individua sunt species which as it is generally denied so it is most unlikely in similar bodies of all others And if the single Churches be Individua then at the most the Oecumenical can be but a species yea species insima So Ames med c. 31. s 18. Ecclesia haec viz. Caâ—h est mystica ratione una non genericè sed quasi species specialissima vel individuum quia nullas habet species propriè dictas And yet I acknowledge he saith c. 32. s 5. Ecclesia particularis respectu communis illius naturae quae in omnibus Ecclesiâ—s particularibus reperitur est species Ecclesiae in genere sed respectu Ecclesiae Catholicae quae habet rationem integri est membrum ex aggregatione variorum membrâ—rum singularium compositum atque adeo respectu ipsorum est etiam integrum A similar totum differs much from an universal similarity of parts doth not at all hinder integrality but universality is of another nature being an abstract second notion Society or polity is a Genus and is divided or rather distinguished into civil and Ecclesiastical now indeed civil polity hath distinct species viz. monarchical aristocratical democratical and mixed but Ecclesiastical polity hath none of Gods appointment Indeed there is Papal Prelatical and Presbyterial but the former are humane the last as I conceive divine I confesse also this last is in dispute whether it be combined or independent but this distinction our ignorance hath brought forth there is but one by Gods institution It is true also that some members are invisible and some visible only but the invisible have their external communion in Ordinances quà visible as they are under Ecclesiastical polity they are all considered as visible but this distinction makes not two species of Churches or polities for as invisible members they have no officers but as visible I acknowledge there may by the minde of man a community of nature be abstracted from any similar bodies and so consequently from the similarity of Congregations but whether that be sufficient to make a genus where there are no distinct specifical differences under it I shall leave to the Logicians to dispute it out And to make this totum genericum existens is beyond my apprehension seeing genus being a second notion existeth not but in intellectu nostro habet fundamentum in rebus non existentiam For as it doth exist it is an integral and loseth its abstract nature wherein the universality doth consist That which existeth in the Individual is not totum but pars essentialis individui As it is abstracted by the minde and relateth to the Genus it is but symbolum causae materialis as it is existing in the Individual it is ipsa causa materialis Individui And therefore though it be said that tota natura Generis conservatur in una specie and by this rule in uno individuo it must be fundamentaliter only non formaliter for there is no such universality formally in specie multò minus in Individuo As the nature of a flock is not reserved in one sheep or a corporation in one man to use M. Hookers own words Sur. cap. 15. pag. 261. One Church also may be more pure then another and larger then another but these accidents vary not the species But 2. I shall prove the Oecumenical Church is an Integral Sect. 2. First because it hath an existence of its own which no Genus hath And this existence appears because it hath an external form and state which no Genus can have This Ames confesseth as I shewed before yea the Church Catholike visible had an existence before it was divided into particular
national provincial classical or congregational Church rest in that intensive power that remains within its own limits or also if they stand so as that they cannot combine with neighbours or have recourse unto them Extraordinary cases cannot be regulated by ordinary rules And this I conceive is the reason why the Scripture hath not determined more particularly the Synodical Assemblies but only giveth general rules that may be drawn to particulars because all Churches and seasons are not capable of national or provincial Synods in regard of many things that may be incident In some cases also all civil power must rest in one Congregation as if it were in a wildernesse where there were no neighbour Towns or cities to which it might be joyned Yet it followeth not that it must be so in England or any other kingdom where there are Counties Shires Cities great Towns or a Parliament Yea I know not but a particular family may yea must be independent in such an extraordinary case both in Ecclesiastical and civil matters also yet it follows not that there is such an inherent right in every town or family all over the world and that therefore particular Towns and families in England are debarred of an inherent priviledge belonging to them because necessity may put such an Independency on some in an extraordinary case as by shipwrack or being cast into some Iland not inhabited Here M. Ellis chargeth me to say that the power of a general Councel or of a Church-Catholike visible is but extensive and only extensive and not intensive and the power of the particular Churches is intensive But Sir do as you would be done by It is not fair dealing to note them as my words which were none of mine nor my sense For first I never conceived a general Councel to be the whole Church-Catholike visible but only an oecumenical ministerial or representative body of Officers or Organs of the Church much lesse the prime Church to which the Ordinances and priviledges of the Church were first given of which I spake as appears in my second part Secondly I never said the power of a general Councel was only extensive for as the particular Officers have intensive power over their particular Congregations so hath a general Councel intensive power also but their power is larger in extension actually then the particular Officers is being Officers sent from a larger part of the Church-Catholike and intrusted by more and acting for more then one Congregation or one Eldership This distinction M. Parker de polit Eccl. lib. 3. p. 121. setteth down in these words Distinguo de potestate clavium quae intensiva aut extensiva est Intensivâ potestate caret nulla Ecclesia prima viz. particularis ne minima quidem extensivâ verò eâ—â— caret quam habet Synodus cum potestas ad plures Ecclesias extenditur And so it neither overthroweth my first nor second tenet as he inferreth Sect. 6. Obj. If there be a Church-Catholike visible here on earth it is fit it should have a visible head over them that so the body and head may be of the same nature Answ This was indeed used as a main argument by the Ponficians for the supremacy of the Pope The avoiding whereof made our Divines so shy of granting a Church-Catholike visible but it was not necessary that they should deny upon this ground as M. Hooker conceives Surv. p. 251. I say it is not necessary to grant a visible head to the Church-Catholike visible no more then to a particular visible Congregation which our brethren hold to be a body of Christ And though they call it a mystical and spiritual body yet that doth not imply it to be invisible The Sacraments are called mysteries and mystical and the Ordinances are called spiritual and yet are visible though the grace signified or conveyed by them to the Elect is invisible They are spiritual in respect of the authour God and the divine subject about which they are in opposition to natural and civil and so our Ecclesiastical Courts were called spiritual though indeed as they managed them they made them carnal and sinful The members of the particular Congregations are visible members and their union and confederation is visible and they are a visible body mixed of true beleevers and hypocrites as Gerard Whitakers Cameron and even M. Bartlet in his model confesseth And their communion is visible and yet there is no visible head on earth required for them and why then should there be for the Church-Catholike Such a head therefore whether visible or invisible present or absent as will serve a particular mystical body of Christ as M. Cotton cals a particular visible Congregation will serve the Church-Catholike visible I answer further that the Church-Catholike visible hath a head of the same nature consisting of body and soul who sometimes lived in this visible kingdom of grace in the daies of his flesh and did visibly partake in external Ordinances though indeed now he be ascended into his kingdom of glory yet ceaseth not to be a man and so visible in his humanity as we are though glorified and glorious yet not lesse visible in himself for that but rather more and ceaseth not to rule and govern his Church here below for it is an everlasting Kingdom Esay 9.7 As when King James was translated from Scotland to England and lived here he did not cease to be King of Scotland so neither doth Christ cease to be the head of his Church though he be translated and ascended to his other kingdom the kingdom of glory And as for a Vicar or Deputy here below it is not needful We confesse the government of the Church in regard of the head is absolutely Monarchical but in regard of the Officers it is Aristocratical This second answer is excepted against both by M. Ellis vind p. 56. and M. Hooker Sur. p. 258. It is insufficient saith M. Ellis for Christ is head invisible and thence our Divines affirm his body the Church to be mystical also and invisible taken properly I answer That Christ is not only head of the invisible company which headship and body allude to the natural head and body which is indeed the Church in the most proper and prime sense but he is head also of the visible company or Ecclesiastical body in allusion to a civil head or governour Christ not only affordeth invisible communion to his invisible members but externally by Ordinances to both invisible and visible members of the Church yet to both visibly For Christ by his Ambassadours and in his written word speaks externally to their senses and they speak externally to him in praier and singing And as he was once visibly on earth in our nature a visible head of his Church so also if the millenary opinion be true which some of this way hold he shall come again and shall sit and reign a thousand years visibly But whether that opinion be true or no
the former And indeed upon this hinge hangeth the whole question of the Organical integrality of the Church Catholike visible And turn the question which way you will it will rest on this center viz. Whether a Minister be a Minister to any but his own Congregation I finde M. Ellis affirming that a Minister is an Officer only to his own Congregation vind p. 8. And the answer of the Elders of several Churches in New-England unto 9. Positions p. 8. Their words are these If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own because his office extends no further then his call So M. Best in his Church-Plea p. 30 saith Officers of Churches may be helpful to other Churches as Christians but not as Ministers To the same purpose M. Bartlet in his model p. 69. Hereby it appears they suppose the Ordination of a Minister to his office is limited to the particular Congregation that call him Indeed the call of the people exerts or cals forth the exercise of his office unto them in particular constantly but his Ordination to his office is more general and giveth him habitual power in actu primo to exercise and perform the acts belonging to his office elsewhere upon a call Christ giveth the office and hath annexed power of dispensing his Ordinances the Presbytery ministerially admit this or that man into it not as a Presbytery of that particular Congregation for they may none of them belong unto it but as a Presbytery of Christs Ministers having a call to give that Ordination in a regular way and the particular Congregation by desire and election give a call to the exercise of this power among them pro his nunc Habitu potestate omnes Episcopi sunt Episcopi cujusvis in orbo vel paraecia vel provinciae quia in quavis apti sunt habiles idonei exercere Episcopalia sua munera quando illuc legitimè vocantur ac mittamtur Actu verò quoad legitimum exercitium ibi solummodò Episcopi sunt ubi per missionem vocationem illam modiatam Dei c. huic illive Paraeciae c. praeficiuntur Crakenthorp Def. Eccl. Aug. c. 28. Now that a Minister is a Minister and so habitually in office to more then his own Congregation and therefore indefinitely to all the whole Church will appear by these proofs First because the donation of the keys and the institution and commission of the Evangelical Ministery was in reference to the whole Go teach all Nations and baptize them Whenas yet there was no distinction of Congregations God set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 So Eph. 4.12 As God gave the Levites to the whole house of Israel and they did at first in the wildernesse serve all the Tribes conjunctim as one body of Officers over one combined large Congregation but afterwards when the Tribes were dispersed in Canaan the Levites were dispersed among all the Tribes and exercised their office of teaching and judging in the several places where they dwelt yet this divested them not of their general habitual power this made not their office to stand in relation to the particular city or Synagogue vvhere they did constantly exercise and when they removed from place to place as the wandring Levite Jud. 17.8 did they still retained their habitual office and power and needed no new consecration but by vertue of their office did exercise the acts belonging to it where they had their particular station and call So is it with the Evangelical Ministery of the New Testament a Minister of the Gospel bears a double relation one to the Church-Catholike indefinitely another to that particular Congregation over which he is set for the constant exercise of his office And if he removes to another place he needs no new Ordination for that continueth and abideth still upon him it being to the essence of his office and not in reference either to the place from whence he cometh or to which he goeth only A Physician or Lawyer needeth no new license or call to the Bar though they remove to other places and have other patients and clients The Justice of peace who is in commission for the whole County though he exercised it in one part of the County while he lived there yet if he removes to the other end of the County he needeth no new commission to execute his office there where he never did before because it was habitual to the whole County though actually exercised where he lived so though a Minister removes he needeth no new Ordination but a new call to the exercise of his office there no more then a private Christian by removing into another Congregation needeth a new Baptism because neither Ordination nor Baptism stand in relation to the particular Congregation but the Church-Catholike As he that is admitted a freeman in any Hall of any Company in London is admitted a freeman of the whole City as well as of that Company and he that by reason of his birth hath right to be baptized in any Congregation is admitted a member of the whole society of the Church-Catholike visible as well as of that Congregation so he that is ordained a Minister as by the occasion of the call of a particular Congregation he is ordained their particular Minister so also is he ordained a Minister of Christ and the Gospel and Church in general Ordination saith M. Rutherford maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Ruth peaceab plea. 263. And to the same purpose it is that M. Ball saith A Minister chosen and set over one society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. but he is a Minister in the Church universal for as the Church is one so is the Ministery one of which every Minister sound and Orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church-universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the latter is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there only though they be set over a
And should such private man passe the censure against a scandalous brother that the Elders would do yet it is not Ecclesiastical binding yea though such a scandalous person should referre himself to them as arbitrators and promise to submit to their censure yet they cannot Ecclesiastically excommunicate him or restore him no more then private men in an arbitration can condemn and execute a malefactor or absolve him though he be innocent if indited Many times private men standing by and hearing the evidence at the Assizes against a malefactour will say he is but a dead man yet that is no judicial condemnation of him though it be materially according to the law of the land yet it is not formally for so is the act of the Judge only who is in office for that purpose Fifthly If private Christians bear a double relation Sect. 7. one to the Church Catholike visible as members thereof and another to the particular Congregation where they are particular members then so do the Ministers also The universality of private Christians membership necessarily requires an universality of the ministerial office for dispensing the Ordinances to them though but occasionally As particular members agree with other particular members in Christianity so particular Ministers agree with other particular Ministers in the ministerial office If particular private members can joyn with any Congregations in the Word Sacraments and praier and are bound to contribute to them as members of the same general body if there be need though in forreign countries then may also particular Ministers dispense the Ordinances of Jesus Christ as generally if there be necessity or occasion Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus ordained a Deacon and Presbyter at Bethlehem in monasterio Bethlemitico in the jurisdiction of John Bishop of Jerusalem when they were almost destitute of spiritual food and defended his action thus Oh Dei timorem hoc facere compulsi sumus maximè quum nulla sit diversitas in sacerdotio Dei ubi utilitati Ecclesia providetur Nam et si singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias quibus curam videntur impendere nemo super alienam mensuram extendatur tamen praeponitur omnibus charitas Christi It seems he accounted his office habitually generaâ— and though the order of the Church required him to keep within his own bounds ordinarily yet necessity the profit of the Church and the love of Christ might draw forth the execution of his office further He addeth further Non considerandum quid factum sit sed quo tempore quo modo in quibus quare factum sit i. e. if it be not done to make a schism in the Church as he expresseth himself afterward ne que feci quicquam ut Ecclesiam scinderem Afterwards he adds Multi Episcopi communionis nostrae presbyteros in nostrâ ordinaverunt Provincia Ipse cohortatus sum beata memoriae Philonem Episcopum S m Theopropum ut in Ecclesiis Cypri quae juxta se erant ad meae autem paraeciae Ecclesiam vide bantur pertinere ordinarent presbyteros Christi Ecclesiae providerent Epiph. Epist ad Johan Hierosol quam Hieronymus lutinam fecit Extat in Hieron Ep. T. 2. in Ep. Hieron ad Paumachum T. 2. Vide Baronium Anno Christi 392. Sect. 42. c. The universal pastoral care which lieth on all Bishops as Bishops saith Crakanthorp puts forth it self both in general Councels yea and out of Councels this universal care of the Church lyeth upon all Ministers that they provide for the safety of the Church as much as lieth in them consulendo hortando monendo arguendo increpando scriptis simul voce alios omnes instruendo cum vel hâ—resis ulla vel schismain Ecclesia grassari caeperit velut incendium publicum illud restinguendo ne latiùs serpat providendo Def. Eccl. Angl. c. 28. Sixthly There will follow divers great absurdities if the office of a Minister stands only in relation to his own Congregation For then he cannot preach any where as a Minister but in his own Congregation nor yet to any that come to his own Congregation occasionally much lesse administer the seals of the Covenant to them though they come never so well approved by testimonials or by their own knowledge of them which yet hath been the ancient custom of the Church and is practised still among our brethren in New-England by vertue of communion of Churches as they say but this being an act of office cannot be done except there be an habitual indefinite power of the ministerial office which by this desire of strangers and their testimonial is drawn forth into act Also hereby a Minister is rendred but as a private Christian to all the Christian world except his own Congregation and if his Congregation be any way dissolved he is but a private man again Also the censore of excommunication which hath been inflicted by such Officers in such a Congregation can never be taken off by any other Officers in any other Congregation after the dissolution of that for no Congregation can receive an excommunicated person to be a member before absolution and absolve him they cannot because he is none of their members Ejusdem est ligare solvere yea and if he be wronged by censures in any particular Congregation no Church in the world can relieve him except there be an indefinite habitual power of office which by such occasions can be drawn forth into act It maketh way also for any private man to preach publikely if he be able for Ministers themselves by this opinion should preach but as private men if they preach out of their own Congregation Also it necessarily implyeth that a Minister cannot remove from his particular Congregation though for the great advantage of the Church unlesse he will divest himself of his former Ordination which was in reference only to his particular Congregation by this opinion and take a new Ordination to his Ministerial office again as if he had never been ordained before And all acting in Councels must be the actings of private Christians And all the Lectures that are kept by neighbour-Ministers in combination or singly except by the particular Ministers of that Congregation where the Lecture is kept are performed by private men for so by this opinion they are to all the world except their own Congregations And so if any of their own members come and hear them preach at any such Lectures Funerals Marriages or Baptizings it is authoritative preaching indeed to them because of their particular relation to him but only a charitative exercising of gifts as a private man out of office to all men else And if this opinion be true what shall become of all the unfixed visible Christians in New-England who by reason of their unresolvednesse where yet to fix their civil habitations or of scrupulosity or want of ability utterance and boldnesse to expresse themselves so as
the subjects of Christs Ecclesiastical Kingdom â—unne parallel further with the subjects of a civil Kingdom they all being Christians Why may not the combination also run parallel and the denomination be parallel for transaction of common Ecclesiastical affairs as well as civil if prudence so dictate it and the Churches in a hundred if they lie convenient combine â—to a Classis as well as into a hundred for civil transaction And the Classes into a Province as well as hundreds into a County or Shire and the Provinces into a national Church as well as the Counties into a civil Kingdom and seeing Christs Ecclesiastical Kingdom reacheth over many Kingdoms why may they not make one habitual Church-Catholike as well as many Kingdoms under the same laws and head make one Empire The actuality indeed may cease where the constant or frequent community of acting ceaseth whether at the Congregation or Classis where all the Officers are combined in frequent common acting or at the National Church where the civil community ceaseth and so the frequent occasion of common acting by delegates cease I determine not but the habituality ceaseth not in the whole Church-Catholike visible I shall first speak of the combination of particular Congregations into a Presbyterial Church Sect. 2. commonly called for distinction sake a Classis That there may be a college or body of Elders that can act conjunction as well as divisim appears from 1 Tim. 4.14 where the Presbytery are said to lay their hands on Timothy There is the name and thing and their acting conjunctim in Ordination which was not the Presbytery of a single Church or at least not so considered in their Ordination of an Evangelist an itinerant universal actual officer under the Apostles Our brethren also in New-England joyn the Elders of divers Congregations together in ordaining Elders for a new-erected Congregation and not only the erecting of new Congregations will require it necessarily but the supplying of other Congregations vacant by death for there are but few Congregations so well stored with preaching Presbyters as can ordain new ones if one or two of them die Also we finde an Eldership acting together Act. 15.6 The Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter Also Act. 11.30 and Act. 21.18 Christ gave the keys to the Apostles together Mat. 28.19 Go ye and teach and baptize c. who though they received their extraordinary calling of Apostleship for themselves only yet they received the ministerial office for all succeeding Ministers and we finde no other especial donation of the keys and this appears by the following words Lo I am with you alway even to the end of the world which must needs be meant of the succeeding Ministers for the Apostles were not to last to the end of the world neither their persons nor their office Therefore as the Apostles could from that donation exercise the keys conjunctim divisim in their extraordinary function so may the Presbyters exercise theirs also and some keys cannot be used but conjunctim as in Ordination and dispensing censures and if Elders of several Congregations can act together as Elders in ordination even in New-England and in censures much more thâ—â— in a greater body And if our brethren in New-England dared admit private men to lay on their hands in ordination of their Ministers doubtlesse they would appoint some of their own private members to do it that so according to their tenet they might enjoy all Gods Ordinances independently in their particular Congregations and not admit of a forreign Officer to come and act as an Officer among them That divers Congregations may combine and make one Presbyterial Church appears by divers instances in the New Testament The Congregations in Jerusalem are called one Church Act. 8.1 Act. 11.22 Act. 15.4 The Congregations in Antioch are called one Church Act. 1â— 1 and Act. 11.26 The Congregations in Ephesus are called one Church Act. 20.17 Rev. 2.1 And the Congregations in Corinth mentioned in the plural number 1 Cor. 14.34 are called one Church 1 Cor. 1.2 and 2 Cor. 1.1 Now that there were several Congregations in each of these cities appears because there were in each of them so great a multitude of beleevers as that they could not meet together to partake of all Gods Ordinances especially if we consider that they had no publike eminent buildings for meeting-houses but met privately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.46 in an upper room Act. 1.13 and in the house of Mary Act. 12.12 in the school of Tyrannus Act. 19.9 in the house of Aquila and Priscilla 1 Cor. 16.19 in Pauls hiâ—ed house at Rome Act. 28.30 in the house of Nymphas Colos 4.15 c. therefore called the Church in their houses And this manner of meeting continued in the times of persecution in that age and some succeeding Also it appears by the multitude of Church-Officers Elders Prophets and Teachers that were in each of them which could not busie themselves in one Congregation and sure they were not idle in those daies Also by the variety of languages especially at Jerusalem Act. 2.5 8. c. See these and other arguments of this nature more fully explained and more particularly proved and applied in Jus Div. part 2. chap. 13. And if these Churches were such as in all rational probability they were then that position That there are no other Ecclesiastical societies instituted by Christ but particular Congregational-Churches will not hold good and the Basis of the Congregational way will fail and the partition wall that seemeth thereby to be between them and the Presbyterians must fall down And this unity of these Churches was not a spiritual unity in regard of saving grace for all the members had not that nor in regard of judgement belief heart and way for that was common to all the Christianâ— in the world but a political union by an especial Ecclesiastical obligation together though we finde no mention of any explicit Covenant as the constituent form of the particular Churches nor only in regard of the administration of Word Sacraments and Praier for these were dispersed in their several Congregations and could not be jointly together in regard of their multitudes Neither were they one in reference to the Apostles general power and office only they being universal Pastors for so the universal Church over the whole world was one but in regard of the common Presbytery whereby they were governed constantly and the Apostles themselves being in these several Churches did act as co-Presbyters with their Elders and so they call themselves Elders 1 Pet. 5. â— and Joh. 2. And though indeed it cannot be peremptorily affirmed that these Presbyterial Churches had their several Elders fixed to their several Congregations yet that as I conceive varies not the question at all And yet it is very probable that the Elders in those cities did divide those cities between them for particular teaching and inspection of
suasive that is no more then a few private men may do yea one man or woman may counsel advise and perswade By M. Ellis's opinion Councels and Synods being void of all authority are but as a company of private Christians met together to advise one with another how to act in their own Congregations where only saith he they are in office it may be an act of those that are in office but not as Officers so that in that act they are to be considered as private members who by such consultation take or give private advice how to act as officers where they are Officers Which is no otherwise then if in these times of trouble and danger a company of peti-constables should meet occasionally or by appointment together at a market-town and there consult together how to act most commodiously and uniformly in their several Parishes in the pressing of Souldiers or gathering Assessements or a company of Mayors of several Corparations should meet by appointment at London and there advise together how to order their several Corporations So that a Synod whether Provincial National or Oecumenical can have no power to summon any heretick or scandalous person and if any such should voluntarily come before them or be brought before them by the civil Magistrate that should before their faces blaspheme the whole Trinity or be convicted of Sodomy yea though any of their own members should curse God himself or be convicted of a present act of whoredom or of sorcery they have no power to censure him Ecclesiastically but fraternally admonish him and send him back to his own Congregation to be censured and they themselves only go thither as witnesses against him because they are there by this opinion out of office and all censures belong to the particular Elderships as particular But suppose now this heretick or scandalous person being departed haply from the Congregation where formerly he lived or that Congregation being dissolved be a fixed member of no Congregation as ten thousands of visible Christians i. e. that have received the doctrine of Christ and are under the seal of Baptism may be if particular Churches consist only of such as can give evidence of the work of true grace in themselves shall he remain an entitive member of Christs visible kingdom a gangreened limb a rebel and traitour under the name and notion of a subject and infect the rest of the body and there be no remedy Sect. 4. But as the subject matters that Synods have to deal with are of three sorts so their power and the acts of it which they put forth are of three 〈◊〉 likewise First they are to act in reference to matters of faith i. e. doctrines to be beleeved and embraced and of divine worship i. e. duties of worship to be performed unto God not to coin or frame or adde any new articles of faith or new acts of worship or alter any that God hath instituted but to explain prove and apply those Articles of faith and rules of worship laid down in the word and to confute and declare against the contrary errours heresies and corruptions and the power they exert herein is called dogmatical Secondly they are to act in reference to external order and polity in matters prudential and circumstantial which are determinable by the true light of nature right reason and general rules in the Scripture ◠to set things in order that all things may be done uniformly decently and in order and the power they exert herein is called diatactical Thirdly they are to act in reference to errour heresie schism obstinacy contempt and scandal and to represse them and to censure such persons as are guilty of any of them and are referred over to them and the power they exert herein is called critical This is none other power then the particular Elderships in their several Congregations or Classes may exert in their sphear and precincts with submission to the superiour assemblies and all must be according to the word of God As in the natural body God hath set several senses to act upon the several sensible objects visible audible tactile c. and several faculties in reference to truth and falshood good and evil to discern and embrace the one and avoid the other so in the body Ecclesiastical hath he set several powers in the organs thereof to act diversly according to the occurrent objects and incidents in the Church both in the particular Congregations for the good of them and in greater parts of the body for the good of them and in the whole if convenible for the good of that but because remote parts cannot meet personally and generally in all their Officers therefore that trouble and confusion is avoided by delegation of particular elected choice officers and is but occasionally and pro tempore A ground and pattern of a Synod is laid down Act. 15. and 16. which is acknowledged to be a Synod and warrant for a Synod by reverend M. Cotton in his keys of the kingdom of heaven cha 6. And is called an Oecumenical Councel by Chamier in Panstrat Tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. sect 2. and Whitak cont qu. 6. And generally by our Protestant Divines And is abundantly proved and explained by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum par 2. chap 14. and 15. to which I referre the reader for satisfaction The occasion of that Synod was an errour broached at Antioch and neighbour-Churches to enforce the observation of the ceremonial Law by all Christians and this was promoted by lying as if they were sent by the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem to preach this doctrine Hereby the Churches were much troubled and in danger to be subverted in their souls This could not be suppressed by the disputes of Barnabas and Paul hereupon the Elders of Antioch decreed and ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Paul and Barnabas and some others should go up to the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem about this question and they submitted to this order there was an authoritative mission and probably members were also sent from Syria and Cilicia for they were involved in the same danger by the same persons Act. 15.23 24 41. But if there were delegates but from two Churches it will justifie delegates from ten or twenty And as the Church of Antioch did not send Paul and Barnabas as extraordinary and infallible and authentical Oracles of God as M. Cotton noteth for then what need the advice and help of Elders that were below them being but ordinary and particular Officers of Ierusalem But as wise and holy guides of the Church who might not only relieve them by some wise counsel and holy order but also set a precedent to succeeding ages how errours and dissentions in Churches might be removed and healed And with Paul and Barnabas they joyned others messengers in the same commission So when this Synod was met the Apostles acted not by their Apostolical infallible transcendent
power or by immediate inspiration as in the penning of the Scripture but the matters were carried on in an ordinary Synodal way by disputes and discourses they deliberated about the true state of the question and the remedy thereof and after deliberation and disputes they decisively conclude and determine the matter and put forth all the three fore-named power First they exert their dogmatick power in confuting of the heresie and in vindication of the truth of justification by faith without the works of the law and their critical power in branding the false teachers with the infamous brand of troublers of the Church and subverters of souls and of belyâ—rs of the Apostles and Elders of Ierusalem and their diamctick power in ordering and framing practical rules or constitutions for the healing of the scandal They passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.4 they imposed them for they are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15.28 29. yet were not all the things they imposed necessary in themselves as abstaining from things strangled and from bloud they are called necessary not intrinsecally for then they are so to us but for that time because those things were so odious to the Jews who could not be so suddenly brought from all ceremonies It is true our Divines in their writings against the Papists do cry down the infallibility of Councels and the over-high esteem they had of them and the injurious and sinful decrees of their Popish Councels but they honour the general Councels and account Synods an Ordinance of God Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 13. saith Nos certè libenter concedimus siqua de dogmate incidat disceptatio nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium quà m si verorum Episcoporum Synodus conveniat ubi controversum dogma excutiatur Multò enim plus ponderis habebit ejusmodi definitio in quam communiter Ecclesiarum pastores invocato Christi Spiritu consenserint quà m c. Whitak de consilijs cap. 2. not only alloweth but commendeth Synods and Councels from the necessity and utility of them and marvelleth that Nazianzâ—n should say he never saw a good end of a Synod alledging the good end and profit of the Councel of Nice And citeth Augustine in Ep. 118. Conciliorum in Ecclesia Dei saluberrimam authoritatem esse And addeth further Etsi Concilia non sunt simpliciter absolutè necessaria tamen multùm conferunâ— valdè utilia sunt idque propter multas causas And then reckons up the causes And divideth Synods in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And bringeth Act. 15. for an example and warrant of them And Chamier in his Panstrat tom 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. De omnium toto orbe Ecclesiarum politia sheweth the lawfulnesse and use of Synods And lib. 5. saith Ad Synodos convocatos fuisse atque admissos omnes Episcopos nemo dubitat sedisseque judices suo jure prout fieri solet in Aristocratia And M. Parker in Polit. Eccl. l. 3. p. 355. saith Fundatur haec progressio a Presbyerio ad Classem a Classi ad Synodum in instituto Christi Mat. 18.17 ex proportione And p. 123. he foundeth them upon the same Scripture Per gradationem ratiocinandi a little after he saith they follow from that place per sequelam ratiocinandi per consequentiam Innumerable might be the citations of Protestant Divines in this kinde It is confest Sect. 5. that particular Churches are endued with the power of discipline within themselves if the matter doth particularly and peculiarly concern themselves and none others or if there be no others that can joyn with them they may do much alone but that case is extraordinary It is confest also that every single Congregation is equal in power to any other single Congregation considered as a Church only one may be greater and purer then another and furnished with more and more able officers And therefore how one sister Church by its single power can non-communion another that is of equal power with it I know not for it is a censure and no lesse then a vertuâ—â— excommunication and the other Church hath as much power to non-communion them and so there is a principle laid of perpetual and frequent division and splitting asunder of Christâ— political body and kingdom Such a principle in a Common-wealth between Town and Town in civil affairs would be very dangerous and bring deadly feuds and civil wars and at last ruine to the whole And though there be a subordination of particular Churches to greater Assemblies yet it is not absolute and arbitrary but in the Lord also it is a coordination because the Officers of the particular Congregations are there and help to constitute the â—lasses or if it be a Synod they are vertually there by their delegates or Commissioners as the Counties and Corporations are in a Parliament The subordination of particular Congregations to greater Assemblies consisting so of members taken out of the particular Congregations and the authoritative power and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of those greater Assemblies over them appears because we see the Church of Antioch was subordinate to the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. Also Christs direction to deal with an offending brother Mat. 18. ascends by degrees from private adâ—onition to admonition before two or three and from them if he amend not to the Church but what if the greater number of a Church or suppose a whole Church offend by the same rule of proportion they are to be brought before a higher Assembly else no remedy can be had for offending Congregations as well as offending persons But neighbour-Congregations or particular persons may be offended by a neighbour Church and there is no reason that that Church should be partee and judge also in their own case and therefore it is requisite that there should be a greater combined Assembly to complain unto And as the unity of the whole visible Church and political Kingdom of Christ requires this as the London-Ministers have well noted wherein all things are to be managed as between members and fellow-subjects and the greater part in coordination to rule the lesse in the Lord and the whole the parts so also there is the same necessity of Synods as of Classical combinations and otherwise there will be irremediable difficulties Also we may observe the like subordination and appeals in the Jewish Church the several Synagogues were subordinate to the great Assembly at Ierusalem and had their appeals thither in greater causes Deut. 17.8 12. 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Exo. 18.22 26. And this could not be a ceremonial Law for it did typifie nothing The appeals were not to the high Priest typifying Christ but to their highest Court and though it were judicial to them yet the equity of it remains and so far as it was grounded on common right it is moral Now the like difficulties and dangers that occasioned that Law then remain still as great among
us and ever will And it is observable that this thing was not learned by Moses in the pattern shewed him in the Mount but was taught by the light of nature to Iethro and by him was given in advice to Moses Exo. 18.22 and afterward was approved by God as being according to right reason and a thing common to all societies as societies not Ecclesiastical only and not a positive law only but dictated by the light of nature right reason and necessity and therefore is practised in all ages nations armies and societies though not in every particular circumstance And therefore except it were forbidden or some other way instituted to avoid those difficulties and dangers that will arise it ought to be in use also in the Church under the Gospel as well as summoning convening in fitting times and places and a moderatour or chair-man and silence obedience and respect and due order in proceedings according to allegation and probation which are things common to all Judicatories as Judicatories And surely God would not have Christians under the Gospel under a more grievous yoke and irremediable inconveniences then the Jewish Church that if any of them be oppressed by the ignorance or ill will of their Elders they should have no relief Sect. 6. Obj. If their be appeals from one Presbytery to another that is higher then must there be two kindes of Presbyteries and two kindes of Presbyters but the Scripture speaks but of one and giveth no rules for any Presbyteries but one Indeed in Universities the same men may be heads of the Colleges respectively and heads of the Universitie also but there are differing and distinguishing names relations and Statutes but it is not so for Elders of particular Congregations to be Elders of Classes and Synods c. Answ The Church is but one visible political Kingdom of Christ made up by the collection and aggregation of all visible beleevers who are called into an unity of Covenant and laws and way and all the Ministers and Officers of the Church are given to the whole primarily for the gathering and edifying of it and they are all to teach and rule and perform all their administrations respectively with reference to and the best advantage of the whole And they did serve the whole as one actually when they were convenible but their number encreasing they divided into several companies for their better ordering edification and encrease and therefore the instance is not parallel for the office of the Ministers is first to the whole and the Charter and Statutes of the whole and of every particular Church are but one and therefore the Ministers though they ordinarily act in their particular Congregations as it were in their particular Colleges being called by them to take the immediate constant particular inspection of them yet can they exercise their general office when and wheresoever they have a call thereunto Now this call is not that which giveth them their office but is proximum fundamentum exercitij only Neither is the particular Congregation the adequate correlate to an Elder for it doth not mutu◠ponere tollere but the Church-Catholike only But of this see more in the 2d question S. 4. But against this M. Ellis vind 40. brings an Objection which he ushers in with a Let it be observed by all sorts By this means saith he the power being given not to any one Church but to the whole Church as one body and not to the members with the Officers but to the Officers only there is derived a very transcendent power and authority upon every particular Minister more then any Parliament man hath yea more then a King who is limited to his dominion But I answer that the Presbyterians acknowledge that power of government is given immediatly to every Congregational Eldership or at least to such a College of Elders as may frequently and constantly meet and rule in common as they did at Jerusalem and it is not derived unto them by any superiour authority on earth by way of descention except by a Ministerial investment by Ordination And this power is to be constantly exerted for the actual Ecclesiastical regiment of that Congregation or those Congregations over whom those Elders are set in the Lord yet with reference to the rest of the body whereof they are but a parcel and they may stand in need of the help of more Elders then their own upon occasion It is true government is not given to the members with the Officers but to the Officers only not to the body of the Congregation as the subject of it either in whole or in part as they are private members distinct from the Officers much lesse are they the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first receptacle thereof And for the inference hence of such a transcendent power and authority upon every particular Minister more then a Parliament man or a King I suppose M. Ellis is not ignorant that the office of every particular Minister in his Congregation giveth him authority to do more in administring Gods Ordinances as authoritative preaching and administring the seals of the Covenant and the Officers in administring spiritual censures then a Parliament man or a King can do Remember Vzziahs example And yet in all civil affairs they are as dutiful subjects as any else and as much subject to civil authority Because the Priests and Levites were in the matters of God set over all Israel will it therefore follow that the meanest Levite was greater then the Nobles Princes and Kings of Israel Indeed the meanest Priest might offer sacrifice which the King could not do but this was no disparagement to the Nobles or to the King No more it is to them that the meanest Physician may administer physick virtute officij and the meanest Pilot guide the Ship which the greatest Princes may not doe The office and power and honour that belong thereto is of another kinde then Parliaments and Kings it is not civil but spiritual You know Gods Ministers have power to baptize Parliament men Nobles and Kings and their children and to give them the Lords Supper and to teach admonish reprove and from God to threaten and denounce judgements against them even eternal destruction if they go on in sinful courses They do doctrinally binde and loose Princes and their whole Kingdoms and the whole world as occasion serveth And can any man say that the greatest men are by their greatnesse free from Church-censures if they be notoriously vile and yet none can impose them but Ecclesiastical Officers Suppose divers Parliament men or Noble men yea a King himself were members of a Congregational Independent Church would not the Officers of that Congregation account it their duty to administer all Gods Ordinances to them as occasion requires yea the Ordinances of discipline and censures if there be just cause Sir would you now be willing to have a retortion of your own kinde with a Let it be
the same reason in some cases for the censure of some private members So that by their tenet their right to Gods Ordinances neither ariseth from their being in the general Covenant for so they were before their confederation nor yet from their organicalness for they have power to organize themselves and disannul those Organs again and to perform some Church-acts before and without Organs but it ariseth meerly from their particular covenant and consederation 2. Neither is the Query saith he whether the several companies or Churches of this profession as they are one in nature so also in spirit and affection and thereupon in engagement of mutual care one of another and to take notice what doctrines are dispersed what conversation used among the Churches pag. 7. If by Engagement he meaneth anâ—amicitial or fraternal Engagement as he seems by his paralleling it with the Engagement of brethren of the same family indeed it cometh not up to the question in hand but if he meaneth an Engagement not only founded upon similarity of nature and unity of Spirit and affection but upon an expresse command of Christ to his subjects in their places and Offices to uphold his honour and purity of his Ordinances and watch over their fellow-subjects to keep them from prophanesse and errour or cure them if they be fallen thereinto and this not by advice and perswasion but by Ecclesiastical censures if they be stubborn and obstinate then it comes up to the question in hand And surely the case may be so that the key of doctrine will not serve but the key of discipline which our brethren acknowledge is commensurable with it must be exerted also Stroakings and lenitives will not cure all maladies in the natural body nor good counsel all the distempers in the Common-wealth nor yet in the Church there must sometimes be corrosives of censures applied Nor 3. is it doubtful saith he whether such Churches may voluntarily as occasion shall require associate together for mutual assistance and act in many things by common and joint consent c. This the Scripture and light of nature dictates If by voluntary he doth not mean arbitrary but such a voluntary and yet necessary obedience to the dictates of Scripture and the light of nature as is in the observation of Gods commands and as the voluntary joyning of members to a particular Congregation then it is the very ground of Synodical Assemblies And though it be but occasional yet these occasions falling out frequently and constantly so ought those meetings to be as frequent and constant which is all the Presbyterians contend for And the same Scripture and light of nature that dictates this voluntary occasional meeting dictates also that they should have power to act together when they are met else to what purpose should they meet no occasion can warrant them to do that which God hath not given them power to do And whereas he saith the testimonies alledged by Crakenthop in Def. Eccl. Ang. cap 28. are meant of an obligation of charity and not of office it is utterly mistaken for they speak of their power as Bishops â—ura omnium ovium quà Episcopi sunt ad omnes spectat And Episcopi omnes quà Episcopi universalis Ecclesiae pastores sunt jure Divino sic pastores sunt Nor 4. saith he is it the scruple Whether all or most of the Churches in the world may not possibly become occasionally one by their messengers in a general Councel But as I concieve this is the highest thing that the Presbyterians aim at in such a Councel and is the thing which himself makes question of vind pag. 8. lin 1. and yet four lines further seems to yeeld it again Then M. Ellis vind p. 8. comes to state the power of associated Churches whether lesse or more Sect. 2. and especially a general Councel And there he grants an authoritative power at least virtual from Christ to act and give not only advice but directions and rules to which the conscience is bound to submit unlesse special cause disswade us And this authority is more august and solemn though not greater the greater the number is and the more publike the manner of giving forth the precepts shall be And a little further he saith in doubtful cases or upon occasion of grosser errours and scandals God hath by Ordinance virtual appointed recourse to others especially Churches whose prescriptions not disagreeing from the Word are to be obeyed not only because they are materially good but formally theirs Here he granteth almost as much as the Presbyterians doe desire yet plucks it away again in the very next words in saying That their acting in giving such directions and rules is the acting of Officers but not as Officers for such they are only in their several Churches but yet by reason of that relation they are the more fit for that work c. But hereby he overthroweth the analogy of their acting with the acting of an assembly of Lawyers or Judges or a College of Physitians convened by publike consent which he there makes the parallel of this Ecclesiastical acting for their acting conjunctim is by vertue of their office and professions respectively as much as divisim and not meerly as friends or men skilled in those subjects and sciences for it by their office and profession becometh as he confesseth authoritative and to be submitted unto not only because materially good but formally theirs who by office and profession have power and authority to give it If he would have made his parallel to run to his minde he should have resembled the actings in Councels to the advice of understanding friends and neighbours in matters of Law and Physick who have no office therein or profession thereof but have some knowledge and experience therein and thereby are fit to give friendly and neighbourly charitative advice and directions How men can have authority to make rules which are to be obeyed because they are formally their rules and yet do this as men without office I understand not The Synod Act. 15. did make decrees and give commands he confesseth but did not impose any penalty but surely the making decrees and commands implyed an authority and that conjunctim so to do and the imposing of them implyed a power of office and that a coercive also else decrees and commands are to little purpose And to passe by his second grant what power the Church-Catholike may possibly have in unusual and extraordinary cases or accidents I come to his third gram viz. what power the universal visible Church might have if possibly convenable together as it was at Jerusalem in which case saith he we grant what is coâ—tended for but the Query is What power the parts 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 brethren now practise vind pag. 9. Here he granteth what is contended for if the whole were convenable i. e. as I conceive all the Officers of the whole Church But if that could be I doubt he holds they must either act as men out of office or an particular Officers every one in reference to his particular Congregation or can their convention together put a general office upon them which they had not before or draw forth general actions that concern the whole from them that had no habitual power reaching the whole but if all the Officers met together can rule the whole because every particular Congregation hath its Officer there why hath not a part thereof convened power to rule that part also seeing the right and reason is the same seeing the Church is a similar body in regard of the integrals and the parts are similar parts And if so here will be an unavoidable ground for classical associations where all the Officers may meet And himself freely acknowledgeth the conveniency and necessity of Classes yea and Synods also for direction and determination and that by divine right though not with power properly juridical vind pag. 3. But then their directions and determinations must be by his opinion but charitative and by their skill only and not by vertue of their office But the reason why his parallel of a Kingdom where a part cannot make laws for that part holdeth not is because the whole Kingdom is under one legislative power and combined together in a body representative under one head who have power to make uniform laws for the whole but neither the Church-Catholike nor any particular Church can make any new divine laws or abrogate any of them which Christ hath set down but explain them and make particular rules according to the general and not otherwise and put Christs laws in execution and this a particular combination may do in their sphear for their limits And so as farre as their Commissions reach the Officers in a Corporation may make constitutions for the Corporation so they be not contrary to their charter and the Justices or Committees for a County may make Orders for the County so they be agreeable to the Laws of the Land whereof the County is a part and have habitual power to execute justice in any part of the County as occasion serveth though they for conveniency sake do usually act in their several divisions A Justice or Mayor or Constable cannot act beyond their County Corporation or Town though they be desired and called without a new Commission but a Minister may preach and administer Sacraments in any part of the Church-Catholike upon a call and why not also act judicially and juridically and where according to the foresaid limitation if he hath a call to bring his habitual power into act seeing the keys are commensurable Sect. 3. But then he comes to state the question positively what it is And he sets it down thus viz. Whether the whole company of Christians on earth are in their ordinary and setled Church-constitution so one intire single Common-wealth Corporation and Congregation as that of right and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ it is the first subject of all Church-power by authority whereof and commission from which all particular Churches act and to the determinations of the major part whereof they are to yield obedience if not apparently contrary to the word of God and the Catholike governing power whereof resides immediatly as in its proper subject under Christ only in the Ministers and Elders and they not taken severally but jointly as one entire College or Presbytery to whose charge severally and jointly the whole and every particular Church is committed c. And this assertion M. Ellis sets down with in the margin and cites Apollonius and the London-Ministers as the Authors of it as if they were their very words but they are niether their words non sense I wonder Sir who ever dreamed of such an assertion but your self It is not honest dealing to lay the births of your own brains at other mens doors to make them father them The like stating of it is again vind pag. 40. where the same Authours are cited viz. Apollon cap. 3. sect 4. And Jus Divinum pag. 43. and pag. 163. And again vind p. 27. and there are cited for it Apollon cap. 3. pag. 41. And Hudson p 25. as assertors of this opinion expresly But I am sure there in no such thing asserted by these Authours in any of those places And if he saith it is drawn by consequence from their tenets I answer it is not accounted fair dealing to affirm those consequences that may be drawn from any mans opinion to be his opinion when haply he was never aware of any such consequences or doth deny the consequence of them from his opinion Much lesse is it fair to set them down in capital letters and with marks in the margin which usually importeth them to be their very words or to make that the main controversie which is not owned by the opposite partee but haply may be drawn by consequence The scope of Apollonius and the London-Ministers is to set down the proper subject and receptacle of the keys first negatively not the people or catus fidelium nor the civil Magistrate though they grant him a defensive diatactick compulsive cumulative power a power circa sacra non in sacris nor Papal Officers as Cardinals c. nor prelatical as Deans Arch-Deacons c. nor political Officers as Committees Commissioners nor Deacons But positively all those Church-guides extraordinary and ordinary which christ hath erected in his Church vesting then with power and authority therein viz. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers governments or ruling-Elders these Christ hath made the immediate receptacle and first subject of the keys or of Ecclesiastical pover from himself So say the London-Ministers expresly Now suppose they had undertaken to set down who were the proper subject of civil authority under the King and should first negatively say it is not the Physician nor the Chirurgion nor the Mathematician nor the Merchants nor Mariners nor Tradesmen nor Husbadmen and Farmers but positively they are the Judges Sheriffs Justices Maiors Bayliffs and Constables Would any one gather from hence that all these Officers not taken severally but jointly are one entire actual college of Officers to whose charge severally and jointly the whole and every part of the Kingdom is committed by authority whereof and dependance upon which common Officers the Officers of every particular Town do act Besides this stating of the question is not consistent with it self for it makes the Church-Catholike the first subject of all Church-power and then makes the Ministers and Elders the proper subject thereof but the proper subject is the prime subject Unlesse he means in a logical sense as sight is predicated of the whole man and yet
Congregational Church for there can be no appeals to that it being the lowest Church that can be The particular Synagogues were rather Types of the Congregational Churches for they are called by the same name Jam. 1.2 And the Ministers under the Gospel are called by the same names that the indefinite Officers of the Jewish Church were viz. Priests and Levites Isa 66.21 which place is spoken of the time under the Gospel And if it be granted that the Ministers of the Gospel be given to the whole Church as the Priests and Levites were indefinitely to the whole Church of the Jews notwithstanding any particular relation to the particular Synagogues and places they resided in and taught or judged in it is as much as I contend for And if by mystical he meaneth the elect only or entitively only it could not be a type of the Church-Catholike so for the Jewish Church was visible and organical His second proof is from Mat. 18. Tell the Church which saith he was a particular Congregation which was endued with entire power even to excommunication Whatsoever ye shall binde c. Answ This was not the Institution neither was there any donation of the keys but a supposal of the keys in the particular Churches which is a thing confessed by all and this power was also in the Jewish Synagogues But this is not spoken exclusively that this power is no where else If the rulers of the Synagogue had power to excommunicate to which it is like Christ alluded in that speech then much more the Sanedrim or highest Court and so I conceive it is in the Church of the New Testament If the least combination of Elders have this power given them for matters that concern that Congregation only then much more a greater company and combination for matters that concern a greater part of the Church under their combination and for matters of greater moment then can be transacted by the smaller company But the donation of the keys was to the Apostles together and they were general Officers and stood in relation to no particular Church and therefore the keys come to the particular Congregation or Ministry there as to parts of the whole company of Organs yet immediatly and not by commission from any Catholike Court. His third proof is because the first execution of the greatest act of entire power was exercised in a particular Church without consulting with the universal Church though the Apostles were then surviving 1 Cor. 5. Answ For ought that I know the Church of Corinth was a Classical Church and not a meer Congregational one for there were Churches in it 1 Cor. 14.34 Besides the probability that Cenchrea was a member thereof But Sir who requires the consulting with the Church-Catholike in admitting or ejecting members Or did the particular Synagogues consult with the Sanedrim or the whole Church of the Jews when they excommunicated any man Surely they had work enough to do then His fourth proof or argument is Because entire power was committed to particular men viz. the Apostles severally and to all jointly and therefore not to one visible governing Church Vind. p. 23. Answ By this argument it appears the power is given not to the Congregation but to the Ministers whose representatives the Apostles were in receiving the keys severally and jointly which is as much as the Presbyterians require viz. that the Ministers have power to exercise their ordinary power jointly together upon a call as well as severally in their particular Congregations as the Apostles did their extraordinary Their receiving the keys together signifyed their representation of the Ministers not multiplyed only as M. Ellis would evade it but conjoyned His fifth argument is from the reproofs given by Christ to the 7. several Churches in the Revelation and not to the combination of them though near one another Answ For ought appears they might be all Presbyterial Churches and not Congregational only The Church of Ephesus was one and that was of more Congregations then one as hath been shewed before But how doth this prove these Churches were nor or might not actually have been in combination if civil authority would have permited Were not the Elders of the several Churches worthy of blame for not doing their duty in their several Churches Or will combinations of Congregations now in Classes or Provinces free their Ministers from blame in neglecting their duâ—â—es in their particular Congregations A Classis or Synod is not to be blamed for the faults in a particular Congregation which ought to be censured in the particular and not there neither indeed can be except they had been brought before them The several Churches there had their several faults and therefore though the Epistle is written to the seven yet it was needful the reproofs should be applied to rhem severally And yet some think that the whole Epistle was writeen and sent to all the 7. Churches from Rev. 1.4 11. His second sort of Arguments are from the matter and members of the Church Sect. 9. and he makes it necessary that the whole Church should be gathered together into one place as the Jewish Church was and Corporations in their hals and Kingdoms in their Parliaments And this he saith I deny against all experience and reason Vind. p. 24. Answ This hath been answered before among the Objections I adde further that though usually it is so that there are some general meetings in worldly polities that are several actual governments yet it is not alwaies so as hath been shewed and where it is so it is a fruit and effect and token of liberty but ariseth not meerly from unity because there have been polities that had them not for this Kingdom was one a good while before there were any Parliaments and after they were granted they were but occasional and so there may be occasional meetings in general Councels only the vastnes of the Church and diversity of civil governments and governours render them very difficult in our daies But he saith that such an oneness as is in regard of kinde and nature in all the Churches and in relation to the same head and in order to and dependance upon one rule or Law the word of God is no actual or real onenesse but in imagination and conceit Ans It is not actual indeed but habitual as hath been said many times over yet it is real as well as the four monarchies were real monarchies and not in imagination only and conciet He might as well make the head of the Church and the Laws of the Church and the Covenant of grace and the seals of the Covenant to be but imaginary and in conceit as the Church-Catholike for they are the bonds of the unity and real visible bonds make not an imaginary integral but a real And where I pray is this onenesse denyed by the brethren as you alledge Vin. p. 24. The enlargement and confirmation of this argument A non existentiâ
all rules of the Gospel of all Church-priviledges Surv. p. â—37 I answer the Church indeed so considered is no actual polity yet it is an integral and it is visible in regard of the persons covenant laws and profession As all the subjects of the Kingdom of England are an integral in reference to the King and Laws though they should for a time want inferiour Officers And though they be not in particular combination and so are destitute of the particular priviledges and have no particular Officers to dispense Gods Ordinances to them constantly yet have they right by reason and Scripture rules to all the Ordinances of God as well as baptism and they covenant to submit to all Gods Ordinances even those of discipline and are habitually under the habitual power of the Ministers office and are capable of censures as hath been shewed before only they want the opportunity of enjoying them constantly by particular Officers of their own The right of an English man to the priviledges of the Laws doth not arise by being actually under such and such particular Officers in a Corporation c. but by being members of the Kingdom So is the right of visible beleevers to Church-priviledges by being Christs visible subjects Secondly the particular converts are brought into Christs Kingdom by the Church-Catholike visible already in being and spiritually conquered and subdued by them to Christ they are the fruits and successe of their Ministry as Organical Christs Ministers are their spiritual fathers and they are children born to the Church and are added to the Church Thirdly The Church doth initiate them and ministerially convey the priviledges to the converts by enrowling them as free-men of the Church by baptism and ministerially ordaining officers over them and so maketh them organical also and adding them into combination with themselves and this cannot be done as they are particular Officers for so they are not to them Therefore as general and it is to be accounted an act of the Church-Catholike as hath been shewed before Ch. 1. Sect. 4. And though in a constant permanent or continuous integral whose particular members rise and fall together with the whole so that it cannot consist but of so many necessary integral individual parts whereof it is constituted There the whole and the parts whereof it doth consist as they stand in relation unto one another must be simul yet the Church-Catholike being as I may say a kinde of discreet successive indefinite integral alwaies transient and in flux some members being alwaies in their adding and some alwaies in departing so that in respect of the particular parts it is not one hour every way the same it was the former I say that in reference to the members that are to be added the whole must needs be accounted first because it is constituted and hath a being entitive and organical before the addition and the members born or converted must needs be first added to the whole before they can bear the relation of parts unto it And herein the Church is like unto a Corporation whose first members whereof it was constituted were simul natura tempore with the whole yet all the members that are added successively finde it a Corporation before their addition and so it is with the successive members of the Church-Catholike Object That which belongs to a similar body or integral quà tale it doth not arise from the integrality but from the nature which is common to the whole and so it agreeth to it primarily quâ tale nun quâ totum sive integrum so though such and such priviledges and Ordinances belong to the whole Church Catholike yet it is not primarily quà Catholike or quà an Integral but quà tale and so they may belong to the parts primarily and to the whole secondarily Answ Though the properties of a similar body do belong to it quà tale as such yet the whole being tale they agree to the whole primarily though they be found immediatly in the particular parts Secondly The priviledges and Ordinances of the Church do not belong to the Church primarily quâ tale for it might possibly have had such a nature and yet wanted such Priviledges and Ordinances but they arise ex institutione donatione divinâ and from the Covenant between Christ and his Church and flow from thence and that institution donation and covenant being first intended and given to the whole the priviledges and Ordinances belong first to the whole and secondarily to the parts though they be set immediatly in the parts also Now then seeing it is evident by the former Scriptures and Arguments that there is a Church-Catholike visible both Entitive and Organical and seeing the Names Nature and Priviledges of the Church the Promises and Ordinances of God the Offices of Christ the Signs of the true Church the Members of of the Church and Ministry of the word belong first to the Church-Catholike visible and that every particular Christian bears first and last relation thereunto which relation cannot be broken off by any removal or without sinne and that the particular Churches spring out of the members of the Church-Catholike I therefore conclude according to the light God hath given me That the Church-Catholike visible is Prima in Gods intention and by Gods institution and by Gods donation of Ordinances and Priviledges and in dignity and authority and in perfection and in nature and essence and in ministerial instrumental causality and in perfect cognition and nostibility and the particular Churches secondary or posterior in all the forenamed respects and likewise are Ortae in regard they are made up of the members of the Church-Entitive and are converted instrumentally by the Church-Catholike Organical and initiaâ—â—d and organized by them and added to them and combined with them Sect. 7. From this Thesis give me leave to propound to your further consideration these Corollaries or Conclusions Concerning Churches Catholike Particular Persons Publike viz. the Officers Private viz. the Members Concerning the Church in general 1. That there is a Church-Catholike 2. That the Church-Catholike is but one 3. That the Church-Catholike is visible 4. That though the Church-Catholike be alwaies transient and in flux by addition and substraction of the members thereof yet it shall never cease to be visible 5. That if the Church-Catholike be contracted into narrow limits yet the remaining part thereof conserves both the nature and priviledges of the Church-Catholike and puts on the notion thereof more properly then of a particular Church as a City burnt down or wasted into a few streets reserves the Charter and Priviledges of the whole and that which was accounted but a part of it before now puts on the notion of the whole 6. That the Church-Catholike is mixt of good and bad as well as particular Congregations are 7. That the Church-Catholike may be considered either as Entitive or Organical 8. That the Church-Catholike is one habitual organical body