A vindication of the essence and unity of the church catholike visible, and the priority thereof in regard of particular churches in answer to the objections made against it, both by Mr. John Ellis, Junior, and by that reverend and worthy divine, Mr. Hooker, in his Survey of church discipline / by Samuel Hudson ...

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 an∣cient 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
• M^r 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 my∣stical 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
• M^r 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 enrowl∣ment. 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 com∣munication 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 inte∣grale.

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-Ca∣tholike 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 Scri∣pture. 84
• 9 It appears by the Scripture-expressions of the union of the mem∣bers of the whole Church. 86
• 10 Because the invisible Church may in some sense be called an in∣tegral, 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 as∣serted. 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 parti∣cular 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 Pa∣pists 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, be∣cause 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 contradi∣ction.
• The similarity of the Churches asserted by D. Ames and M. Bart∣let, &c. 125
• It neither crosseth mine own scope, nor Apollonius, as is suggest∣ed. 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 Commis∣sion 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 other∣wise 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, Or∣ganical.
• 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 Congre∣gation that maintains them. 174
• This will be too great a burthen for Ministers to meddle in the af∣fairs 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 ge∣neral Councels. 179

Chapter 8.

• An answer to M. Ellis's Prejudices, Probabilities, and Demon∣strations against an universal, visible (and as he cals it) go∣verning (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 vo∣luntary, but not arbitrary.
  • 4 Nor is it meant (saith he) whether all or most Churches may oc∣casionally 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 o∣beyed, 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 con∣tended 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 demonstrati∣ons. 192
• His Objection of novelty, answered.
• That the Church is one habitually, and that the particular Church∣es 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 functi∣ons abroad, but none deny them power. 193
• Divers instances out of antiquity. 194
• Frequent coventions of Synods and Councels anciently, and their a∣cting 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 opi∣nion, 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 exer∣cise•• 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, an∣swered. 210
• Six pretended inconveniences, answered. 211

Section 11.

• A fourth sort of arguments from the authours of this opinion, an∣swered. 212
• An objection That the whole world is one humane society, and yet this makes them not one Kingdom politically, answered. 213