This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
Speaking of the existence of the Church Catholike, in the existence of particular Churches, he grants that the Catholike Church existeth not but in particular Churches, as a heape of stones existeth onely in the existence of particular stones p. 24.
I thus take leave to sever and sunder the specials one from an∣other, because if I deceive not my selfe much, they will make
way, not onely for the help of the Reader, that he may more easily carry them along with him in his consideration, but also may readily have resort thereunto, as the occasion of the dispute shall require.
From these particulars thus premised, the STATE OF THE QUESTION is fully this,
Whether there be a Catholike visible Church, as Totum integrale, consisting of all the particular Churches, as its members?
And to this we must answer yet negatively.
Because this question, thus propounded, lookes so fully like a Popish Tenent, at the first appearance, Mr. H. desires to put a Pro∣testant dresse upon it, that persons might not suspect it came from the Romish Synagogue, by reason of the Pontifician Shibboleth it presents before the judicious Reader. And therefore he would difference this question from theirs in three things.
1. The Pontificians take visible for conspicuous and glorious.
2. They hold the name of the Church Catholike to belong to one Church.
3. They hold that this visible Catholike Church should be un∣der one visible universall head.
The Reply is,
This salve onely skinnes over the sore, but neither heales the wound: nor removes the skarre. For it is certaine, there be ma∣ny collaterall errors, which go in the crowd and company with this Popish opinion; but with his favour, those which he hath mentioned with many others, they border about this cause, but enter not at all into the state and constitution of it, but are di∣stinct errors, so mentioned, so maintained by the Pontificians, so opposed by ours. For Mr. H. very well knowes, that Bellar∣mine, with the rest of the Popish champions, marshall these causes as distinct companies, when they come into the field.
1. Ecclesia non potest deficere (i. e.) numerus eorum qui veram fidem profitentur, non est semper frequens & gloriosus. And that is the state of that question controverted betwixt us and them. Whitaker de eccles. quest. tert.
2. Ecclesiae regimen est monarchicum: nempe opus est visibili monarcha & summo judice. Whitak. de Rom. Pontif. q. 1. c. 1.
3. Its also a distinct question, That the Bishop of Rome succeeds
Peter in that Monarchicall government of his. Whitak. de Rom. Pontif. q 4. c. 1.
Hence its plaine that all the differences Mr. H. propounds, are so many distinct questions among the Pontificians, and that this [Ecclesia Catholica est visibilis] is a fourth distinct from all the three former. Therfore they enter not at all into the state nor con∣stitution of this, as either controverted with the Papists, or now agitated and disputed with us.
And if Mr. Huds. please to cast his eye upon the expressions and apprehensions of judicious Whitaker, when he debates the question, he will plainely and presently perceive, that visible here is opposed to invisible, by the confession of all our writers against the Papists: and when they prove that the Catholike Church is not visible, they do not meane, that it is not con∣spicuous and glorious to the world, but that it never was, nor can be visible to any; but it is to be beleeved, not to be apprehended by sense.
Ecclesia Catholica non potest â quoquam impio, imò, ne a quo∣quam pio videri. Whitak de Eccles. q. 2. c. 2. p. 57.
And therefore the forenamed Author makes these two di∣stinct questions
Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis.
Ecclesia visibilis potest deficere: i. e. ecclesia visibilis non est sem∣per frequens et gloriosa. vid. ub. supra.
The issue then is,
If these three mentioned differences be three distinct questions from this, now controverted; then they enter not into the constituti∣on of this: Take it in his peculiar and precise consideration and as controverted betwixt the Papists and us.
And if he will have recourse to learned Sadeel. he will there find, that Turrian so expresseth, so understands his meaning, that Ecclesia Catholica visibilis est aggregata ex omnibus particularibus ecclesiis, per totum terrarum orbem fusis: which is the very hinge of this question now controverted with us.
So that I must yet crave leave to concurre with all our Di∣vines against the Papists in this opinion, and to professe with them, that, Ecclesia Catholica est invisibilis: i. e. nec ab impio imò ne a quoquam pio, videri potest.
And when we say that Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis, nei∣ther they nor I meane, that it is not conspicuous to the eye of the
world: but that there is no such Ecclesia aggregata ex omnibus ecclesiis visibilibus, that hath any being in rerum natura, or was instituted by our Saviour Christ.
For the clearing of this conclusion, we shall first dispute from the nature of Totum integrale. For herein Mr. H. deserves just commendation, that he deales openly, and like a judicious Divine, expresly intimates, what kind of Totum he meaneth, that so we may not be to seeke, when we should speak to the point contro∣verted and intended by him. Dolus latet in universalibus.
To begin then our inquiry touching the nature of Totum inte∣grale, which being attended, according to the proper and right description of it, that will be as a torch in the entry, to give light, and lead the Reader into the particular truths, as so many par∣ticular roomes in the house that so the whole frame may fully be conceived.
Integrum says (the Logician,) est totum, cui partes sunt, essentiales: it is such a whole, unto which the parts are essentials; i. e. give the essentiall causes, whence the integrity and entirenesse of the whole is made and constituted. And therefore to speak in their language, they are orta argumenta; the members arise out of the matter and forme, and containe in them materialia & formalia principia, which they give, in their concurrence to make up the integrum. Thus the severall Troopes and Companies make up the Army. The Free-men of so many Companies, the Com∣mon-Councell of Aldermen, and Major make up a Corporation. So many Cities, Shires, Counties, make up a Kingdome.
In all these the members are causall, each gives in a substantiall share, to make up the integrity or intirenesse of the whole.
Hence, the members are in nature before the whole (I say in na∣ture, because I would not run into needlesse niceties touching any other priority, but thus they are certainly before the whole) because they containe the causes that make it up.
That which Mr. H. suggests else where by way of objection, that they be relata, and therefore simul naturâ, is an old fallacy fre∣quent in the Schooles, and proceeds meerely out of a mis∣take of Logicall principles. True it is, that integrum and mem∣bra may be cloathed with such a respect, which may be put upon them, for our expression and apprehension (as it were easie to o∣pen, onely it sutes not this popular debate) but to speak properly,
look at integrum and membra in their peculiar affection of arguing, and they can be no more Relata, then one opposite can be ano∣ther..
Hence, The integrum is another thing resulting and arising from the members imitating exactly the nature of the effect, existing from his causes, and therefore its called symbolum effecti. As a body is distinct and a third in reason and reality from all his members; The Army constituted of the severall Companies; The Kingdome from the severall Counties, Hundreds, Cities.
Hence lastly, This is made peculiar to this Totum (from that we call Totum genericum, or universale,) That what belongs to this, doth not belong to all the members. As that man is said to eat, drink walke, talke, look upward, when no part of the body, nor yet the soule, in reason, or according to truth, can be said to doe any of these actions.
Hence then it followes undenyably and necessarily,
If Ecclesia Catholica be Totum integrale, its a third, and distinct from all the members, and so from all particular Congregations. And therefore there must be some Officer, Act, and Ordinance ap∣pertaining to that, which doth not appertain to any of the members.
And this rule, reason, all experiences, all instances in all inte∣grums, do evidence. There is a supreme governour in a kingdom. A Generall in a Camp, besides all other Officers in all the Regi∣ments.
But there could yet be never given any discovery of a Catho∣like Church, as a third and distinct from its members, nor yet Act or Officer, besides those which are observed and exercised in particular Churches.
And I would earnestly and seriously desire Mr. H. or any man living, but to lay forth the nature of particular Congregations, and attend all the Offices, actions, and ordinances there dispen∣sed, and in precise consideration, offer to my understanding, the nature of this whole distinct in apprehension (I would not, I desire not a separation of this whole from the parts, or the pulling of them a sunder, for that were insanire cum ratione) but a present∣ing of some distinct, Officer, Act, or operation, seclusa ratione, or not habitâ ratione of particular Congregations, which do not apper∣taine to them. And this must be done, or else this totum inte∣grale will prove a meere fiction, and a conceit minted out of a mans imagination.
Its true, Totum genericum, or take the nature of a Church in generall, there is nothing required, but that it should exist in its particulars, as in its species: and that the generall nature of a Church, and all the priviledges firstly appertaining thereunto should equally and indifferently be communicated to all the par∣ticulars as inferior species: as the like is easie to be seen and ob∣served in all examples of this sort, as we have instanced in the foregoing part of the discourse.
But the nature of an Integrum is wholly different, as it is a third arising from his members, so it ever hath somthing peculiar and not communicated unto them.
And hence it was, that the Papists, who maintained this Ca∣tholike visible Church, have created and fancied a visible Head to this visible Body, but that fond device labours now with the loathsomnesse of it selfe.
When Master H. is to make answer to this Argument he thus writes. p. 23.
This is the main argument of the Pontificians, for the supremacy of the Pope, and that which made our Divines deny them a Church Catholike visible: But to the argument I answer that the Church had a Head of the same nature, consisting of body and soule who sometimes lived in this kingdom of grace in the dayes of his flesh, and did visibly partake in externall ordinances, though now indeed he be ascended into his kingdome of glory, yet ceaseth not to be a man, as we are, though glorified, and ceaseth not to rule and governe his Church, here below; for it is an everlasting King∣dome Isa. 9.7. As when King James was translated from Scotland to England and lived here, he did not cease to be King in Scotland.
My Reply is.
1. The confession of Master. H. is very remarkable, which I desire the Reader to observe, and for ever to carry along with him in his consideration, that according to the concurring and joint judgement of all our divines, they saw it necessary to deny the Papist a Catholike visible Church, unlesse they should be con∣strained to grant them an officer, as a supreme visible Head: for so his words are expresse.
This made our Divines deny the Pontificians a Church Catho∣like visible, namely, That so they might deny a visible Head su∣table thereunto.As though he had said, unlesse they had denied the one, they could not have denied the other.
This was the conclusive determination of all those worthy champions of the Lord, who opposed the supremacy of that man of sin in former ages: and I cannot but conceive their grounds impregnable: If the one be granted, the other cannot be avoided according to all the principles of well ordered policyes, and the rules of reason propounded in the foregoing arguments.
2. The salve, which Master H. here applies, is so far from healing the sore, that it makes it worse, the physicke being al∣most as bad if not more dangerous, then the desease: for,
When in his Answ. he would beare the Reader in hand that Christ as man consisting of body and soule, and living in the Church must in that regard, be the visible head of his Church, though now ascended into heaven: I would affectionately de∣sire him in Gods holy feare to consider what he writes. For,
1. It is not onely untrue, but very dangerous to hold, that Christ as meere man consisting of body and soule is a visible Head of his Church; and yet this he doth and must say, if he say any thing to the argument in hand: But upon this grant it will follow that Christ is such a head, that is not present with his Body, nor doth, nor can lend influence to his whole body, and the mem∣bers thereof in all places: and therefore must not be sufficient to supply fully the necessities thereof; which how derogatory and prejudiciall to our blessed Saviour, and the fatherly love of God the father to his Church, I am perswaded his love to Christ, will make him more sensible of such indignity, then I am able to expresse.
2. Its certaine our Saviour is Head of the Church, as media∣tor, God and man, who hath fulnesse of all grace and of all power committed to him, and so becomes fully fit to execute the place and office of such a head, to send all officers, to furnish them to the worke, and blesse them in the worke of the mini∣stery, for the gathering and perfecting of all his saints, untill they come unto the unity of the faith. So Beza in his confession: chap. 5. Artic. 5. Whitak. de Pontif. Rom. q 1. cap. 3. arg. 6. where disputing, that to he Head of the Church, was a burden too heavy for any man to beare, a worke too hard for any man to discharg, he issues the reason thus quare relinquendum est, &c. therefore we must leave the worke to Christ, who, as he is everywhere, so he can doe all things; alias enim caput non esset, otherwise he should not be a Head.
3. Hence that which matter H. takes for granted, that Christ was a visible Head, and Monarch in the Church, is not safe, nor true, as hath appeared by the foregoing arguments, and is con∣fessed by all ours that I meet withall. Whitaker de Pontif. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 14. ad. 5. Bellarm. arg. Christus igitur non dege∣bat in terris ut visibilis monarcha, nec ideo venit in mundum ut monarchiae visibilis fundamenta jaceret, Christ did not reside in the world as a visible monarck, nor came he into the world to set it up. The like expressions Master H. may find often in Whitak. p. 533. 554. ut. supra. Christus missus non est ut Regnum visibile occuparet, aut se tanquam Dominum et Monarcham in Ecclesia gereret.
4. When we dispute touching the distinction of an integrum from its members, we look that this distinction should be atten∣ded in the same kind; namely, the integrum must not onely have a distinct nature, but such a nature, as ariseth and results from the members; and so the Officer or officers, which are appropriate un∣to that, must have some sutable resemblance in regard of the kind of them with the other.
As the Nationall Church of the Jewes being a distinct kind of Church, had peculiar and distinct Officers and ordinances, which were nationall, beside those of the Synagogue: So the Catholike must have, if it be a Church made up of the particular Churches, "as the Nationall Church was made up of the Synagogues, as Mr. H. words are, p. 21.
Hence againe, from the former ground laid and proved, it fol∣lowes, the Catholike Church receives being from the particulars, and therefore its after and out from them.
Hence they receive no being from it, because the integrum est totum cui partes sunt essentiales, non totum essentiale partibus, for that is as far wide from this, as heaven from earth; for let our sense and experience speak in this case. This totum Catholicum is aggregate of the particulars, as a heape is aggregated and made up of many stones. (Master H. pag. 24.) an Army of many Regi∣ments: but our senses will say, if asked: the stones must be before the Heape; the Regiments in reason before the Army, that ari∣seth out of them.
That onely which puts faire colours upon this false conceit, is, the misapprehending of some particular examples, namely, when they say, that any portion of water divided, every part of it is water, and hath the name and nature of it. The Answer is,
That predication or affirmation is not by vertue of that division of a portion of water that is made, as integri in membra; for in very deed, it is professedly opposite thereunto: But it is because the nature is preserved in the least portion of it, and thence this predication this part of water, is water, is made good, because a genus and species are there preserved and attended, going along with the division of integri in membra. For when we say, haec a∣qua est aqua, the Arguments are genus and species: and the like may be said, and must be understood of the like examples. And that this is so, will easily appeare by instances, if we narrowly se∣ver the considerations and respects one from another.
Take a quart of water and divide it into two pints, here is a di∣vision of integrum into its members: though each pint may be cal∣led water, yet a pint cannot be said to be a quart, because the divi∣sion of that totum will not permit it.
From these particulars, as so many proved premises, inferred from the nature of an integrum, to the 2, 3, 5. conclusions of Mr. H. fall to the ground.
Nor can I see how the 5 and the 7, can stand together.
If the proper notion of the Church Catholike and particular Chur∣ches be of integrum in membra, pag. 20. Then particular Chur∣ches are essentials, and give matter and forme to the Catholike.
Therefore they cannot receive matter and forme from the Ca∣tholike, contrary to conclus. 7 pag. 21.
If the Church Catholike existeth out of the particular Churches, as a heape out of so many stones, pag. 24. then they are before the Catholike, contrary to conclus. 5. pag. 10.
My second ground is that which Master H. grants, and the na∣ture of the Church seemes to force.
The Catholike Church may by persecution, &c. be brought into a little roome, and haply into one Congregation, pag. 24. yet all the essence and priviledges of the Church Catholike visible are contracted and preserved therein, and from them conveyed and derived to those whom they shall con∣vert, ibidem.
From this grant, I offer these collections to consideration.
1. Hence this Catholike Church being an individuall, it must needs be species specialissima, and therefore can have no inferior to it, or subordinately under it, to which it can give nomen & natu∣ram: for no man is so far forsaken of reason, as to affirme, This
individuall Church is that individuall Church.
2. Againe, wherein failes this kind of reasoning?
1. Catholica Ecclesia extends it selfe to all persons and places, conclus. 1.
But so cannot a particular Congregation.
2. Ecclesia particularis may faile: so cannot Ecclesia Catho∣lica.
3. Ecclesia Catholica gives part matter, and part forme to all particular Churches, conclus. 7.
But a particular Congregation cannot do so.
4. That which is aggregatum of all particular Congre∣gations, and its nature consists in this, that it is such a Totum, the nature of such an integrum cannot be preserved in one.
For integrum cannot be made of one member: As though a man should say, there may be the nature of a heape reserved in one stone: The nature of a flock in one sheepe. A Corporation in one man.
Its true I confesse, I should easily yeild, that which all writers, all rules confirme, Tota natura generis conservatur in una specie: as the nature of man was preserved in one man Adam. But that an integrum made of many members should be intire and have his whole nature preserved in one, It is to me unconceiveable, unlesse Master H. will help us with another Logick, that never yet saw light. Should one affirme the body to be an intire body and not lame, which lacks all the members, but only the head or hand, it would be counted a strange affirmation.
Let us yet once againe look a little more seriously into that particular branch of the 11th conclusion, if haply something may be suggested to our secret thoughts, for our further consideration. Its said, "that Ecclesia Catholica was reserved in the family of Noah.
Beside the inconveniences mentioned before, we may thus fur∣ther inquire: Its granted that the Church was appointed by God to be in families. Suppose Noah his sonnes, issuing out into their own families, as they did: Noah, he had his family intire: when Noah was dead, and his family dissolved, I aske where Ecclesia Catholica was? It must needs be either in some of those families severally considered, or in a fourth family as an aggregatum of them all.
It could not be in the families severally considered, as that a∣ny
one of them should be, or could be truly called, Ecclesia Ca∣tholica. For which of them could claime that more then another?
2. Ecclesia Catholica gives matter and forme to the particu∣lars, as in the 7 conclus. but one family did not so to another.
3. Ecclesia Catholica consists of all the particulars as its members.
But no one did consist of the other two.
Nor can the second part be granted, to wit, that there should be a fourth family aggregated of all these: A mans sense gives sufficient confutation of this: for there was never any such re∣corded in the word, nor conceived by any in that age: nor can there be such a one as Mr. H. hath deciphered to us, that should give part matter, part forme, to all the particulars, as in the seventh conclusion.
For it privily implyes a contradiction: to be an aggregatum of particulars, and to give being unto them.
Lastly, take we Mr. H. his definition of the Catholike Church as it respects all persons and places, as in the 1. conclus. And therefore, is the whole company of all beleevers in the whole world.
How will, or in truth can, this agree to the visible Church, when it was confined within the pale and limits of the land of Judea? Its confessed by all that I know, that God had no Church visible, to whom all Church priviledges and ordinances belonged, but onely that: And therefore all were bound to turne Jewes, and become Proselytes, before they could be said to be within the Covenant of the Church, or had any right to the seales, or to share in any priviledges thereof. Exod. 12.42. Ephes. 2.12.
And therfore all beleevers, that were not joyned to the people of the God of Abraham, that were not incorporated into the Church, by subjecting themselves to the way and worship of God amongst them, and receiving circumcision in the foreskin of their flesh, they were debarred all Priviledges. Conceive we now Rahab converted to the faith, and as she was, its certaine many families in like sort might be.
By Mr. H. his principles, these were all of the Catholick Church, and had title to all Priviledges of the Church, which the words of the text professedly gainsayes. Nay compare we Mr. H. his way of the conveyance of the right of Church Priviledges, with Gods way, punctually expressed in his word, and then we
shall see what accord there is. Mr. H. thus writes, p. 11.
Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church Catholick, and pertake of the benefit and priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they are beleevers of the parti∣cular Churches, but of the Church Catholick.
So that we have Mr. H. his mind and method thus laid open before us.
1. When a man is converted to the profession of the Gos∣pell, and so becomes a visible believer, he is then a member of the visible Church Catholike.
2. He hath by this his profession and membership with the Church Catholike, right unto all Church priviledges.
3. He then becomes a member of a particular Church: but hath not right to Church priviledges, because of that, but because of his former membership with the Catholike Church.
This is his method.
Gods method in his word is this.
1. A person is converted and becomes a visible beleever.
2. He comes to be adjoyned to the Jewish Church, and turnes Proselyte.
3. Because he is now converted and turned Jew, he may eat the Passeover, and enjoy all the other Priviledges, Exod. 12.42. Isa. 56.
It is hereby apparant that Gods method, and that which Mr. H. expresseth, is directly contradictory. The Lord sayes: Its not because a beleever, but because beleeving he joynes to the Church; therefore he partakes of Church Priviledges. Mr. H. affirmes: Its not because he joines to the Church, but because he is a beleever, that he hath right to the Priviledges of the Church: which are open contradictions in ipsis terminis.
From the ground formerly made good and granted, it follows in the second place, The Church visible was not of all people, nor in all places.
If the Church was confined within the pale of Judea, then was it not in all places.
If confined to such only as were Jews, or became such, then was it not of all people.
And by all that I can observe in the text or out of Interpreters, its plaine, that the sonnes of Keturah which were sent into the east, though they were circumcised, and in all appearance of proba∣bility,
not only professed the faith (which were enough according to M. H. his principles, to make them members of the Catholike Church) but were some of them true and sincere-hearted belee∣vers: yet its most certain God did not account of them as a visible Church, nor did he betrust them with Church-Priviledges. The Psalmist therefore confines and impropriates them to the Jew. He hath not dealt so with any nation, neither have the Heathens knowledge of his wayes, Rom. 3.2. what is the Priviledge of the Jew? &c. to them was committed the oracles of God, not to any other.
And therefore it is, that Divines, and those most judicious, conclude, and that with consent, that the Church was then in populo Israelitico, but now in populo Catholico: That it was then in a Nation, according to that, I will make of thee a great Na∣tion: But now in all Nations, according to that, Go preach and teach all Nations; and in Christ there is no difference either of Jew or Grecian, Scythian, or Barbarian: and in this notion and consi∣deration it is, that I conceive the visible Church may now be called Catholike, and not in the time of the Jew, because the Gospel is preached to all people universally and indifferently, and gathe∣red out of all without any restraint, but was then confined popu∣lo Israelitico.
Wherein Mr. H. his Demonstration, by which he would prove a Catholick Church visible, is examined and answered.
These grounds being laid and proved, there is a ready way made to the right understanding of that which Mr. H. pro∣pounds in way of proof of his Assertion, the nature whereof we have now opened.
His demonstration as he termes it, is this.
If particular Churches be visible, then there is a visible Catho∣lick Church.
But particular Churches are visible. Therefore,
Our Answer will be double.
1. We shall enquire what our Writers and Protestant Di∣vines do re urn to the Proposition.
2. Then we shall apply our selves to the second part, or As∣sumption, and by both, it will appear, that this Argument doth
not probably conclude the cause, much lesse necessarily demon∣strate it.
To begin with the Proposition.
When Duraeus urged Doctor Whitaker with this Argument to maintaine a Catholike Church visible, which he and all ours do constantly deny, Master H. may be pleased to consider, what re∣turne the Doctor makes Whitak. contra Duraeum Lib. 3. de Eccles. pag. 110. when Duraeus had thus laid down his Argument, Dic quaeso, si singulae Ecclesiae ex quibus veluti partibus, &c. If all par∣ticular Churches, whereof the Church Catholike consists, as mem∣bers, be visible, and fall under our sight, will it not follow, that the Catholike Church will be visible also?
After Doctor Whitaker had told him, that the Catholike Church is not to be confined to one age and time, but compre∣hends all the faithfull of all ages, which went before us, and are now in heaven, and then he demands of Duraeus, whether all these be visible or no?
Secondly, he comes yet neerer home, and drives him to a grea∣ter straight and narrow: Deinde ut Catholicam tuam ecclesiam in hoc seculum compingamus, tamen quousque particulares Ecclesiae a∣spectabiles sunt, Catholica aspectabilis non erit. In a word he pa∣remptorily and readily denyes the consequence, affirming That the members may be aspectabiles, but the whole not so. And gives the reason of his denyall, which is this. Si enim Catholica (ut tu dicis) consistit ex partibus, &c. Loco supra citato. If the Catho∣like be aggregated of many parts, then when these parts are gather∣ed together, the whole may be seen, but the parts as severally cannot be seene. And addes, answerably when the parts are seene several∣ly, then the Totum, as aggregated, cannot be seene.
Nay if Master H. be pleased to review, how learned Sadeel deales with Turrian, propounding the very same Argument to him, in the very same termes, he will, and the Reader may perceive, what strength that judicious writer apprehended to be in this rea∣son, and Doctor Whitaker alledgeth and repeats this against Bel∣larmine and gives his approbation of it. The concurrence of those judgements of these two Worthies you may find, Whitak. de Eccles. controv. 2. q.c. 4. Arg. 11.
Ecclesiam Catholicam adversarii dicunt esse omnes Ecclesias par∣ticulares, per totum terrarum orbem fusas, quae quia sunt visibiles, ec∣clesiam Catholicam exhis aggregatam visibilem esse affirmant.
Our Adversaries (saith Sadeel) affirme the Catholike Church to be all particular Churches spread through the whole world; and be∣cause the particulars are visible, therefore they concludes the Ca∣tholick aggregated of all these to be visible also. (So that it is plain, the Papists plead the same Argument with Mr. H. for their cause, as he now doth for his.)
But Sadeel and Whitaker both, make a round returne to him. Sed hoc nihil absurdius dici potest. They feare not to professe that the consequence is very absurd and destitute of any shew of rea∣son, and therefore retort the argument, as marvellous strong a∣gainst him. If the particular Churches severed be visible, then the whole aggregated cannot be visible: And if the aggregatum be visible, they cannot be visible. As they instance. If there be ten flocks of sheep severall, they are and may be seen severed one from another: But then one Catholick flock gathered toge∣ther of all these cannot be seen.
By this which hath been alledged, two things the Reader may attend:
1. How feeble these judicious writers judged the force of the consequence of the Argument.
2. Its evident by their whole debate, that they take it as a thing supposed, that to make up a Totum aggregatum, there must be in reason the aggregation of the members.
For it is not enough to make up a Totum aggregatum, that the severall members are under the same lawes, and governed after the same manner. For that which may and doth belong to those that are not aggregated in any such a whole, that cannot be suffi∣cient to give a proper nature or formality to such an aggregatum: for things common do not give any proper and differencing na∣ture. But these forenamed, to wit, to be govern'd by the same laws, and ruled after the same manner, may, and doth befall those bo∣dies, that are not under such an aggregation.
Thus severall Free cities and House-Towns, which are entire in themselves: Severall Countreys and Kingdomes, who have nothing to do with each other in their precincts and Jurisdictions, yet may have the same lawes, and the same manner of Govern∣ment. Only that, wh ch makes them an entire and compleat common-wealth in themselves, is the aggregation of them un∣der the same governours as the chiefe, whether one single person as in a monarchicall, or many, as in an Aristocraticall state.
And this might suffice for a satisfactory answer for the present, but I shall go a nearer way to worke, and as they have denied the consequence, I shall deny the second part or assumption, Namely, that particular congregations are not members, (but species) of a Church, which as a genus exists, and works, and is preserved in each particular, and as far as visibility may be given to a generall, existing, and acting in the individuals, I shall not gainsay it: for it is that I have opened and defended in the foregoing part of the discourse. Such a Totum universale I grant, and do not know any either do or indeed can deny; but this serves not the Papists turne at all.
For the generall nature of a Church being determined to its particulars, and existing therein, all particular Churches do e∣qually and indifferently from thence receive all the Church-power and priviledges that are common, and there needs no vi∣sible monarch over all Churches, but fairhfull Pastors and Teach∣ers, set over every particular congregation, for improvement of all ordinances, Sacraments, and censures for the good thereof.
Nor will it suit Master H. Because we need not (if we will follow the levell of this truth, as it leads us) goe about by a Ca∣tholike visible Church aggregated of all, before we come to a congregation, but we must be necessitated to attend upon a par∣ticular congregation; for there both the essence and priviledge of the Church is first to be found, because the genus first exists there.
Master H. conceiving such an answere might be made, he frames it as an objection against himselfe, and makes onely this re∣turn, that he takes the notion of Church in regard of its particu∣lars to be Integri in membra but the proofs which should settle it, are no whit sufficient.
1. He alledgeth an expression out of Doctor Ames his me∣dulla lib. 1. c. 32. part 4 particulares istae congregationes sunt partes similares ecclesiae Catholicae, which words, its certaine, doe properly and directly consider particular congregations as spe∣cies of a Church, and were so intended by the Author, as it ap∣peares in the next word.
True in the following words, he speaks of ecclesia Catholica, as integrum, but rather as putting such a notion upon it, or analy∣sing the reason of such an apprehension, then concluding that there is any such reality existing. For in the first words of that
chap. the thus writes, ecclesia, quae in terris agit, non est tota simul visibilis. Therefore this aggregation is not visible (for in that the nature of this Totum integrale lyes) so that this expres∣sion of Doctor Ames neither hurts ours, nor helps Master H. his cause,
Master H. addes also one argument.
"Ʋbi omnes partes existunt simul compactae, ibi totum existit.
Sed omnes partes ecclesiae Catholicae visibilis existunt simul compactae.
Therefore ecclesia Catholica visibilis existit.
The minor he proves out of Eph. 4.16.
Answ. The conclusion may be granted in a right sense, with∣out any prejudice to our defence at all. 1. Where the particular members of a congregation are compacted in covenant of the Church, and with Church officers, there is a particular Church. 2. Where there are many particular Churches, amongst them, there is Totum genericum existens.
In this sense, (which is the sense of the place) all may be granted: but in his sense, the minor is denyed, namely, that all particular congregations do exist aggregated together as mem∣bers of the Catholick; that should have been proved, but is not touched, much lesse evidenced.
And if Mr. H. had attempted to shew how all particular Churches are aggregated or compacted in toto integrali, which ariseth out of them, and hath somewhat peculiar to it selfe, and not common to them, he had helped the cause with some proof, and us with some light.
The particular taken from the Apostles and Evangelists, namely, it must therefore be a Catholike Church, because they were given to it, we shall meet with it, in 1 Cor. 12.28. where it shall receive a full answer.
Where the Scriptures Mr. H. alledgeth, are examined and cleared.
We have thus done with Mr. H. demonstration, and we sup∣pose it doth appear, that it doth not necessarily inforce the con∣clusion.
We shall now weigh, with like liberty, the Scriptures which he propounds to this end and purpose.
The first alledged by him, is, Act. 8.3. and to this also may that be referred; Gal. 1.13. because the aime of the Spirit is the same in both, and the second is but a relation of the first.
Now that by Church, in Act. 8.3. cannot be meant catho∣lica ecclesia visibilis, is thus plain.
That Church is there meant, which Paul persecuted.
But he could not, nor did he persecute the whole company of professing beleevers in the whole world, for he could not see them, nor know them.
Beside, he did not persecute the Church of the Jewes in Jeru∣salem, i. e. the Jewish Church, and yet its certain, there were there many that believed: but as the text saith, and he affirms of himselfe, he persecuted that way, and all that he knew of that way: which was indeed the Christian Church in Jerusalem, now erected by the Apostles, and there exceedingly increased by the blessing of the Lord, and therefore Church is put by a sy∣necdoche, for that particular Church: and that also for the men and members of it, that Paul could take notice of it, Act. 9.2 so the words are, if he found any of that way, them he had com∣mission to pursue, and so did.
The probabilities intimated to the contrary by Mr. H. do not evince; as first when he saith,
It was not a particular Church, because the persecution was in Jerusalem, Damascus, and even to strange cities.
Answ. True, no wonder because he persecuted all that profes∣sed that way of the Christian Church, and those by reason of a great persecution were scattered abroad throughout all the re∣gions of Judea and Samaria, they fled far and wide, and there∣fore he might persecute them where he found them, as he did, hunting after them with eagernesse and madnesse of malice. Thus Dr. Whitaker expounds the place, controv. 2. de eccles. p. 456
When Mr. H. addes, an indefinite is equivalent to a gene∣rall, he will find that it is not alwayes so upon second thoughts, as innumerable instances might be brought to evince the con∣trary.
Nor yet lastly is there the same reason, that the word Church here should reach all other Churches. For the Apostle gives in
a peculiar ground why he was thus carried, namely he persecu∣ted their way, not simply because they were beleevers. (For such many in Jerusalem were that were of the Jewish Church Acts 5.13.14. But because they made this manner of profession touching Christ and salvation by him alone, rejecting the cere∣monies of the Law.
To this also you may referre these two other Scriptures: Act. 2.47. God added to the Church such as should be saved.
1. That is not to the whole company of beleevers in the whole world: for such a company they never saw nor knew, and there∣fore could not be added to them: But to the Christian Church now erected: and therefore it is said, they continued in the Do∣ctrine of the Apostles, in their fellowship, Act. 2.42.
2. There were many beleevers of the Jewish Church, Act. 5.14. and therefore they who met of that Church, could not be added to them, but to the Apostolicall and Christian Church. And therefore,
3. When it is said, they were added to the Church, v. 47. in the 41. v. Its said, they were baptized, and the same day were added un∣to them about 3000 soules, i. e. to the Apostles and their com∣pany.
Lastly, the Church is distinguished from all the rest, many whereof were certainly professing beleevers, Act. 5.14. feare came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things.
To this head, namely of the Christian Church of the Gentiles, you may adde that 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Jew, nor Gen∣tile, nor to the Church of God. Where the word Church (saith Mr. H. pag. 13) cannot be the Church of the elect, nor any par∣ticular Congregation, but indifinitely.
Answ. But must it therefore be meant of the Cathol ke Church visible, and that as integrum? the consequent deserves a denyall; and that it cannot be meant of the Catholike Church, the words of the text give apparant testimony.
That Church which is contra-distinct to the Jewes, that cannot comprehend the whole company of beleevers, through the whole world, because some beleevers were of the Jewes, 1 Pet. 1. Jam. 1.1.
But this Church is so contra-distinct.
Againe, that Church is here meant, whom a man may offend
by his practise in the particulars mentioned.
But he cannot so offend the whole company of beleevers, through the whole world: because a scandall must be seene or known certainly: but so a persons practise cannot be to all beleevers in the whole world.
Therefore the meaning is plaine, we must not offend those that are without, nor yet the beleeving Jewes, nor any of the belee∣ving Gentiles, who are brought home unto Christ, and the fellow∣ship of the Church.
To this head also belongs that of Eph. 3.10.
That to principalities might be made known by the Church, the manifold wisedome of God if it be not meant of the Church invi∣sible, It must needs be understood of the Church of the Gentiles then gathering, not of the whole company of all beleevers throughout the whole world, as the severall circumstances carry it, beyond controle. For in v. 9. the Apostle speaks of such myste∣ries that were kept secret since the beginning of the world. 2. Its such multifarious wisedome, which was now made known by the Churches; but before to the Church of the Jewes: And there∣fore the Churches of the Gentiles are here to be considered and un∣derstood.
Unlesse, as I said, it be meant of the invisible Church, unto which Master Beza and Piscator seeme to incline, because first the Apostle speaks of such things that appertain only to the faith∣ful, as v. 9. he speaks of all things created by Christ Jesus, i. e. all the elect & called (say they, i. e. those former interpreters mentioned) 2. This discovery of wisdome is in v. 12. according to his eter∣nall councell in Christ Jesus intended towards his elect, and in∣deed in those dispensations this wisedome appeares, which drives the very thoughts to a mazement: But however it be taken, it helps nothing to Mr. H. his Ecclesia Catholica.
Master H. addes, 1 Cor. 12.28.
God hath set some in the Church' as first Apostles, teachers, 1 Tim. 3.15. That thou maist know how to behave thy selfe in the house of God, which is the Church.
"Ephes. 4.11, 12. perfecting the body of Christ.
These places must needs be meant of the Catholike Church, sayes he.
Answ. No: but they are to be understood of every particular, or (which is all one, and my meaning) of the Church as a To∣tum
universale existing and determined in its actings by the parti∣culars, or if you will, The Apostle points at one particular, but includes all particulars by a parity and proportion of reason. As God set in the Church of Corinth, and so in all Ghurches, Apostles and Teachers. The Church of Ephesus is Gods house, and are all Churches truly constituted.
The Church of Ephesus is Christs body, and so are all the Churches instituted by Christ. They are all one in the generall nature of them, and those priviledges which belong in common to them all equally and indifferently.
Let us now see what is said for the confirmation of the sense, for which Mr. H. alledgeth them.
The greatest cost that he bestowes upon that in 1 Cor. 12. as conceiving that to be most pregnant, and therefore prudently gathers in upon the dispute thus.
It cannot be meant of the triumphant or invisible Church, but the visible, and that not essentialis, but organica, both which we willing∣ly grant, and confesse his reason good, as formerly we have done to Mr. Rutherford
But how doth he prove that Churches collectively taken, or Ca∣tholica ecclesia tanquam integrum is here meant. That he indea∣vors by this reason.
If there be officers of the Church Catholike visible, then there is such a Church Catholike visible.
But the Apostle and prophets were officers of the Church Catho∣like visible. therefore.
The minor he thus proves, because they had no limits, and yet are said to be set, not in Churches, but in the Church. The frame stands thus.
They who are so set in a Church, that yet they have no limits in their workes that Church must be a Catholike Church.
But the Apostles, &c. are so set in a Church, as yet they have no limits in their office, therefore that Church must be a Catholike Church.
Answ. The major proposition or consequence is denied, as not sutable to the truth, which may thus appeare.
The reason of their unlimitednesse arose from their commission, because it was generall, being immediately called and appointed by
God to preach to all nations, and so had power to plant all Churches, & had vertually all Church power in them: but this did not issue nextly from the Church, in which they were firstly set.
As the eleven Apostles were first set and over the Christian Church erected in Act. 1. where there was a company of an 120, can any man reason from hence thus?
In what Church the Apostle were set, that is the Catholike Church, and the whole company of all believers in the whole world. But they were set in that Church mentioned Act. 1. and chap. 2.47. therefore that 120 were the whole company of all belivers in the whole world.
2. That Church where Deacons are set, that Church is not an unlimited Church.
But ordinary Deacons were set in the same Church, wherein the Apostles were set, as in the place. 1 Cor. 12. its affirmed joyntly and indifferently of them both.
Therefore that Church doth not argue an unlimited power.
The minor proposition is expresse in the text.
The major is sure, as being bottomed upon confessed princi∣ples; ordinary officers have not an illimited power, but are con∣fined to their proper charges, because that is one maine diffe∣rence, betwixt them and extraordinary ones.
That which is impossible for a Deacon to performe, that our Lord Christ never imposed, never exacted at his hands, nor doth it belong to his office.
But for a Deacon, called Helps, in the 1 Cor. 12. to distribute to the whole company of all believers in the whole world, is, and was ever impossible.
3. If Teachers be unlimited in their work, then an ordinary officer hath power over all the Churches, and is bound to feed and watch over all. and so there is a rode waye for Tot quots and pluralityes.
4. If setting an ordinary officer in the Church be by election, then in that Church he is set by which he is elected.
But a particular company combined in a particular congrega∣tion, they onely elect, not the whole company of all believers in the whole world.
Therefore in that he is onely set.
Touching that of 1 Tim. 3.15. he gives in a double Argu∣ment for proof.
This Church must be a visible Church where he and others must exist and converse together, and carry themselves in mutuall dutyes. Now these directions concerned not Ephesus alone, or in any speciall manner, but all the Churches where ever he should come, its that Church, which is the pillar of truth, and holds it forth more forensi, &c.
Answ. All these particulars here affirmed, may be and are truly said touching a particular congregation; for in that Timo∣thy may converse with others, in mutuall dutyes: there may di∣rections be given touching that, which by a parity of reason, will reach all others. As those Paul did give to the Elders of E∣phesus, that they should feed and watch over their flock: This is common to all Pastors, in all their Churches: and Timothy was left in Ephesus to that end.
A particular congregation, which is the true Church of Christ, it, as a pillar, doth hold out the profession of Faith and Gos∣pel more forensi.
And therefore there is no evidence nor strength of Argument, from all these to conclude a Catholick Church.
2. But if these only belong to particular congregations, and not to the Church Catholick, as now controverted, then the place serves for a confutation, not a confirmation of it; survey we the severals in short.
1. Its yeilded by all that I know, who plead for a Catholick visible Church, that this visibility is only in the parts of it, not in the integrall state of it. Ames. medull. l. 1. c. 32. p. 1.
2. That Church state which men cannot see, in that they can∣not converse one with another, nor performe duties one to ano∣ther, look at it in that precise consideration, of which now we speak.
That which is not s••en by any, that as a pillar cannot hold out the truth more forensi.
The first is yielded as true.
Therefore the second cannot be denyed.
3. If there be such an Ecclesia Catholica, as a particular or in∣dividuall integrum, (for so it must be attended) then it hath some speciall acts or operation peculiar to it selfe, not communi∣cable to the members of it: As the nature and definition of an integrum doth require: and which we have formerly eviden∣ced.
But there be no such acts and operations that were ever yet found, or could be instanced in.
Its true, there be common operations, ordinances, priviledges, that belong to a congregationall Church, as Totum genericum, firstly, and therefore are attributed and given to all particular congregations secondarily, and as they are acted and existing, so they may be, and there, are easily and evidently apprehended.
But set aside the particular congregations, the severall opera∣tions thereof, and priviledges therein, If Mr. Hudson or any man shall demonstrate some particular either acts, priviledges, officer or officers, that are peculiar to this Totum aggregatum, I will yield the cause.
Lastly, That which is not, nay cannot be the pillar of truth, to publish or hold out the truth more forensi, that Church is not here meant.
But Catholica ecclesia visibilis cannot do this, for we have pro∣ved, that there is no such ecclesia aggregata: and non entis non est notio.
In the place of the Ephes. c. 4.12. that Church is called one in regard of the common nature of it, which as Totum generi∣cum is communicated to all the particulars, with all the common priviledges, that by a likenesse and proportion of reason is gi∣ven to them.
That resemblance of the worldly empire, hath been formerly confuted, and the disproportion demonstrated; for there must be some peculiar act and officer, belonging to the Church as such an integrum, as it is in all worldly empires, wherein the in∣tegrity consists, and comes to be apprehended which is not to be found in the Church.
The consideration of Church, as Totum genericum gives an∣swer to all those places where the word Kingdome is used to signifie the visible Church, and therefore I might spare here any repetition, and leave the Reader to make the application him∣selfe: but the truth is, the word Kingdome in many of the places here quoted, carries another sense, and doth not reach the cause in hand, much lesse conclude it; as will thus appear by the tryall of the particulars.
The Kingdome of heaven beside other significations, as the Kingdome of glory, &c. it doth by a Metonymy (so its frequent∣ly used in the Evangelists,) imply the word of the Kingdome and
the dispensation and administration of the Gospell in the Chur∣ches, and the speciall things appertaining thereunto, The King∣dome of heaven is like to a man sowing of seed, Matth. 13.24. like to Mustard seed. 31. to Leaven. 33. to treasure hid in the field. 44. The Church is not like to Leaven or seed, but the dispensation of the Gospell is.
And so it must be understood in that 1 Cor. 15.24. Then shall Christ deliver up the kingdome unto God the father. That King∣dome cannot be the Catholike Visible Church, because that con∣sisting of sound hearted Christians and false hearted hypocrites, these are not delivered up into the hand of the father, that he may be all in all, to them.
Beside Mr. H. his owne words are witnesse enough against this sense, for so he writes in the place, p. 15.
Its the Kingdome ex∣ercised in the visible Church, in Ordinances of worship.
It is to be exercised in that visible Church; it's therefore distinct from it in sense and signification.
To this head also belongs that in Heb. 12.28.
Wherefore receiving a kingdome that cannot be shaken, &c. This kingdome is not the Catholike visible Church.
1. For, that kingdome is here meant, which cannot be shaken. But this may be shaken by strong persecution, and the most of the members of it, the particular Churches destroyed and dissolved.
2. Its a kingdome which is unlike that which was in the Old-Testament, and the unlikelynes lies in this, that this now in the time of the Gospell cannot be moved, but that was: whereas the Church, for its existence, is subject to be as much shaken now, as that under the Law.
But the fairest construction of the words, and most full to the scope of the place, is to shew how farre differing the dispensati∣on of the wayes of Gods worship, which is now appointed by him, is from that which was ordained under the Law: Those Or∣dinances and administrations are now come to an end, and others instituted in their place and roome: but these we haue now un∣der the Gospell are last, and so the unalterable institutions of our Saviour: and thus Mr. H. expresseth himselfe; carryed, as it should seeme, with the constraining evidence of the words.
This kingdome cannot be meant (saith he) of the internall kingdome of grace, but it is meant of the externall ordinances of worship and dis∣cipline: but I suppose those are not the Church, and therefore ther
is nothing here to be found for the establishment of that con∣ceit.
Much lesse is there any colour of such a conceit in that of Matth. 3. Repent, for the kingdome of heaven is at hand: i. e. the Catholike Church is at hand; how harsh is such a sound to a mans eare, such a sense to a mans mind?
The rest of the places, where kingdome signifyes the Church, as Luke 7.38. So likewise those similitudes of floore and field, they point out all particular Congregations under that condition, which is common to them all, to wit, that they are made up of a mixed multitude of good and bad, or which is all one, they looke at the generall nature of a Congregation existing in its particulars: but put not on the relation of members to an integrum at all. Nor doth the seeming reason of Mr. H. alledged to the contrary, carry any constraining force to perswade a man seriously judicious. For when he thus writes pag. 15,
Now if these things (those to wit, which were spoken concerning field, floore, Kingdome) were spoken of a particular Congregation onely: which particular Congregation in the world shall impropri∣ate these to it selfe? but if true of every one in particular, and all in generall, and these all be continually called one kingdome, then there is a Church Catholike visible, to wit, totum integrale.
The answer will be easie and ready at hand: That our expres∣sions and apprehensions looke not at any thing impropriate to one, but that which is common to all, and true of all, because all these particulars are unum genere. And the generall nature is one in them all: and it is but reason, that in that regard they should be called one. But thence to gather, that therefore there is a Ca∣tholike visible Church, as totum integrale, is to wrong the mean∣ing of the text, and to wring out blood instead of milke: Nay in truth to make the conclusion to oppose the premises, and his own expressions.
That which is common to all the particulars, that cannot be an integrum, but a genus: as the rules and definitions of genus of necessity require.
Those are his premises.
Take his expressions, If true of every particular, and all in gene∣rall: whence the issue will come to this:
That which is true of all the particulars, as a generall, that must
needs be a genus, and not an integrum to them.
The first Mr. H affirmes; therefore the second cannot be gain∣sayed.
The place of Matth. 16.18. attonitos tenet interpretes, like the body of Asahell, puts every man to a stand, that passeth by.
True it is, that doting delusion of the Papists, making Peters per∣son the rock, is hissed out of all, that have attained any eye-salve of the Scripture, to cleere their understanding in the truth there∣of: yet there remaine more difficulties and mysteries in some parts of the Text, which were never seene with any full convict∣ing evidence to this day, though many have set themselves, and that sadly to the search thereof.
We will only attend the particular here specified by Master H. what Church is here understood?
Though I must confesse (for I love to be plaine) that I do in∣cline to Mr. H. his judgement, that the visible church is here un∣derstood: yet I must professe also, that his proofe is no way sa∣tisfactory either to evidence that it must be visible, much lesse a Catholike visible Church:
For when it was objected, that this was an invisible Church, here spoken of, because the visible may faile.
He onely speaks to the second part, that the Catholike Church cannot faile: but that this was not an invisible Church here inten∣ded, he doth not at all prove, nor in truth set about it.
2. His reason whereby he would perswade that the visible Church nunquam deficit; hath not strength in it, nor truth in it, though the conclusion be true, which he would maintaine; For he thus disputes.
If all visible members should faile, then all the invisible must faile also: for none are invisible in this world, but must be visible al∣so: except any be converted and fed onely by inspiration, which we have no ground for in the Scripture.
The frame stands thus,
If none be invisible members in this world, but they must be visible members also: when visible failes, then the invisible failes also.
But the first is true; there be no visible, but they be invisible also. The assumption deserves a deniall and that I suppose upon second thoughts, he will grant upon his owne principles.
1. For its most certain, that an invisible gracious Saint, may justly be cast out of the Church
2. Its as certaine to Master Hudson that he that is cast out and excommunicate from one congregation, is cast out of all congregations, and out of the Catholike visible Church.
Hence I would reason.
He that is cast out of all visible Churches, and the Church Catholike, he is no visible member for excommunication cuts off visible membership.
But he that is and remaines an invisible member, may be justly cast out of all visible Churches, and so the Church Catho∣like.
Therefore a man may remaine an invisible, and yet not be a visible member.
That which is added for proofe toucheth not the cause: for a man cast out, and so no member, may be fed by word, and prayer and fasting, promises, conferences, readings, without any inspiration, and this the scriptures abundantly declare, and each mans experience will make good.
Besides, it hath been made good, that a man may out of the weaknesse of his judgement conceiving the Churches not right∣ly gathered, refuse to be baptised, and so be no member of the Church, and yet be a Saint truely gracious, according to their principles.
Againe, suppose a person fall into some notorious evill, and for that cause, all the Churches may reject him, and deny him communion, he is then no member visible: and yet he is an in∣visible one.
Its not a little dangerous to lay the foundation of the not fail∣ing of our grace, upon the not failing of Church membership, which this doth. This were enough to make it appeare, that this place lends no reliefe to the conclusion: because it doth not prove a visible Church here intended.
But let this be granted. I would yet adde, that this cannot be a Catholike Church of Master H. his cut. For I would rea∣son from his owne words and explication, which I think have waight in them.
That Church which onely includes the Church of the Gentiles, and that to be built, that cannot comprehend the whole compa∣ny of the faithfull in the whole world, and so cannot be a Ca∣tholike Church.
But this Church, Matth. 16.18. (by Master H. his owne words) includes only the Church evangelicall of the Gentiles.
The Proposition hath sense to settle it, for there were ma∣ny of the Church of the Jewes true believers and profes∣sors.
The minor is Master H. his own expression p. 17.
We are now neere home. The last place, where any strength of dispute lies, is in 2. Epist. of John v. 10. where excommu∣nication is called casting out of the Church.
Answ.
By Church, per synechdochen generis pro specie, which is most fre∣quent and familiar in the Scripture, That particular Church where Diotrephes usurped preeminence, is understood.
So its used Act. 20.28. Feed the flock, over whom ye are set, and that was the Church, which Christ hath redeemed, in the fol∣lowing words. And our ordinary speech is generally in this straine, such a man is cast out of the Church, meaning that parti∣cular congregation in which he was incorporate.
Let us heare how Master H. can force any Catholike visible Church, with any concluding evidence, from hence. His words are as followes.
If the Church here be a visible Church, I would know, whe∣ther a man truely excommunicated in one congregation, is not thereby excommunicated from brotherly fellowship in all congrega∣tions.
I answer, yes, and what is gained from thence? therefore there is a Church Catholick visible. The inference is weak of reason. For when a person is justly excommunicate from the congregation in which he was, it followes of necessity, all that fellowship he might enjoy, by vertue of communion of Churches must of necessity be denied unto him, and he justly deprived thereof: be∣cause in the vertue of his fellowship with one, he gained fellow∣ship with others: and therefore when he is justly deprived of the one, by the censure of the Church, he must in all reason be deprived of the other; but by what strength of inference a Ca∣tholick visible Church should be concluded from hence, I con∣fesse I see not.
If Mr. H. conceive that the party was an actuall member of every congregation, and that when one congregation cuts the
party off from his particular membership he had with it, by the same act, it cuts him off from all the other. If this be his mean∣ing, there be as many mistakes almost as words in such expres∣sions; and therefore the inference must be wholly destitute of strength and truth.
That which is added afterwards, is yet much further from the mark, as when he addes. I would know whether the delive∣ring up to Satan, is only within the bounds of one congregation, so that if he remove out of such a circuit or circle of ground to ano∣ther, he is out of Satans bounds again, and may communicate there safely.
The frame stands thus.
If a person excommunicate is not cut off from his member∣ship with every particular congregation, and so from the inte∣grall visible Church, then when he removes from such a circuit of ground, he may communicate.
But this last is untrue, namely when he is out of the circuit of ground, he may againe communicate, therefore.
This consequence is conjured into such a circle of a conceit that its beyond the compasse of common reason, unlesse Mr. H. should imagine, that excommunication only casts a man out of a circuit of ground or that the power of Satan were only con∣fined to some circle, I wonder how such a consequence came into his thoughts.
The truth is, The power of excommunication lies in the par∣ticular congregation, where a person injoyes his membership with the Saints of God, under the kingdome of Jesus Christ. And when a party is cast out of that, and delivered up unto Sa∣tan, and into the Kingdome of darknesse, let him be where he will, and go where he will, he is under the Kingdome of Sa∣tan, and all the Churches should look at him as a Traytor a∣gainst Christ, and so deal with him, as one uncapable of Church-communion.
Those two places, Ephes. 3. and last, Joh. 10.16. are either understood of the Church invisible, as the circumstances seem to intimate; or else they shew that unity, and so community of the dispensation of Christ in all the Churches of the Gentiles, with which the generall nature of a Church formerly opened and disputed fully suits, and therefore gives no appearance of a proof for Catholica ecclesia visibilis as Totum inegrale and i aggregatum.
We have now done with the first Question.
The reasons and Scriptures brought for the proof thereof, have been answered and satisfied: so that by the con∣cession and confession of Mr. H. we shall not need to adde any thing of the second.
For this was like the maine pillar, upon which the whole frame was built, which failing utterly, the whole must necessa∣rily fall to the ground. This Question being plucked up by the roots, upon which the other and all the consectaries and colle∣ctions grew, they will wither presently of their own accord. This bottome breaking, there needs no battery further to be erected against the rest of the discourse: it moulders away without any more ado, and therefore I shall ease my selfe and the Reader of any further pains to be improved that way.
Onely for a close, I shall be bold to offer some few considera∣tions to Mr. H. his more serious tryall touching some propositions, two whereof are expressed in the tenth and eleventh conclusion; the third and last, may be found in the eleventh page. All these I shall shortly set down and suddainly expresse my reasons, why as yet I cannot yeeld assent thereunto, and so leave the whole debate.
Those parts (that is a particular congregation) are limited and distinguished from others, by the civil and prudentiall limits, for conveniency of meeting and maintainance, and transacting of businesse.
That which seems here difficult, I shall thus suggest.
1. That severall congregations are separated one from ano∣ther in place; as it is a thing that a mans sense can determine, which admits no gainsaying, so I suppose its not the aime of Mr. H. nor the scope he intends, nor which he would have the Reader to attend in those words: but his purpose is to point out that wherein the distinguishing and differencing formality of one congregation from another consists, as the followings words and speciall instance used to that end, gives in abundant evidence.
But this apprehension, I cannot yet see how it suits with the nature of a particular Church, or the nature of a forme whence this act of distinguishing properly issues.
1. That which formally and truly distinguisheth, is internall to the thing: but this is externall and meerly adventitious.
2. That which is common, nor doth, nor can distinguish; but this is so.
3. That which distinguisheth truly, it is the forme of the thing properly and firstly, or else it proceeds as a peculiar pro∣perty from it: its either essentiale constituens or consequens: but this is neither, for neither the forme nor property are sepa∣rable: but thus the place or limits are.
4. If this distinguisheth one congregation from another, how comes it that to his and each mans experience, not only in the same Town, but in the same meeting-house there be severall and distinct Churches? As the Dutch and English Churches in Colchester. If the distinction of congregations issued from the li∣mits of the place, then they who were in the same place, they should not be distinguished. Then the Dutch Church in Colche∣ster should be English: for they are both within the same pre∣cincts, and either do or may at severall times meet and assemble within the same stone wals of the Church so called.
5. If the diverse limits of the place, did put a difference distin∣ctive upon a congregation, then the place of the Merchants, mo∣ving from Delph to Rotherdam, because they are in distinct places, therefore they are distinct Churches; and so by moving and set∣ling in severall places, one congregation should differ from it selfe; and as before many congregations were one, now one and the same should become many.
Its true if the demand be, of what particular Church we speak, or to what Church we would write, its usuall and suffi∣cient to describe the Church by the place, as the common sub∣ject where it hath its abode: but this is no proof that therefore a common subject should give a distinguishing difference of that from another.
When the Christian Church of the 120. was erected in Jerusa∣lem, beside the Church of the Jewes formerly instituted, and yet not abrogated, was it ground sufficient thus to conclude, because they are in the same city, therefore they are the same Church? I suppose the inference will be judged unsound by all;
and yet if the differencing distinction issued from the place, it would undeniably follow they were not at all dstinguished each from other.
The membership of a particular Church is devolved on him, by Gods disposing providence, by reason of his birth, or cohabitati∣on there, or voluntarily assumed, by his voluntary removall into the place allotted out by civill prudence, for such a particular so∣ciety to enjoy such ordinances of God conveniently toge∣ther.
To this assertion I cannot give my assent, and shall presently give in my reasons when I have breifly laid open the meaning of the expressions.
When Master H. seemes to lay severall grounds, by which membership comes to be attained, I suppose in the last resolu∣tion they issue all in one, namely, the constancy of abode and resi∣dence, within the limits of such a place.
For imagine that a man hath an inheritance fallen to him by birth in such a towne, if yet he will let it, or set it out to another and reside in another place, his birth doth not devolve his membership upon him in that place. For if he were borne heire to lands in 20 places or parishes, should he have membership in all, when he doth abide but in one? I believe Master H. would deny such an inference.
The like I may say of removeall: If he did but as Travelour and messenger, take up his habitation, I suppose Master H. would not affirme he was a member in the place because he lodged two or three nights or so many weeks or months in a place.
That I may then put the fairest construction upon his words that in love and prudence, and ingenuity I can, I conceive the meaning to be this, where a person takes up his hahitation, whether he haue right to it by birth, or it come by gift, pur∣chase, or hiring, &c. his membership issues from hence imediate∣ly, that he takes up his constant abode within the limits of such a place or parish.
But that this cannot give the formality of membership, I have
formerly proved, and I confesse I doe a little strange that Ma∣ster Hudson a man learned should fall in with such an opinion, which I cannot perceive gains so much from any Judicious at this time, that they are willing to speake a good word for it.
1. For no civill rule can give an ecclesiasticall right.
Because those are two kinds of goverment opposite one a∣gainst the other, and each of them intire and compleat within it selfe.
2. This destroyes the censure of excommunication and wholly furstrats the power thereof, that it can never attaine its end. For the scope of the censure is to cut a person off from his membership and communion with the Church, as the name of excommunication and the nature of the ordinance requires.
But if the Priviledges of membership be devolved upon me by a civill right and cohabitation, This, excommunication nor doth, nor indeed can take awaye. And therefore upon this ground it cannot take away my membership and communion with the Church.
And therefore is by this meanes wholly made voide and of none effect.
3. If right of cohabitation gives membership, Then Turks and Jewes may be members, and they and their children have right to all Church ordinances as well as any: Then men may make themselves members of a congregation though they be never so scandalous and unworthy to be received; nay though the congregation be never so desirous, in a just way according to the rules of Christ, to hinder their proceeding, and reject them from their communion: which Master Rutherford and all rules and reasonable men gaine say: In a word, by this grant, all the power of Churches and censures and ordinances would be fru∣strated or prophaned.
The pretended inconvenience which perswades him to imbrace this opinion, is, because, to be in a city, and not to be a member of the Church in the city, it seemes to imply an unchurching of those places, &c.
But I answer it doth but seem so, it doth in no wise doe any such thing: only ••t shows, that Gods people are a free people, and that combination iusses from free consent, when no rule in nature,
nor providence according to God puts any restraint in that kinde.
Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church Catholike, and partake of the benefits and priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they are members of the parti∣cular Churches, but of the Catholike.
In these words, there is something implied, something expres∣sed: To neither of which I can give assent unlesse some proof bee alledged, which may prevaile with my judgement, and per∣swade thereunto which as yet I see none.
That which is implied is this, That the Catholike Church may have its being, when as yet there be no particular congregations existing; for this the words of the proposition doe necessarily presuppose.
If particular Churches be made up of the members of the Catholike: then the Catholike Church and the members thereof must have a being, before either can give a being to the particular.
But I see no rule of reason, nor testimony of holy writ as yet to settle such an assertion.
For lay aside in our consideration the confederation, and combination of Christians, which make up particular Churches: let it be supposed there be hundreds of Christians, who are visi∣ble believers, scattered up and downe in severall coasts of the world, these now according to the methode of Master H. his frame of Church policy will first make up a Catholike visible Church, and out of that, particular Assemblies will afterwards arise.
This is the frame of Master Hudsons Church-policy: but this seemes contrary to the principles of all bodies politick: that ever were, are, or shall be. For there neither is, nor can be an externall body politick (of that kind we now speake) made up and constitu∣ted of people that never were in externall communion one with ano∣ther (haply) never had the sight and knowledge one of another, as it is here supposed.
True it is, if there were many thousands professing and beleev∣ing in the name of Christ: so many as were sincere have union and communion with Christ invisibly, and so make up an invisible
Church Catholike. But that there should be an externall visi∣ble particular body politick, either civill, or Ecclesiastick (which this Catholica Ecclesia, as Totum integrale, must be) and that con∣stituted of men, which haply never had the sight or knowledge one of another, who never entred into agreement of govern∣ment one with another, is beyond my compasse to conceive, and I suspect any mans ability to explicate and evince.
Againe, that persons thus scattered and severed, are wholly de∣stitute according to reason and all rules of the Gospel, of all Church priviledges,
I would thus reason.
They who are in such an estate as that they, nor have, nor can have Church Officers, They are destitute of Church worship, seales, cen∣sures, and so Church Government, and Church Ordinances.
This is undeniable. Because according to Presbyterian prin∣ciples, none of all these can be acted or administred without Offi∣cers.
But persons thus scattered and severed one from another, can have no Officers. For those receive their call and right administration, by the joint voice and election of the people now in communion one with another. Act. 6. Act. 1.
Againe, I conceive it wil be granted (which cannot be denyed) that these particular persons, thus severed, are membra integrantia of this Catholike visible Church. And therefore they wholly give being to this Church, but receive no being from it.
Hence I cannot see, how this part of the Proposition will stand, with that conclusion. That the Catholike Church gives part matter, part forme, to the particular Churches.
If particular Churches receive their being from the members of the Catholike Church, (as this proposition affirmes;) Then they cannot receive part matter, and part forme from the Totum.
For if Ecclesia Catholica give any matter or forme to the par∣ticular Church, it gives it by its members.
But it cannot give matter or forme by its members.
Because it received all its being, and so all matter and forme from them, but gave none to them.
Therefore they can give none from it.
These intricate difficulties and twistings of controversie which appeare in Master Hudsons frame, keepe me yet that I can give no assent thereunto.
There is a third branch in the Proposition, namely,
That particular Churches partake of the priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they be members of particular Chur∣ches, but because they are members of the Catholike.
Against this we have formerly given in proofe, whether we re∣ferre the reader: and so rest to make any further inquiry touch∣ing this subject of ECCLESIA CATHOLICA VISIBILIS.