Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	body_n	church_n	mystical_a	1,148	5	10.4023	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27046	A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our concord, 2. the impossibility of it, on the terms of the present impositions against the accusations and storms of, viz., Mr. John Hinckley, a nameless impleader, a nameless reflector, or Speculum, &c., Mr. John Cheny's second accusation, Mr. Roger L'Strange, justice, &c., the Dialogue between the Pope and a fanatic, J. Varney's phanatic Prophesie / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1681 (1681)	Wing B1419; ESTC R647	161,764	297

an Universal Head or Government over all the Pastors Churches and Christians in the world besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and you lay the concord of all the Churches upon it Do but grant the Papists this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal Church as a City is of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarch on Earth either personal or collective who must have the Supreme power P. 96. But indeed you have gone beyond Bellarmine in seting up Papal Monarchy Your other assertion sets up Atheism by making the Holy God the Author and Founder of two essentially different Churches or Church-Forms According to Bellarmines assertion for the Pope there would be Pastors c. But according to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all P. 224 225. Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita But in this your division the Membra dividentia are not inter se opposita you oppose the same thing against itself You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church The whole or the Universal Church at Corinth is sound and good You plainly leave out of your description the differencing Form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood or dwelling or abiding in this or that place you make a new essential of Church-Membership and Church-Communion and lay the peace of all the Churches on it and say it is Divine sure harmless fitted to the interest of all good men This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot The more I strive the more I am overcome Mr. Cawdrey was lately with me and we had Conference about this point suspecting mine own judgment I have conferred with divers about your other Notions two Churches or two Church-Forms differing essentially and they cannot apprehend how it can stand you make the Universal Church-Form and the particular Church-Form to differ essentially and this by Divine Law I prove to you from the nature of the thing it self and the express word of God that the Universal Church of God at Corinth and the particular Church of God at Corinth are one and the same To oppose the Universal and particular Church and say they differ essentially is to oppose the same thing against itself and make the Lord Jesus Christ the Authour and Founder of selfsubverting Principles P. 226 227. As for that other point of the Church particular being part of the Church Universal it is to say that the whole Church at Corinth is a part of the whole Church which is absurd Reader I must not Transcribe the whole Book the rest is too like this exercise your patience in receiving a short Answer to the several parts which seemeth needful CHAP. IV. A Defence against the foresaid Accusations § 1. WHat Christians heart can choose but mourn for the Church of God and the puzzling confounding temptations of the ignorant that must hear men charged thus publickly with Atheism and the overthrow of all Religion for that which the Christian world agreeth in and this by Preachers of professed humility sincerity and zeal How shall the unlearned know when they are safe yea what snares are thus laid to rob men of their time as well as their Faith and Charity I must not give such lines their proper names but I will say that it remembreth me of Isa 1. 6. and it cryeth out unclean unclean How few words of Truth and soberness and soundness can you number among all these Had he written and published it in his sleep as some talk and walk it were some excuse But for a Man a Minister awake and after publick admonition deliberately on consultation a second time to talk at this rate in the Press And yet cannot we be endured without their Ceremonies c. When the Friendly Debater and Mr. Shurlocke have compared such Books as this with those that they reprehended perhaps they will say Iliacos intramuros c. To begin at the end I am sorry to read what he saith of the Divers he Conferred with c. 1. I never till now read or heard Papist Protestant or any Christian of his mind And alas are divers of it now Are Conformists come to that Either they were at Manhood or in breeches at least or not If not he should have chosen other Counsellers If yea were they Laymen or Clergymen He was to blame if he took up with the former alone in such a case If the later he greatly disgraceth them But we must say somewhat of our Atheistical Errours The beginning of his words which say the same thing which he so abominateth I will not charge with contradiction in sence from the rest for if he mean the same thing by One and Two A Church and no Church A part and no part Yea and Nay they are no contradictions in sence And indeed I cannot perceive that he understandeth what he readeth and answereth nor well what he saith And therefore I am not sure when I understand him but I will review some of the things that his words seem to accuse in order § I. The Universal Church as I defined it is a True Church Proved Where there is a true Church-Head and a Body of all Christians on earth united and subjected to that Head by mutual consent and Covenant there is a true Universal Church but such is that which I named and defined as the Church Universal Ergo. The Major is from the definition to the thing denominated As to the Minor 1. That Christ is the True Head 2. And all Christians the Universal true body visible as Baptized and mystical as Heart-Covenanters 3. And that mutual Covenanting is a sufficient bond for this Church-union the Christian Reader will chide me if I stay to prove § 11. Particular Churches existent are true Churches in Essence Proved to him 1. He oft confesseth this and the former 2. A true pars dirigens pars subdita necessarily qualified ad esse and united in those relations for Church-ends are a true particular Church But such are many existent particular Churches and all that I defined Ergo. 1. That a true Bishop at least with his Presbyters is a true pars dirigens 2. And a qualified flock a true pars subdita 3. And that such are found united in these relations I will take for granted with the Reader except Mr. Ch. And the Major is the definition § III. That the Relative union of the governing Part or nearest Head to the Governed body is the specifying form The proof being de Ente politico notione Logicâ is the consent of all Politicks Logicks and use of speech by the professours

a Church and I take not Heathens for the Church XIII I believe that in this Universal Church are thousands of particular Churches and this by Christs Institution XIV I believe that there is no particular Church or Christian on earth who is not respectively as Visible or Mystical a part of the Universal Church XV. As every worshipping Assembly is a Church in a larger sense so a Church in a political sense is essentially constituted of the Pastor and People or the Sacerdotal guiding and the guided parts and of such a Church it is that I am speaking XVI As such meeting in transitu are an Extemporate transient Church so fixed Cohabitants ought to be a Church accordingly fixed related to each others as such for longer than the present meeting XVII Every such Political fixed Church should consist of a Pastor at least accordingly fixed to a cohabiting people and as their Pastor more specially related by obligation and authority to them than to strangers or neighbour Churches He is not bound to do that for all as he is for them nor may go into other Pastors Churches with equal power nor officiate where he please XVIII If there be no Church but the Universal than there is neither Parochial Diocesan or National nor are Assemblies Churches Nor is our King the Royal Governour of any Church for of the Universal he is not XIX Christian Princes must do their best to settle faithful Pastors in all Churches that is according to the Laws of Christ but not against them But as they must do their best that all their Subjects may have good Phycisians Schoolmasters Wives or Husbands Servants Dyet Cloathing c. but yet are not trusted by office to choose all these for every one and impose them on Dissenters because the same God that made Kingly power did first make personal and paternal power which Kings cannot dissolve so every man is so nearly concerned for his own Salvation more than for Wife Servant Dyet Phycisian c. that though he must thankfully accept of all the Rulers lawful help he is still the most obliged chooser Nor is it any part of the office of a King to choose and impose on every Subject a Guide or Pastor to whom only he shall trust the Pastoral conduct of his Soul any more than a Physician or a Tutor for him XX. Parish-bounds are not of Primitive or Divine Institution but cohabitation or propinquity is a needful qualification of setled Members gratia finis And Parish-bounds are a useful humane determination according to the general Rules Do all to edification and in order XXI No one is a Church-member merely because he dwelleth in the Parish for unbaptized Infidels Heathens Atheists may dwell there XXII Nor is a stranger a Church-member for coming into the Assembly for such as aforesaid or Jews Mahometans may come in XXIII A Pastor oweth more care and duty to his flock than to the rest of the world as a Physician to his Hospital Therefore he must know who they are better than by knowing that they dwell in the Parish nor may he Baptize them or give them the Lords Supper only because he seeth them in the Assembly or in the Parish else Jews and Heathens must have it XXIV Nor is he to give it to every one that demandeth it for so may Jews and Heathens that take it in scorn or for by-ends XXV Yet a Christian having a valid Certificate that he is such hath right to transient Communion with any Church of Christ where he cometh but for order the antient Churches used not to receive them without some Certificates from the Churches that they came from lest Hereticks and Excommunicates unknown persons should be every where received XXVI No man can be an adult Christian without signified consent nor a stated member of any particular Church without such consent no nor a lawful transient Communicant without consent For so great benefits none but consenters have right to nor can such relations be otherwise contracted XXVII Consent not signified nor known is none to the Church XXVIII A man may be obliged to consent that doth not but that makes no man a Christian or member of the Universal Church else Millions of Infidels and Heathens are Christians And so it maketh no one a member of a particular Church that he is obliged to be one nor am I a Pastor over any men as a Church because they are obliged to take me for their Pastor no more than that is a Husband Wife Servant who is obliged to be so and will not To say that I am a Pastor to Heathens as a Church is a contradiction or that I am their Pastor as my special Christian flock and particular Church-members that consent not XXIX But the same man that liveth among such may be to consenting Christians a Pastor and to Refusers Infidels or Heathens a Teacher The Church ever distinguished the Audientes and Catechumene Candidates from the Fideles who were the Members of the Church XXX No Pastor or people should impose any Covenant on any adult to be Christened but consent to be Christians signified by Baptism nor on any in order to transient Communion among strangers but just notice of their Christianity and understanding consent to that Communion nor on any in order to their being the stated Members of this or that flock and particular Church but due notice of their Christianity and of their understanding consent to what is essential to such members that is to the relation as essentiated by the correlate and ends XXXI No one should be obliged by covenant to continue one year or Month in the station of that particular relation because they know not when Gods providence may oblige them to remove or change it XXXII Though the Peoples consent be necessary to their relation their Election of the Pastor which signifieth the first determination who shall be the man is not absolutely necessary though of old so thought An after-Consent may serve ad esse relationis XXXIII Much less is it necessary that the people choose who shall be ordained a Minister unfixed and only of the Universal Church XXXIV 1. Mutual consent of the duely qualified Ordained and Ordainer determineth who shall be a Minister in the Church Universal as consent of the Colledge and the Candidate do who shall be the Licensed Physician 2. The Peoples consent and the Ministers instituted determine who shall be the Pastor of this particular Flock or Church 3. The King determineth whom he will tolerate countenance and maintain XXXV Though a man may be Ordained but once to the Ministry unfixed in the Universal Church to which I said the Peoples consent is not necessary yet may he be oft removed from one particular Church to another on just cause to which the peoples consent if not Election is still necessary Though to avoid Ambition the old Canons forbad Bishops to remove XXXVI It 's lawful to be ordained sine titulo

respectively P. 7. Some are as Colonels of Regiments others as Captains of Troops the Body is but One the Members many P. 13. The New Testament saith The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 2. the Churches of Judea Asia Yet One body All the faithful make One heavenly City one Church of the first born so that Gods Church on Earth is Many Churches and yet but One Church Do you not think now that we are agreed But hear him judge himself P. 15. I will shew one common Errour or mistake in multitudes of our able Divines That those we call particular Churches are counted Parts and Members of the Church Universal This I deny Mr. Baxter makes the Church of England or the Churches of England to be an integral part of the Church Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom So the Independents I overthrow this Errour by this Argument One and the same thing cannot be both a Body and a Member a whole and a part a society and one single person But that which we call a single or particular Church is not a Member but a Body it is not a limb or part of a Church but a whole and entire Church It hath a whole within it London is not a Member of England but a City and aggregation of Members It 's no less than a flat contradiction in terms what Dr. Ames saith Medul l. 1. c. 32. that a particular Church est Membrum ex aggregatione variorum Membrorum singulorum compositum contrary to common reason and plain Scripture P. 18. A bare Member in the Body hath no Authority but acteth by mere natural life and appetite and is not endued with rational authority nor can be capable of any That which we call a single Church is a Catholick or Universal Church It hath an Universal Head To be a Christian is to be of an universal impartial spirit where there is an All there is an Universal But every single Church hath an All within it the Pastor and all his flock The Church Universal and particular do only differ as to place and number A Church of godly Ministers and people in France Holland and England differ but as to place Every Church of Christians must needs be a Church Universal not a limb or member of another Church but a true body or entire Christian society P. 20. Christs Body is One not as one is opposed to Multitude but to division contrariety and destruction § 4. P. 21. This leads me to shew the unsoundness of another part of Mr. Baxters Doctrine and some others with him He saith There are two essentially different Policies or Forms of Church-Government of Christs Institution never to be altered by man 1. The Form of the Universal Church as Headed by Christ himself which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism 2. Particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors and are parts of the Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom And he defines the Universal Church to be The universality of Baptized Christians headed by Christ himself These his sayings contain many Errours I will first note them out and then confute and prove them to be Errours 1. It is an Errour in the art of defining to put in those words Headed by Christ himself 2. It is another Errour to define the Universal Church without Guides and Ministers as one essential constituent part 3. It is another Errour to say that the Universal Church and Churches particular differ essentially 1. It is an Errour in the art of desining to say Headed by Christ himself that 's supposed but need not be in the definition He finds fault himself with such a defect in the definition of a particular Church Grant them to be Christians and you grant they own Christ 2. It is an Errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors So doth the Assemblies Confession and Mr. Hudson His definition of the Church without Pastors is as if he defined a living healthful man without a stomach liver or lungs P. 24. 3. If there be an essential difference between Church and Church what then is the difference between the Church and the World Heaven and Hell the righteous and the wicked How can any man know which is the right Church We shall never be able to confute Popery nor Infidelity by this Doctrine For this Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors and of this Christ is Head himself Particular Churches of which Christ is no Head but particular Pastors are the Heads By this Doctrine the same thing shall be contrary to it self Christs Church in this world is but one And can one and the same thing have two different Essences beings and definitions Quae conveniunt uno tertio c. But the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio They stand on one foundation are directed by one rule quickned by one spirit an addition of homogeneous Particles makes no essential difference It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself and that the essentiating principles of Church holiness order and government are black and white darkness and light P. 25. If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand Two essentially different Forms of Churches will infer two sorts of Holiness the one repugnant to the other yet subordinata non pugnant If Christ set up two repugnant or essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world O dreadful § 5. P. 92. A word more ad hominem of that opinion That particular Churches are parts of the Universal as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom This is Mr. Baxters opinion why then do you blame the turning all the Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them to be but parts of the Diocesan as a Troop is of an Army c. who sees not that your Doctrine doth the same that you condemn c. If they are but parts and Members of another Church the Universal then they are not Churches It is not unlikely but you can find somewhat to say in defence of this your self-contradicting Doctrine but I believe it will match your wit were it ten times more and prove too hard for you Look to it if your disputations against Prelacie stand down goes this main assertion of yours If your disputations against Prelacie be found to have a hollow and false bottom then you have made you work for repentance you have greatly injured the Church of God and particularly the Church of England and have deceived a great many Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope to be to all the Pastors Churches and Christians through the world That do you make this which you call the Church Universal for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastors are parts and members of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up

so of every one City Corporation c. is no part of it I would desire them to allow him his own Exposition for he mcaneth not so ill as he saith § XV. To say that one whole cannot be a Member or part of another whole is yet if possible more than the former What may not Corpus politicum be a member of a larger body Politick Is there any part of the Universe if this be true at least save Atomes and Spirits And in what sense an Atome or Anima or Spiritus may be called totum Scaliger and the Schoolmen and Metaphysicks commonly tell you Are not whole stones part of Mountains and whole Trees of the Forrest and whole Herbs of the whole Garden and whole Fields of the whole Countrey and whole Parishes of the whole Diocess and County and those of the Kingdom and that of Europe and that of the world Is not a whole hand or foot part of a whole man Is not the mateial Universe made up of compounded parts What a trick has he found to exempt us all from Government every man may say I am a whole man therefore I am no part of the Bishop of Londons Diocess or of the Parish or of the Family Deny or destroy all such parts and you deny or destroy the whole Did he think that all Noun Substantives signified the same thing which have the same Adjective and that a whole Man and a whole Dog or World are all one § XVI It 's little better when he argueth that homogeneal parts make not a new species As if he could prove that the Church is Totum homogeneum Are not Christ and Christians the King and the Subjects of the Universal Church partes heterogeneae in esse politico relativo Are not Bishops and Laicks partes heterogeneae Had he forgot how much of his Book is to prove even Bishops and Presbyters as widely different No Christian denyeth it of the Church Universal nor any of single Churches that denyes not a Ministry and the being of such Churches as Political § XVII While thus he maketh National Churches Metropolitical Diocesane Parochial and the very Independent which he most revileth all one or of one essential species it seemeth that he knoweth not how he unsaith most that he said before § XVIII It is little better that he maketh several Churches viz. at Paris and at Plimouth c. to differ only in Number and Place 1. Do not the Popish Protestant Episcopal and Presbyterian differ in the Form of Government 2. Do not those of the same Form differ as Individuals by their several Rulers besides abundance of accidental differences § XIX And what Doctrine is it to say Christs Body is one not as one is opposed to multitude but to division and destruction Hath Christ a multitude of Bodies univocally so called even such a Body as we treat of Hath Christ many Universal Churches containing all Christians headed by Christ § XX. When he had so grosly wronged himself as to say It is an errour in the art of defining to say of the Universal Church it is Headed by Christ himself what other Head or formal Regent part doth he name will he have another or will he have none in the definition Is that the art of defining § XXI It 's little better to say Is is an errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors as the Assembly did What! a better Logician than all the Assembly too Alas how fell the good man under this temptation He instanceth in a body defined without Liver Stomack c. But 1. I hope he doth not think all is excluded that is not to be named 2. Is there no better definition of a man than Animal implume bipes c. or one that hath a Liver and Stomack c. When to the Entelechia or anima he added Corpus organicum Aristotle thought he said enough of the body Is not Animal rationale a just definition of a man without naming his Liver and Spleen or Heart Is not the Genus differentia enough for a definition Definitiones debent esse breves nihil otiosum continere otiosum est quo ablato definitio reliqua rei essentiam explicat A Kingdom is defined by naming no more than the King and Subjects in general without naming Judges Justices Sheriffs c. There are no constitutive principles in Nature but Mater materiae dispositio forma And the imperfect definitions of accidents must be as like as may be to those of substances The specifying form here is only Christ the Head so related Though he made Christians before Ministers and were all Pastors dead the Church were still Christs Universal Body yet I grant it is not a just organized body without Pastors but that maketh them but to be the nobler part of the disposed matter men do not use to play the Anatomists in definitions and instead of Animal or of Corpus organicum to name Heart Stomack Lungs c. But it is a healthful man that Mr. Ch. is defining Answ 1. But it is not a healthful Church but a true Church in essence that I was defining 2. If it had been otherwise the name of the parts need not enter the definition of health And are these his saving truths § XXII And what an intimation is it that if there be an essential difference between the Universal and particular Church there 's none between the Church and the world the righteous and the wicked Heaven and Hell These things are fitter to be answered by Interjections which be no words but voces non vocabula than by Speech If Christ and a Bishop in esse relationis politicae differ essentially must good and bad Heaven and Hell be all one If an Army and a Regiment and a Troop differ in their formal specifying essences must a Subject and a Rebel the Court and the Gallows therefore be all one Proh apage § XXIII Next he asks How can any man know the right Church then Answ What! no way but by making Christ and a Bishop formally the Head we know the Universal Church by its true definition and a true particular Church by its true definition and properties § XXIV Yea he saith we shall never be able to confute Popery and Infidelity by this Doctrine Answ Alas will the good man turn Papist or Infidel unless the Universal Church and a Diocesane have the same specifying difference or formal Head Then what remedy § XXV I have no Interjection deep enough for that which followeth viz. This Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors Putares and of this Christ is Head particular Churches of which Christ is no Head Putares Where said I any such thing Is this lawful As if 1. there must be no Pastors unless they be the formal Head of the Universal Church 2. And as if there must be no Christ the Supream Head if the Bishop be the formal differencing specifying