A Vindication OF THE ESSENCE and UNITY OF THE Church-Catholick visible, And the Priority thereof in regard of In answer to the Objections made against it, by of Church-Discipline. The second Edition, with an Addition or Postscript to By SAMUEL HUDSON, Minifter of the Gofpel LONDON, Printed by J. B. for Andrew Kembe, and are to be fold Fleetfireet, 1658. TO THE Reverend Affembly of DIVINES 6-29 R affembled at Westminster. Everend, and much konoured Fathers and Brethren, it is a received Maxime, That publick rights and interefts are to be preferred before private and particular: Spirituall, before secular; divine before humane. Now as the internall fpirituall government of Christ in the invisible Church is far more excellent then any other: So also his externall visible government of the visible Church, hatb the preheminence above all visible civill governments and Kingdoms of this world. And if it be lawfull even for private persons to vindicate, by bumane Laws, the extents and rights of their particular cowill inheritances and possessions : and if it be accounted the duty of good subjects to vindicate the extents and right: of their civill Severaigns Dominions, with their Estates and Lives, even by the Sword: then much more is it the duty of Christs Subjects, by disputes and argumentations to vindicate the extents and rights of Christs externall political Kingdom; the one being but of civill concernment, the other divine; the one tending but to a civill end, the other a spiritual. And therefore I hope none will blame me for appearing in publick to contend for the extent and rights of Chrifts politicall Kingdome in his Church here on earth. My first Thesis on this Subject was composed for the private use of my self, and some few neighbour Ministers, in a monthly private meeting, according to our custome. But being made publick, at the desires of others, it met with oppofition from two reverend Brethren: first by M. John Ellis junior, who undertook to confute it, with other Trattates of divers of my betters that were written of the same subject: and secondly by Reverend M. Hoo : 1 ker, who is fince departed out of the vifible militant Church, inte the invisible Triumphant; the loffe of which burning and shining light, the Church of God cannot sufficiently lament. Now because some things therein set down were by them mistaken, and other things not so fully cleared, as I defired, I thought good to set it out again more enlarged, andvindicated from the mistakes and oppofitions that it met withall. t The reasons of my so long delay herein were, First, because I was the least and least concerned therein, though the most tartly dealt withall by M. Ellis. And Secondly, because I desired to see some of my better's go before me, in vindication of their own Tractates of the fame subject. And thirdly, because I understood by M. Ellis's book, and by common fame, that there was an answer to M. Ru therford coming out, wherein I should find my question discussed, by that eminent and worthy Divine M. Hooker, which was indeed fent over, but perished in the sea, and so was retarded one year longer, untill it could be transcribed, and sent over again. And fince that was printed, the seat of the warr, by the fiege of Colchester, coming so near us, we were all in a fear and danger, so that I thought it no fit time to attend to controverfies : and I had indeed almost laid it quite afide, but that the importunities of some, and the insultings of others excited mee again to take it in hand. And now I find a fourfold unhappinesse hath betided me herein. First, The darknesse and sublimity of the Subject, which I could no way make plain, so as to be understood by vulgar apprehenfions, because the handling thereof put me necessarily upon the use of fo many latine words, and logicall terms of art, which are not usually understood by comman people. And therefore despairing to be underStood but by those that had some skill in the Latine tongue, and in Lo gick, I have fet down the words of such Authours as I have had occa fion to cite, in their own languages, in which I found them, lest other. wife this Tractate should swell too great. A Second unhappineffe is, that this Tenet feemeth to crosse so ma ny of our own Divines, in their writings against the Papists. Bu indeed it doth onely seem so, for it is manifest that the Church-Catholick which they intend, is not the same with this that I have to deal about. For they speak of the Church Catholick confifting onel of the Elect, and I consent unto them that that Church is invisible bu but my question is about the externall state of the Church, containing hypocrites as well as those that are truly godly, in which Church the O dinances of worship and difcipline were fet. A third is, that I am fallen upon a subject wherein I can find Sofew going before me, and therefore could have the leffe help from Autbours. A fourth is, that I being a mean Countrey-Minister, want both thofe abilities and opportunities, to enable me to write of controverfies, having constant employment of preaching in mine own Congre. on, and frequently abroad, lying upon me, so that I cannot attend polemicall Divinity, as they must that undertake fuch a work. gation, My principal (cope in this and the former Thefis, is to prove that there is one Church Catholick visible on earth and that Gods in. tention and donation of the Ordinances of worship and discipline, was first to the whole Charch, and Secondarily to the particular Churchs, as parts thereof. And yet I acknowledge the ordinary and conftant exercife of those Ordinances is primarily in the particular Churches, and a secondary and onely occasional exercise of them in greater parts thereof; and a very rare exercise of them in the whole conjunEtim upon some general extraordinary occafion, and that can be no otherwise, then by delegated commissioners from the several parts of the whole, when convenible. If it be conceved by any, that some of the Arguments in this TraEtate are multiplied more then is reedfull, and are laid down more singly then was meet, I will not deny it: Be pleased in the reading of them to confider them together, and I hope they will prove conclufive. I find also by the review of this Tractate, that some things are ofter touched upon then I was aware of : be pleased to impute it part. ly to my forgetfulnesse, andpartly to mine endeavour to follow the method of my former The fis, and yet to answer what was objected against it by others, a ho followed their own methods, which occasioned Someco-incidency. And fince the transcribing of it for the Presse, there came to my hands two other Tractates about the same subject, written from N. E. the one in Latine by that reverend and worthy M. Norton, Minister at Ipswich there, in answer to Apollonius; the other by A 3 two 1 |