this Argument If it follow not when we say God hath set in the World some Emperours some Kings some Princes some inferiour officers and Magistrates therefore the whole world is but one Governing Kingdome and all particular Kingdomes do but governe in the right of the Kingdome of the world in Common the Officers whereof are the Kings of the severall Kingdomes who being gathered together or a part of them have the povver of giving Lavves to other Kingdomes according to the Lavv of God and nature which are the rules of all just Government and this also to bee done by the Kings and Princes themselves vvithout any authority from or any dependency on the people unlesse for quietnes sake and as far as they see cause If as was said this follow not neither doth it follow that because the scripture saith God hath set some in the Church Apostles c. Therefore the Church throughout the world is but one Congregation to whose Officers first as the generall Officers of the whole Church not by way of distribution but as a Notionally at least collected body of Officers the power of Government is committed by Authoritie whereof and dependence upon which common officers and body the officers of every particular Church do act and those without any dependency upon the concurrence of the people as co-operating and acting with them unlesse for peace sake By which means let it be observed by all sorts The power being given not to any one Church but to the whole Church as one body and not to the members with the Officers but to the Officers onely there is derived a very Transcendent power and Authoritie upon every particular Minister more then any Parliament-man hath yea more then a King who is limited to his dominion It makes every Minister one of the standing Officers of the Christian world to whom with his Collegues not severally and by distribution but joyntly and as one body is committed the Government of the whole Christian world and managing of the Affaires of the Son of God throughout the face of the earth And so hee is one of Christs Vicars Generall and not particular onely which I acknowledge every Minister to be in his place magnum surely et memorabile nomen But if this bee so great reason is it that the Church of the whole world should choose these Vniversall Officers and so the Church of a nation the Nationall Officers c. by whom they are to be Governed in that which is of Dearest and highest moment viz. the precious soule or else their condition is most sad If every one that can get a little learning and desires to live upon the Sweat and cost of others and to become a minister though I professe that calling to be most difficult on earth and also that the Lord hath appointed that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and so being willing to submit to such conditions as is required shall have a friend patron or a purse to make one and come into the ministery and a living which is the Kings Road in some Churches and is the way whereby many of those who now are to be Presbyters came in he shall become a Parliament man and joynt Governour of the whole Church on earth by whose one vote all the liberties and truth of Religion in them may be destroyed A glympe whereof we have seen in the Convocations or Synods in our owne Nation This I say is sad yea more sad then the condition of men in their Civil Liberties In our owne Kingdom where none attains the honour of being an universal Officer a Parliament man but by the consent formal or virtual of all or the major part of them there having been a precedent act by joynt consent of the whole Nation that persons chosen by the free Vote of the major part of Corporations c. should if loyal be Officers pro tempore to their owne Corporations and to the whole But such agreement hath not been made no not tacitely by the Catholick Church nor no such institution of Christ hath appeared yet And these answers also are applyable to what the same Author hath else where from the word CHVRCH as when he denieth a Particular Church to be the proper subject of the covenant of grace and priviledges of it because saith he the CHVRCH to which these promises are made is perpetual Jer. 31. 36. The strength of which reasoning lies on this that the word Church and not Churches is used in these places and so it is represented as one Answ. As if it were not common to call that perpetual which is so by succession of those of the like Nature and Kinde because the Lord saith Day and Night shall not cease to the Worlds end doth it therefore follow that all the essential properties of day or night do not agree to this or that particular day Is it not a rule in Nature and Reason that all the essential properties of general and common beings are really existent in the individual and partilars Man is to continue on earth to the end of the World does not therefore the essential properties of man agree to Peter or Paul because they were not to continue His second and third Argument there is That a particular Church cannot be the subject of the covenant of Grace and consequently of Church power for the reason is the same because the Church which hath these is sanctified is the spouse of Christ hath the Law written in the heart of it c. but a particular Church as it is particular cannot be said to be such Answ. But 1. It was never said that one particular Church is so the subject of these as that another is not Secondly To speak properly The Church not as visible nor as particular nor as invisible nor as universal is the subject of these things but as a Church i. e. A society of Beleevers and under that nation a particular Church considered as a Church hath right to all and is the subject of all these All are yours saith the Apostle to the Corinthians whether Paul or Christ c. So that this Author by adding this clause as particular hath praevaricated and altered the state of the Question His last Argument in that place is from the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden and Amesius To which I answer That the former say nothing but that the covenant and promises and priviledges belong to true beleevers and the invisible Church whether in a particular Church or dispersed through the world So that this Testimony seems rather to make against him The other is expresly against him and speaks our very sense yea and terms almost insomuch that I wonder this Author is brought in as a witnesse His words are even as they are cited by Apollonius himself These things agree not to the whole multitude that professe Christ but onely to those that are truly
taken as single men have no more or higher authority then one man nor all families then one family nor all Corporations then one Corporation Wee see that 't is not one sort of men onely that are obnoxious to contradictions both verball and reall Besides the Author he seemâ— to folloâ— viz. Apollonius enterprets that place Eph. 4. 16. The whole body fitly joyned together to be meant of an Organicall Ministeriall body differing in members which Mr Hudson expounds to be meant of a Similar and body whose parts are all alike Wee see here also that even persons of this opinion cannot agree among themselves shall wee therefore say they know not what they would have seeing one would have one thing another another We must then reach out the same ingenuity unto others differing in like manner that we stand in need of our selves About his answers to the objections he brings against his opinion we may note severall things as first in his answer to the 1. Objection he saith That the dwelling in one Towne where there is a Church and being member of another Church is a kinde of dis-churching that Church which is in the Tovvne where he dwells But the answer is ready according to his opinion for they remaine still of the same integrall body if the whole Church bee but one visible Congregation and so we see what way by this opinion is made to the scattering of particular Churches seeing men may remove though not in dwelling yet in relation at pleasure without danger of Schisme for they remaine still of the same single though larger bodie as a man may dwell in one Corporation and be a member of another yet he still abides a member of one and the same single Kingdome His 2d Objection is That if all particular Churches bee all one Church they must all meet some times His answer is 1. No It is sufficient that it have the same King Lavves Spirit c. But was there ever in the world such a Kingdome or Corporation that the members of it do not meet sometimes if it be not a meere visible Monarchy as under Popery If it have any liberty left to the subjects they must meet sometimes at least by their Deputies as the Kingdome of England in Parliament the Empire of Germanie in the states of the Empire c. His 2d answer is That the Church Catholicke visible hath met in Generall Councells as a ministeriall Church and mark it is now ministeriall and heterogeneall which was before similar and homogeneall but this is replyed to above where was shewed 1. That the most primitive Churches did not so act 2. That the whole Church did not meet in them 3. That they either acted as a similar body acts in the name of those and within the Churches that sent them each for their owne and all for all those whose Deputies they were for ought we have learnt yet or else that they acted much by Regall power as by Constantines in the Councell of Nice and others by other Emperours and they acted also in late Councels by Episcopall Archiepiscopall and Patriarchal power and not as a similar body 4. If those were the Catholick Church visible representative How dare any particular Churches at most but if national abrogate and sweare against the Ordinances and government established by the Catholicke Church Let him minde this Againe he saith The power of a general Councel or of the Catholick visible Church is but EXTENSIVE and the power of particular Churches INTENSIVE but 1. This overthrowes his tenet for then the Catholicke Church hath no more power in it selfe and properly but meerely by accident then a particular Church And 2. This plucks up his second Tenet viz. That this Catholick Church is the first Church to whom power is given for if its power be extensive onely and not inward It cannot be the first subject of power The 3d. Object Hee moves against himselfe is A visible Catholicke Church must have a visible Catholicke head His 1. answer is That it is sufficient that Christ is the head though in heaven But this is altogether an unsufficient answer For Christ is the Head invisible and thence our divines affirme his body the Church to be mysticall also and invisible taken properly 2. He saith that The Church in regard of the head the government of it is absolutely Monarchicall but in regard of the Officers it is Aristocraticall But this answers not the objection for be it Monarchicall or Aristocraticall yet if the body bee one visible Corporation then must the Governours of it bee one visible either person or company of men usually or at sometimes ordinarily meeting together or at least to be considered as one body or Colledge of men by whom this body is joyntly and together and not asunder to be governed And this is the force of Calvins reason on Eph. 4. 11. though applyed to the Papacy For if wee must bee one visible corporation there must bee one visible governour either person or society which the Apostle omitting in that place where it was necessary to have been mentioned it if it had beene an ordinance cannot saith he be excused His 4th Objection is That if the Catholicke Church bee one visible body it must have a visible existence and being as it is universall and Catholicke but universalls have no beeing of their owne but they exist and have their being onely in particular as Mankinde in generall hath no being a part by it selfe from single men but hath its being in them onely His Answer is That all gathered aggregated or collected bodies do exist and have their beings so As a heape of stones hath its being only in the particular stones the water in particular drops particular Churches consist of particular families and families of particular persons and an Army in the severall Brigades which yet are one though they should never meet But this reply amounts not to an answer For no collected body that is made up of severall things hath its being in these things severally considered and apart but as united altogether it is not a heape of stones if one lye at Yorke some at London others in France Spaine c. So a Church is not a Church or one companie as the families are severall but as met together in one Assembly and so an Army Brigades may be sent out of it but if that part were never united to the Army by 1000. miles nor intended to be and if they be not governed either by one visible head or by one visible Councell of Warre no man will say they are one Army especially if one be in England and the other in America Do wee not say The Parliament hath had severall Armies under severall distinct commanders in cheife who had no dependence one on another as it was a good while after the Earle of Essex had his Comission and
of such a Congregation for we know men do that on civil and oft-times necessitated grounds as most convenient for lively-hood when yet they are altogether unsatisfied either in the Minister or Congregation A 2. passage is p. 62. the several Congregations chuse or accept their particular Officers and all the Congregation united choose or accept their common Presbyterie yet page 58. 't is said their office is conferred on them by the Church either then the common Presbyterie is the Church when they choose the Elders for the several Congregations for they do but accept of them on the matter or else it was not a plain declaration of their mindes when they said the Church chooses or else this is inconsistent with the other The 4th Assertor is Mr Noyes whose tenet is That the Church of Christ on earth is one integral body visible and hath power to act in Synods and Councels unto the end of the world His 1. Argument is The Apostle were members 2. Officers of the Catholicke not any particular Church These are replyed to above 3. They admitted members into the Catholicke Church as the Eunuch and Cornelius the Jaylor c. Answ. These persons were admitted into the Church or company of those who professe Christ and were made visible members of that societie and corporation which is invisible as the Sacraments are said to be visible signes of invisible Grace The Church Catholique is visible in respect of its severall members and societies or Churches but not in respect of its whole being as one Corporation Society and Corporation properly so called differ All men are one society but not one Corporation so in the Church Now according to nature of the society are the priviledges common society hath certain common rights proper societies have peculiar ones Now the Church in generall is a society to all the members of which there belong certain common rights and priviledges as Spirituall food the word Sacraments the right of government in the generall c. but this implies not that it should be properly one Corporation no more then it concludeth because mankinde is a society and every one that is born is already by his birth admitted a member of humane societie and so into all the rights of men as they are men as to have right to food clothes protection and government in the generall that therefore all the men in the world are one Corporation or Kingdome 2. They were admitted by baptisme immediately and directly into Christ and his mysticall body but into the visible company onely by accident If there had beene but one beleever on earth Baptisme had had its use and end Argum. 4. Christ is one visible head c. by vertue of his Lawes Ordinances Providences walking in the midst of the Church and of two or three gathered together as the King of Engl. is visibly King of Scoâ—l though residing at London in Engl. therefore the King being one the Church his Kingdom is one too Answ. Hee cites in the margent Beza saying that The Church is not a common wealth nor an Aristocracy but a Kingdome and if so surely Christ is the absolute monarch of it But that argues the Church to bee one in respect of Christ onely his spirit and lawes but not at all in respect of its visible Government by it selfe unlesse it be proved that Christ hath instituted on earth one visible single person or society of men to governe as one company together the whole Church on earth 2. A King though absent from one place yet is visible somewhere in his Kingdomes but Christ not personally visibly now 3. A king of more kingdomes then one though they be one as they meet in his person and in some respects and have some common priviledges yet may their governments be distinct as England and Scotland 4. As Christ is one so God is one and as the Church is Christs Kingdome so is the world Gods Kingdome his Law of nature one his providence governing one but is it therefore but one outward Kingdome Arg. 5. The Church of the Jews was a Type of the Christian Church the great Sanhedrin figured the Apostles and generall Councells they were many tribes but one Church Arg. 6. Rev. 11. 1. 2. 3. the universal Church is represented by one city the new Iernsalem and called the Church Mat. 16. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. Answ. The Jewish Church was a Type but not in all things for then must wee have one visible high Priest one Temple must meet altogether there c. but as these ended in Christ so that national Church till it be called the second time 2. That Church was but one single intire Congregation there they met all of them thrice a year before the Lord and the Tabernacle called the Tabernacle of the Congregation 4. The Church and Common-wealth were one body as such which I think Mr Noyes will not judge to hold in all nations 2. To that of one Jerusalem I say that it is questionable whether those places speak of the Church as it shall be before the comming of Christ or after 3. Whether they speak of the state of it before the calling of the Jews or after the latter is affirmed by several expositors and they urge the word Ierusalem it shall be the State of the Jews But 4. Howsoever figurative and symbolical places are not argumentative alone 5. The Church is no mystical Ierusalem though not visible neither doth that vision argue it to be visible no more then the Holy Ghost his appearing in the shape of a Dove conclude that the Holy spirit is visible Argum. 7. The mysticall union of Brotherhood makes one mysticall body Ergo the visible union one visible body Answ. It beggs the Question For 't is denyed that there is such a visible Onenesse as is the mysticall the mystical union Catholick is reall the visible notionall only So all men have a mysticall union of nature yet not in outward government nor would it be convenient they should Argum. 8. All naturall grounds of fellowship in particular Churches in respect of ordinary execution bespeaks fellowship in one Catholick Church in respect of lesse ordinary Brotherly union Christian profession the celebration of the name of Christ who is glorified more eminently in the great assembly all these are prevalent The notion of a relation doth cherish affection pride and independency are inseparable Answ. 1. Does all relations of persons one to another and obligations of mutuall duties in regard of those relations argue that they must be one Corporation and one Government The twelve children of Iacob if God had seene it good might have beene so many severall Churches and kingdomes and yet have preserved unitie and done their duties of their relation of Brotherhood The twelve Apostles were independent in power one from another see Gal. 7. chap. 2. yet were in relation one to another and did performe all mutuall offices for
TO EACH BELEEVER THEN TO THE WHOLE CHVRCH which I desire may be observed Again He makes the authoritie of a general Councel to depend on that promise When two or three are gathered in my name c. And then saith That this as well agreeth to any particular company of Christians as to a generall Councel 2. It doth not appear to me in those chapters that hee ownes general Councells on any such grounds nor do I see how he can by what he saith on Eph. 4. 11. above cited 3. If these Councells he there approves did excommunicate c. yet he doth not mention his approbation of them in those things and wee may apprehend he might count such actions among those particulars of their failings which he there enumerates 2. After his Argument he makes the objection M. Hudson had done viz. The whole Church hath no visible head Ergo It is no one Visible Corporation or body He replies to this 1. Particular Churches are visible Churches though destitute of Officers But I Reply should they be so if they had not one common bond of particular laws administred by one person or one visible Society of Officers 2. They may all meet as one visible body the universal Church then must either meet so or else have some visible officers universal over the whole Secondly he saith Christ is supposed the Visible Head in some respect Answ. But that is not the question but what visible existent head there is on earth by whom it may appear one Visible bodie As we saw before out of Calvin on Ephes. 4. 11. 2. How can we contain Christ visible properly 3. He saith The Church is one so as to act ordinarily as one divisim dividedly and yet by reason of the mutual consent in all Churches one act of power done in one Church is by authority of the universal Church and reaches to all Churches as excommunication out of one is excommunication out of all But 1. There was never any Society or Corporation that acted as one dividedly and in parts unlesse it did first act as one joyntly together and in a body wherein power was given to such divided bodies to act so unlesse it were upon some sudden and extraordinary accident that required immediate action before the body could convene 2. Every Society though it may act in parts as a Kingdome in severall Corporations and a Corporation in severall Wards or Halls and Companies yet hath it withall one common ordinary and standing officer or officers visible to governe in chiefe to whom all maine causes are referred c. But 3. That the particular Church that acteth in the right of the universall Church by reason of mutuall consent in all Churches is not proved by that medium for mutuall consent may be voluntary and accidentall and so a figure onely whereas hee is to prove that all Churches are necessarily essentially by way of institution and for ever to be one body whether they consent or consent not But a particular Church acteth first In the right of Christ who is the first subject of Church power Matth. 28. 28. Secondly it acteth in the right of a Church that is of a Societie that hath embraced the faith of Christ which as a Church indefinitely and essentially is the next subject of Church power because we see such power committed to every Church so we heard even now Calvin to expound that promise Matth. 18. when tvvo or three are gathered c. which I finde also the forepraised Author to have said before me whom at the writing of this above I had not seene in the particular 4. That he that is excommunicated out of one Church if duely is excluded out of all is not because the whole Church is one visible body but because all the particular Churches agree in nature and essence of Doctrine Worship and Government so that he that is unfit to be a member of one is so of all because they all require the same essentiall conditions as he that is cut off by the hand of Justice for violation of the Lawes of nature in one Common wealth is cut out of all yet it doth not follow that all men are one Common wealth Or as hee that is out-lawed in one Corporation justly is outlawed in all Congregations virtually and upon the matter though not directly and formally till hee be so declared by them if those Corporations go all by the same lawes for substance and government though it doth not follow that these severall corporations are therefore one or under one generall body which as I take it is the case betwixt England and Scotland where by reason of union under one King though the governments remaine distinct yet one that is borne in either Kingdome is not an Alien but a Free-borne Denizon of both and so by consequence as I apprehend for I may be mistaken in a Law notion and I bring it but for illustration hee that is out-lawed in one Kingdome cannot remaine under the protection of the Lawes of the other and yet the bodies are distinct in power and government though not divided wholy but in some respect So in the Church In the third and last place he comes to authorities But here either he cites those who are nothing for him or when they dispute the point professedly are expressly against him as his first Author Chamier who though he say that if not every Pastor yet all of them are set over the whole Church yet when he argueth the point he explaineth himselfe to mean all distributively every one in his charge as all the Maâ—ors and Sheriffes governe the whole Kingdome but not joyntly but severally for hee denyeth such an one visible universall Church as Mr Hudson acknowledged and as we saw before The 2. Are other moderne Divines whom Mr Noyes would have not to consist with themselves whilest they deny an universall visible Church and yet grants Judiciall Power to Synods But it hath beene shewed before that this may be granted though the other be denyed c. The 3. Are the Fathers who he saith so predicated an universall visible Church they laid the foundation for an universall Bishop If so then let this Author take heed he lay not a foundation to raise him out of the grave againe in his Image as I have heard a Reverend Elder of New England called an universal visible Church in respect of the Papacy and to bury the liberties of all the Christian Churches in his grave The 4. Author is Polanus who saith the things of God are administered Synodali {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the determination of the Synod but are confirmed Regia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the Kings authoritie Wee allow the Power of determining with Calvin above cited according to the word of God to Synods and are well content and thankfull that Kings will become Nursing Fathers to the Church
never for there never was yet any universal meeting of the Catholick Church nor its officers though some Councells have been called Generall because of the number of Bishops unitie of places from whence they have come and the Emperours latitude of Dominion that called them 3. From hence would follow that very many particular Churches would be in peril to be greatly damaged seeing in appeals they must be adjudged by those that are many thousand miles distant from them and could not have perfect * cognizance of the cause nor in case they wanted information for their guidance in judgement could by reason of distance have it in time 4. Great would be the vexation charges travel c. that would arise from such a Court as whereunto Appeals were to come and yet such there must be if the whole Church be but one Corporation 3. A third and fourth prejudice and probable exception against this opinion is T is Papal and Anti-Protestant 1. Papal not indeed in regard of the height of it as it refers the root and head of this universallity unto Rome onely but in regard of the opinion it self An universal visible Church a mayne ground of the former M. Hudson and so M. Noyes indeed would avoid this prejudice also but with Labour in Vain He saith he stateth not the question as the Papists do because they take Visible for Glorious Catholick for Romane and subject it to the Pope For 1. whatsoever the Papists add to the question yet the substance and substratum of it is the same In vain should they fix the seat of it at Rome and subject it to the Pope if it might not be in it self one Corporation and Republique 2. Again they do not take visible for glorious but for that which is obvious to the sense though they make Glorious an adjunct thereunto 3. They so fix the seat of the Church at Rome and subject it to the Pope severall of the most eminent of them as that it is onely in the absence of a general Councel which they make above the Pope as being the Church Catholick Representative as is shewed else-where But to return Bellarmine de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 11. haveing related the opinion of the Protestants and propounded the Romish in opposition thereunto viz. There is a visible Catholick Church He proves it by the same places that the Authors of this opinion do to wit Mat. 16. Vpon this Rock I will build my Church and Chap. 18. Tell the Church which though in that place he bring to prove it Visible yet it implies to make it universal also for both these joyntly Catholick Visible he was to prove in opposition to the Protestants for as they say this could not be meant of a particular Church So hee that it cannot be meant of an invisible And he defines it to be one visible Church or Congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same faith and participation of the same sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors and especially of that onely Vicar of Christ on earth the Pontiffe or Bishop of Rome In the definition it is to be noted that hee makes all beleevers but one single Corporation or Congregation though divided in places under one single Governent under one visible head the Pope of Rome In all but the last clause which is not Essential to the thing though it be to those persons the definition agrees to the minde of the authours of the opinion here impugned And 2. It is Anti-Protestant being opposed generally by them Calvine disputing against the Papists about the unitie and visibilitie of the Church saith as was noted before The onenesse of the Church consisteth in the onenesse of faith And for the visibilitie he saith It is not necessary for the preserving of this unitie that we should see the Church with our eyes Chamier in his Answer to Hardings Argument against Jewell Art 4. Sect. 17. urging that Every multitude in it selfe one did stand in need of one Governour by whom it might be managed but the Church visible is in it self one saith The Church as it is Catholicke or Vniversall is not one in it selfe because it is one generall or universall gathered and aggregated of many particular Churches as if one should say the kingdome or a Kingdome not this or that Kingdome but Kingdome in generall the parts whereof are all particular Kingdomes the French Spanish English For SO the word CHVRCH being taken it is compounded mark not constituted of infinite particular Churches the Romane Constantinopolitane c. Now that which is one in that sence it is manifest that it needs no one governour for not as to every Kingdom there is a King so to all Kingdomes there is one King that that which is called Kingdome in Generall may have a being and therefore not in the Church neither as it is understood to be one collected of many particular Churches Is it necessary that one should be president He evidently both denyeth and excellently refuteth this Catholick union by this very thing because the Church is Catholicke therefore not really one but notionally only as all the Kingdomes in the world are one in the nature and notion of Kingdomes but not one corporation or one Government And so before him Bishop Jewell in answer to the same Papist proving the minor or second part of the former argument viz. That the Church is one visible Congregation or societie because as our brethren do there is one faith and Baptisme one calling so one Church as Saint Paul saith ye all are one body and members one of another and in our Creede wee all professe to beleeve one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church saith that whereas Mr Harding had proved the major also out of Aristotles 12. booke of his Metaphysicks out of Homer Never did Aristotle or Homer dreame of this NEW FANCY that one King should rule over the whole world And by consequence or that the whole world was but one Kingdome and so he implyeth it to be as ridiculous that all Churches should bee but one governing Church and hee addeth what is considerable in this Argument wherein reason is followed rather then scripture His reason were better if either Peter or Paul or any Catholick Father had used it and then citeth Austin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 28. who saith To attribute much to discourse of reason in understanding scripture haec consuetudo periculosa est this custome is dangerous per scripturas enim divinas multo tutius ambulatur It is far safer following of the Scripture So that Bishop Jewell conceiveth this against both scripture and Antiquitie Mr Rutherford also due right of Presbytery pag. 231. titleing the page thus How our Church hath been visible makes it out only by this That in all Ages there have been some who have held the same points with us in the main Implying the visibility
taken properly in that he applies his speech particularly though not exclusively to the Corinthians ye are the body of Christ to wit yee are a particular body and members in particular and so chap. 3. 21. 22. All are yours whether Paul or Apollos let Apolonius note or Paul or Cephas or life or death all are YOVRS and ye Corinthians Christs c. where all are the whole Churches and each Churches in particular as their occasions require each in their order some Vniversal Officers which shall have power in Corinth or any other Church some particular to each Church So that the sence iâ— He hath given or set in the Church i. e. in this Church of Corinth and so in that of Ephesus c. Some Apostles c. as their need shall require yet not therefore making them one externall societie among themselves As some generall Officers make not England and Scotland one Kingdome 2. If we take the word Apostle as it is taken in some other places * and so may be taken here for such Officers as were sent out with commission from any Church upon speciall occasion which is the literall signification of the word and is so taken 2 Cor. 8. 23. Barnabas and the rest are called The Apostles of the Churches and Phil. 2. 25. Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians according to which the sence would bee God hath set some of Corinth in the office of Apostles some Prophets as chap. 14. c. and so the argument hence were voided But 4. Were it granted that the Apostle in these places meanes by the Church the Church visible Catholicke yet this opinion gaines nothing thereby for it doth not follow that because it was so then and in respect of the Apostles that therefore it was to be so to the end of the world and in it selfe Christ who is the King of his Church hath the same liberty in his Kingdome speciall that God hath over the world which is his Kingdome general Now at one time the Lord would have the whole world almost one Kingdome or Monarchy under Nebuchadnezar Jer. 27. 8. and threatneth with heavy plagues that nation that should refuse to serve him giving this reason that himselfe is King of all Nations vers. 5. which is also repeated again Dan. 4. 22. so that the whole world was one Kingdome upon the matter yet it was not the will of God it should alwaies bee so In the like manner in Moses the Church and Common wealth affaires were chiefly under the Magistrate but afterward they were distinct unlesse under those Kings that were Prophets also So the twelve Tribes were under Saul David and Salomon one Kingdome yet it was of the Lord that afterwards they were two and afterward one againe after the captivity So likewise Christ taketh the same power over his Church when hee saw it for the advantage of it hee set over it one Company of Officers who ruled it in common viz. the Apostles in relation to whom the Churches were one though not in themselves but that doth not argue that hee meant it should alwaies so continue after their decease It is a Generall rule in all proceedings that things at their first plantation and beginning need some things that afterward would be inconvenient as a Stick by a Twigge a Bladder to him that swimmeth a Standing-stole to a childe So at the first constitution of the Jewish Church God made Moses an extraordinary Officer so that hee had no Successor so absolute till Christs time So at the first erection of the Christian Church Apostles and Evangelists which now are generally apprehended to be ceased Yea also in Scotland as we heard above at the beginning of their Reformation they had certaine Officers in the nature of Bishops whom they called Visitors which the Authour informes us were then necessary but the Church being setled not now any longer needfull 2. Nor were the Churches one in themselves as we said before but one in the Apostles and that by accident also as England and Scotland are one in the King because he governs both but they are not therefore one Kingdome in themselves considered But 3. Though wee grant this that whiles the Apostles were living there was one body of Officers over the whole Church and so in respect of them the Church might bee said to bee one GOVERNED body yet I say it was never one GOVERNING body for whiles the Apostles lived the Vniversall Governing power was committed to the Apostles onely and not with them to any other Officers or Churches no and not to all the Churches together but they with their officers were all in subjection to them and when the Apostles deceased the scripture speaks nothing of instating any other collected and vnited body to succeed them in that Vniversall Government no nor can it be gathered by consequence but the contrary namely that because the use of that Vniversall power ceased therefore the Office Officers and subject of it Object But Church government did not cease Answ. That Kinde or Way of Church government did that is an Vniversall one but there continued the Government still though administered in another way viz. by way of Distribution Each Church as a Church i. e. as having the Essentiall notes of a Church in it viz. The true Doctrine or faith of Christ received that power for it self though not in so eminent a degree yet as immediately from Christ that all the Apostles had for all Churches 6. But I may deny the former supposition and rightly affirme that the Apostles were not one joynt Ministery for besides that each had entire power some had one part committed to them and some another as Paul expressly affirmeth Gal. 2. 8. The uncircumcision was committed to me the circumcision to Peter Hence chap. 1. he saith He went not up to Hierusalem to those that were Apostles before him which he ought to have done if the government had beene committed to the Apostles joyntly and not severally whence also his going up thither Act. 15. about the question of Circumcision was not on this ground but to satisfie the Christians of Antioch about his Doctrine as consonant to that of the other Apostles On the former principle he professeth 2 Cor. 10. 13. c. he had not intruded into another mans line alluding as it seems to the shareing out of inheritances by line as Psal. 16. 6. for this reason the Epistles of Peter Iames and Iohn are called Catholicke because written to the dispersed Iewes throughout the severall nations as is the expression in the entrance of those Epistles Hence also Paul is sent from Ierusalem as not his place Act. 22. 18. And though sometimes he disputed with the Jews yet it was but as making way to the Gentiles neither did hee greatly prevaile with them as appears Act. 13. 40. 41. chap. 28. 16. 7. To conclude therefore our reply to
faithful or they agree to the Church militant in respect of its ESSENTIAL Nature which is proper to the truly faithful So then not to a Church as Vniversal or particular as Visible or invisible but as essentially a Church which a particular Church may be And the former replies also will serve unto what the other Authors urge from such like Scriptures and places as 1. M. Hudson from Act. 8. 3. Saul made havock of the Church Gal. 1. 13. I persecuted the Church 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence to the Church of God 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. That thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the Church of God Also when it is called the Kingdom of God a Barne a Draw-net a Marriage and because 1. Cor. 12. the Church is said to be one Body and one Woman Apoc. 12. one sheepfold John 10. one Dove Cant. 2. 2. All which and other places wherein the word Church is used are to be understood as hath been evidenced either of the Church in respect of the nature and essence of it as all beleevers and Churches have the same kind of Faith Doctrine c. or else as one mystical and invisible body of Christ but doth not at all insinuate much lesse prove that they are all one external and visible Corporation 3. M. Noyes who useth the same places of Scripture as the other as also Apoc. 11. 1 2 3. the Church is described as one City one new Jerusalem c. Answ. That place is taken by great Expositors to signifie such a state as is not yet in being what it will be when that shall exist is uncertain Secondly We grant it to be one City and Kingdome as a mysticall body 1. In respect of Christ the head 2. In regard that all Churches in their severall places walke by the same Laws c. i. e. as essentially agreeing together but not visibly governing as one body 4. The London Ministers part 1. pag. 3. who urge the forenamed place 1 Cor. 12. and that the Apostle maketh the whole Church but one Organical body a contradiction to their assertion Praefat. p. 11. That the Church is a similar body which overthrows their present Tenent for in a similar body all the parts together have no more internal power then single as in drops of water single Corporations as single though united in place So part 2. p. 66. where also they say that Eph. 4. 4. Christ is considered mystically not personally and if mystically not visibly Answ. First The Apostles scope and then the supposition he goes on are to be eyed The scope is to exhort to humility in great gifts to contentednesse in mean gifts and to love and edification by all gifts The supposition he grounds his Argument on is the relation wherein believers stand viz. of members of one and the same body sâ—il of Christ mystically considered as the Ministers speak but he neither expresseth nor implyeth the visibility of this body or the outward onenesse of it if he mean the Catholick and not the particular Church of Corinth 5. Lastly The Reverend Assembly who in the places above mentioned quote Eph. 4. 3. c. To which Answer hath been given above and may again when we come particulary to reply unto them And thus much in answer to the first Argument of Apollonius and others drawn from expressions that speake of the Church as one one body house Kingdome family sheepfold which is indeed the Achileum or Fort Royall in this Garison and which if I be not greatly overseene hath been by the former weapons out of Christs Armory absolutely taken and demolished The second Argument followes which is There is certaine Societie and Ecclesiasticall communion by divine institution and therefore a certain universall body for there is a certain internall fellowship and obligation to mutuall offices Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. which doth require an externall and outward Society and Commuion Ecclesiasticall in exhorting reproving comforting edifying one another and that fellowship which the members of a particular Church retain among themselves in a due proportion Churches Provinciall and Nationall ought to keep by which communion Ecclesiasticall all Nationall Churches do grow up to one Vniversall Ecclesiasticall body Ans. This reason no way concludes the intended proposition I willingly grant there is a mutuall fellowship and spirituall communion which also requires an outward communion in many respects and particularly in those named by this Author viz. exhortation reproof c. And indeed this was all the combination that was in the most Primitive Churches and such inward and outward communion there is to bee betwixt all good men friends brethren nations c. But this argues not that therefore they must be one body in point of Government Neighbour Nations are to retain this inward communion and outward so farre as may make for mutuall good and there may bee a society or league betwixt them as betwixt Solomon and the King of Aegypt betwixt Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre So men of the same trade and profession in regard of the same art have an internall communion together and this requires some outward communion also as occasion serves but it no way concludes that therefore they must needs be one body or Corporation Suppose some dwell at London some at Yorke some in England and some in France 2. It is also granted that the same Vnion that the members of a Church have one with another the same have the severall Churches among themselves IN A DVE PROPORTION which are the words of the Author but this proportion is not IDENTITIE or samenesse of Relation that is it is not so neer a relation nor gives that power that the former relation doth As the same relation that the members of a Family have one unto another the same in a due proportion have particular families one to another but no man will say that what the members of a family especially some of them may doe one to another the same may a Corpoporation of Families do among themselves there is some neernesse but not altogether the same And this also is sufficient for the second Argument I shall meet with it again anon in the first Argument of the Reverend Assembly The Third There were certaine meetings in the New Testament which did represent the whole Church and wherein the businesse of the whole Church was transacted to wit the calling of an Apostle which was a part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and there were the Pastors of the universal Church for they were sent unto all the world Matth. 21. 19. and therewere the brethren out of Galilee and Jerusalem Answ. 1. I deny with the Protestant Divines against the Papists that there is any Representative Church properly so called or that this was one it was onely at present a Particular Congregation whereof the Apostles were members though principall ones but not
much being said in the former respect which they apply to the latter The third Defendant or rather Assaylant is the Reverend Assembly of Divines Their Assertion is The whole Church is but one made up of the Collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the World by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ in the unity thereof Their first Argument implyed is this From this union there ariseth unto every one such a relation unto and dependence upon the Catholique Church as parts have to the whole and are to doe all Christian duties as parts conjoyned unto the vvhole and members of the same that must be single Common vvealth and Corporation Answ. Such is the advantage of Truth that the greatest abilities grow weak when they dash against it 'T is sensible in this Argument and Authors of it For it doth not at all follow that every company of men that in some respect have an union together and in that respect may be conceived as one whole Brotherhood or Fellowship should herefore be one common-wealth or corporation For as was said before the brethren or families of the same first Parent suppose of the house of Essex Manchester or Fairfax have an union of blood together and in that respect are called the House in the singular number not the Houses of such a Family from which union there ariseth to every one of that House such a relation unto and dependence upon the House or Family in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all such brotherly duties as parts conjoyned to the whole yet doth it not hence follow that all these persons and their Families which possibly may be many are therefore one corporation The same might more evidently be illustrated by the whole race of mankinde who are one in nature one in parent one in office general the government of the world and worship of God one in the common laws of Nature one in the principal Governour God is the King of all the Earth c. And from this union there ariseth unto every man such a relation unto and dependence upon the catholick world or mankinde in general as parts have to the whole and are to do all humane duties as parts conjoyned to the whole of mankinde Hence the Philosopher when rebuked for giving an Almes to a needy but naughty fellow replyed I give it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to the man but to mankinde yet how will would the Honourable Assembly of Parliament take this consequence from the Reverend Assembly of Divines If therefore they should conclude that all the men in the world are but one common-wealth and corporation for then as the former assertion of the onenesse of the Visible Church hath made them Schismaticks in the Church and such also as have sworn to be so In like manner this inference would represent them seditious in the world in the same degree and with them all particular Churches Kings and Kingdoms likewise Object But they say That the union of the Church is neerer and the relation closer and obligation strickter betwixt the members of the Church then betwixt the persons of men because it is spiritual and heavenly To which is answered 1. That the relation and union seems to be equally neer and close in their several kindes Men as Men are as much and have as neer an union and are as much engaged one to another Christians as Christians and Churches as Churches though the relation of Christians is more Noble and excellent and the motives stronger As beasts are as much one in their kind as men though the nature of man be more excellent 2. But be the relation of Christians yet closer yet that is in Spirit Faith mystical Vnion c. not outward and visible further then to carry on the invisible according to the Institution of Christ But neither this nor the former is by this notion countenanced but the contrary as hath been evidenced There may be a Society in Faith as there was in many parts and persons where there was no onenesse in Government Job was not alone in the World some other Church God then had and so he was one in the faith and profession and kinde of Church Administration with them but not united in one body of ouâ—ward government The place alledged for strengthning this Argument viz. Eph. 4. 3 to 14 hath been ansvvered above and implies no more but an essential or mystical union which necessarily implyeth an outward one in all duties in respect of the substance onely not the subject of them but prudentially and occasionally Such an union integrally per modum suppositi subjecti and by way of onenesse in a visible way of joynt government as shall be expedient for edification which ordinarily is best promoted within such a society as may at least upon occasion meet together in one place or howsoever live together in some neernesse at least Which is the more evident because the largest Churches mentioned in Scripture did so as the Jewish Church all whose Males met thrice a year at one place and whose whole Territorie or Land was but small scarce the fourth part of England and therefore might the better be one entire Congregation or Church but had they lived some at one end of the World some at the other as Christians do there is no likelyhood they should have been one Church Integral and as the Christians in Jerusalem and in other cities at the first plantation of the Gospel The second Argument All the Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the vvhole Church Answ. All the Magistrates and Officers of the World are given to the whole world for the governing of it but not to the world conjunctim and as one single Common-wealth or Corporation made up of several corporations and Common-wealths but divisim in respect of the several corporations and Common-wealths The places alledged for proof 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. are answered above whither we refer the Reader The third Argument is drawn from the third fourth and fifth supposition page 48 When the Church was no more then could meet in one place the Officers governed them as one undivided body respectively But their number increasing so as they could not meet altogether they divided into severall Companies which are in scripture called Churches to some one of which every beleever is bound to joyne himselfe But these severall Churches should not act or worke as if they were Independent Corporations but onely as parts of Christs body and are all to regard the common good of the whole Eph. 4. 1. c. and for that end are as much bound if it may be to associate into Presbyteries c. as particular men and families into Churches there being as much need of the one as of the other and so as many men or families make but
one particular visible Church so all particular Churches by this association make but one Catholick visible Church Ministerial and Governing of right all the rest Answ God and Christ have disposed and ordered the Government of the World and the Church according to the severall conditions whereinto the providence of the one and the other hath determined to bring them When wee are Children God hath appointed one kinde of government for us viz. to be under tutors and governours until the time of age and then we are not so when afterward a man is disposed in marriage though he have a relation to his Parent yet not a necessary dependence on him in point of government So whilst a Family is but one it is gouerned as one body by one or more Parents of Officers who in point of government are one single body but as was said if this Family multiply beyond the bounds of that first house they are not now still to be fancyed to be but one Catholick Family to be governed in common Take for instance the Family of Adam or Noah The whole world was but then one Family and governed by one man c. shall we need to repeat the absurdity of the consequence if therefore we should conclude that the severall Kingdoms and Nations are not therefore to act as Independent Corporations but as parts of the body Politick of the World which is Gods kingdom general And yet there is a relation betwixt all societies of men as men by vertue whereof they are all to regard the common good of mankinde c. In like manner doth Christ in his Church when beleevers are babes he would have them the more absolutely to subject themselves to their spiritual Parents when growne up they have a greater freedom and are to be otherwise governed the Apostle bids Timothy not to rebuke an Elder but to intreat them as Fathers c. So when the whole Church was but one company they were governed as such and by one company of Officers that had charge over them all and every one particularly according to their several offices As the Pastors to teach every one the Rulers to watch over every one the Deacons to provide for every one c. But this Family of the second Adam and second Noah as Peter implies him to be spreading into many particular Families and Nations the Scripture never I say never represents them as one visible body in respect of their outward Association and Government but still speaks of them as many the Churches of Judea which yet under the Legal government was but one the Church Act. 7. pray why this difference of speech but to confute this onenesse visible of all Churches When they are called the Church it reflects upon them as one in Faith Spirit kind of worship and Government as the place alledged Eph. 4. 1. plainly expresses And yet I denie not that these particular Churches are to have a regard to the common good of all Churches and not to act as if they were in relation to none but themselves and for this end also it is convenient and sometimes necessary if it may be done to associate with other Churches for mutual assistance and to meet in Synods and Councels together as did the Church of Antioch and Jerusalem and the Churches in the Primitive times The kingdom of England and so other Nations are bound in some cases to associate with other Kingdoms and are actually associated with them as also was Solomon with the king of Aegypt and Hiram king of Tyre but is England not to act as an Independent Kingdom from France Spain Scotland or the Kingdom of Israel or Independent saving the Articles of Association for all * that They add in the same place as a prevention of an objection That as the mutual consent of particular men and families orderly into Churches gives them Power and Authority Ecclesiasticall one over another without destroying the liberty of such persons and families but helping of it so also in this association of Churches their mutuall consent orderly regulated gives them a sufficient call for their Elders to exercise their power of Elders over the Congregations in common without impeaching the liberties c. But 1. This similitude doth not truely represent these Brethrens opinion who hold that the Catholicke visible Church is before any particular Church and is the first subject of all Church Power and the mother out of which particular Churches spring whereas this similitude makes the particular Churches to exist First as mothers to the universall this being according to their expression now nothing else but a collection or aggregation of them Secondly This seems inconsistent with the former reasoning for if by Divine Right all particular Churches are but one universall and generall Church or Corporation and all particular men and families by Gods appointment are to associate with some particular Church then have the Churches right to this common government not from any consent but from Gods institution whether the members or persons consent or consent not yea and hence is it that Churches and Presbyteries may by our brethrens principles bee excommunicated for we may suppose some Churches will not consent to such associations Objection If it bee said This consent grounds the relation to this or that particular Church with which they shall associate I reply that this removes not the objection for in generall they are ingaged unto subjection to the universall Church and the particular Church to which they joyne is but a necessary condition that they may the better bee under the universall discipline 3. The case is not the same betwixt particular persons and Families joyning into some particular Congregation and the association of several Churches into one body much lesse of all into one generall Common-wealth For the former instance plainly confutes it A man or family is ordinarily bound to be of some Kingdom Common-wealth or State but it doth not therefore follow that all States or Kingdoms must needs be associated together into one general Common-wealth neither is the reason the same For a whole Kingdom State or Society is better able to defend it self against injuries and to accomodate it self with necessaries than a particular person or Familie and what is wanting may be sufficiently supplyed by meer Voluntary Arbitrary and Temporary Association in a Common-wealth which in a Family or Person is not so 4. It must not be said by rational men that 1. All men are bound to associate and so all Churches 2. They being associated are to be governed by others which are more then themselves and yet their liberty is not diminished but strengthned if the Reverend Assembly shall say that their security and safety may possibly bee thereby strengthened it might in some cases be admitted But surely as the liberty of a particular man or family is not the same before he is bound to others and afterward though his