A congregational church is a catholike visible church, or, An examination of M. Hudson his vindication concerning the integrality of the catholike visible church wherein also satisfaction is given to what M. Cawdrey writes touching that subject, in his review of M. Hooker's Survey of church discipline / by Samuel Stone ...

DIFFERENCE II.

The Genus comm••nicates his whole essence, and his whole entire nature to the species. Species habet naturam generis integram, non universam. The

entire nature of the genus is in the Species: and in this respect, tota natura generis conservatur in unâ specie: All the entire nature of man was preserved in Adam; because the genus is essentiall to its parts: it communicates his whole entire essence to every one of them. It is not so in integrum; there the parts did give their essence to the whole, and not the whole to them. There therefore the rule is, quicquid convenit membr••▪ convenit integro; because the members were essential to it. But the rule here is, quicquid con∣venit generi, convenit speciebus; because the genus is essential to them. And in this respect, species recipit generis sui definitionem: not in actu signato; the definition of the genus is not the definition of the species: we must not say spe∣cies est Genus; but in actu exercito, (as I said) that is, take any example of genus, as Homo is Genus to his individuals: and here the definition of homo is communicated to Peter. Man is a reasonable creature; Peter is a man; there∣fore Peter is a reasonable creature. Animal is indued with sense, a lyon is animal; therefore a lyon is indued with sense.

Mr Hudson p. 79. doth somwhat dissent from this: his expressions are these. Though it be said that tota natura generis conservatur in unâ specie, and by this rule in uno individuo, it must be fundamentaliter only, non for∣maliter, for there is no such universality formally in specie, & multo minis in individuo. I answer, That I know no man who affirms that the univer∣sality of the genus is in specie formally; the universality is not there, but the entire nature of man is in Socrate, &c. the evidence which Mr Hudson brings for the demonstration of this, is, that the nature of an integrum cannot be preserved in one member: his words are, as the nature of a flock is not reserved in one sheep, or a corporation in one man; to use Mr Hooker's own words.

Answ. He useth Mr Hooker's own words indeed, for Mr Hooker disputes against Mr Hudson, and demonstrates clearly, that the nature of an integrum cannot be preserved in one member: but he professeth, that he yeilds that which all writers and rules confirme; that tota natura generis conservatur in una specie. If Mr Hudson can prove that genus & int••grum are the same, his instances will serve to some purpose; otherwise they are propounded in vain; for a flock is an integrum; and so is a corporation: an individual sheep cannot be a flock; but an individual sheep hath the whole entire nature of a sheep in it: there is nothing in the nature of a sheep. that is wanting in this or that individual sheep.