Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	christian_a	church_n	unity_n	1,522	5	9.2638	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86680	An addition or postscript to The vindication of the essence and unity of the Church-Catholick visible, and the priority thereof in regard of particular churches. In answer to the objections made against it, both by Mr. Stone, and some others. / By Samuel Hudson ...	Hudson, Samuel, 17th cent.	1658 (1658)	Wing H3263; ESTC R202480	42,930	59

AN Addition or Postscript TO THE VINDICATION OF THE ESSENCE and UNITY OE THE Church-Catholick visible And the Priority thereof in regard of Particular CHURCHES In answer to the Objections made against it both by Mr Stone and some others By SAMUEL HUDSON Minister of the Gospel at Capell in Suff. Ecclesiam teneo tritico paleâ plenam emendo quos possum tolero quos emendare non possum fugio paleam ne hoc sim non aream ne nihil sim Aug. Ep. 48. contra Don. LONDON Printed by J. B. for Andrew Kembe and are to be sold at his shop neer S. Margarets hill in Southwark and by Edward Brewster at the Crane in Paul's Church-yard and Thomas Basset under Dunstanes Church Fleetstreet 1658. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Christian Reader THis second impression of the Vindication of the Essence and Vnity of the Church-Catholick visible c. came to the birth altogether without my knowledge of the Stationer or his intention and without his knowledge of me and mine intention and it was so far passed in the Press before I knew of it that there was no recalling of it I had another Copy of it almost ready for the Press wherein I had given answer to M. Stone and some other opponents in their proper places in the Book Also I had obliterated the name of my antient friend M. Ellis who had written in opposition to my first Thesis upon this question and had left out all personall reflections upon him to which I was in a manner necessitated in my former impression to vindicate my self and therefore I must crave his indulgence for this impression the coming out where●● so as it is being wholly against my minde The Book having met with some opposition and that in Print from some reverend brethren I thought not fit to let this impression of it pass into the world without taking notice of what was objected against it and therefore am constrained to play an after-game and to add these few sheets as a Postscript thereunto I have not as yet met with any thing in print which should cause me to alter my judgment about the main subject of the Book and yet I dare not say but some passages in it may be carped at and are liable to exceptions against for I am but a frail man and see but in part and so am subject to erre as well as others yet am willing to be reclaimed in whatsoever I mistake at any time and would not willingly bee mis-led much less mis-lead others The subject is something knotty and difficult and not apt to be understood by every Reader and therefore let him that readeth consider it well that so he may understand and not pass a censure rashly upon it before he understands it That the Lord would guide thee and me into all truth is the prayer of Christs worthless servant SAMUEL HUDSON THE VINDICATION OF THE Essence and Unity OF THE Church-Catholick visible c. SInce the first publishing of the same which was 1649. hath met with various entertainment amongst men according to the various judgments of the readers thereof as Books of polemical subjects such as this is use to do From some it obtained acceptation and approbation from others it met with improbation and opposition Two things especially have been opposed therein First the being of an universal visible Church which is the subject of the second and third Chapters of this Vindication and the former Chapter proving it by Scripture the latter by arguments and reasons Secondly the integrality of the universal visible Church handled in the fourth Chapter is opposed The essence or being of it is opposed lately in print by some Ministers in Norfolk and Suffolk in their answer to Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici set forth by the Provinciall Assembly in London and to Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici set forth by M. John Collings of Norwich But because this was not the main scope of their book only they lighted upon it in their Epistle Dedicatory I shall leave them to their proper opponents and only answer to what they say in their Epistle concerning this subject The integrality of the universall visible Church hath been opposed by M. Stone a reverend Minister and teacher to the Church of Christ at Hartford in New-England and my antient acquaintance And this was in a tractate called A Congregational Church is a Catholick Church which came forth in print 1652. To whom I never intended to return an answer in any particular Treatise partly because I saw his book was only a logical Lecture and of so abstruse and sublime a subject that as it was little taken notice of so it was less understood by any but those schollars that were versed in those studies and so must mine answer have been also And partly because he only or cheifly opposed the arguments which I set down in my fourth Chapter and dealt not with the whole book or the main scope of my Vindication or question and therein also opposed only those arguments which I brought against M. Ellis which were taken from principles and grounds which I knew M. Ellis granted which was warrant sufficient for to me use them though M. Stone granted them not And in them also M. Stone mistook my meaning for by my denying the universal Church to be a genus I did not deny it to an existing genus or genus in actu exercito which M. Stone argued for for I knew though it were an integral it must be of one kinde or other but I denyed that it could put on the notion or consideration of a Church in genere So that my question about the integrality of the universal Church was no whit impaired by his arguments though they had all been granted only those arguments taken necessarily from principles granted by M. Ellis might have been invalidated thereby And partly becaus I saw that M. Stone did implicitely grant what I contended for which was that the universal Church is not the genus of particular Congregations in that he assigneth another genus to them in the frontispice of his book and upon the top of every page in his book and that is Congregation in genere But I intended that if ever this vindication should again com to the Press I would have explained my meaning more fully and that I meant by genus Church in genere and not the integral nature of the genus that existeth in individuals and so to have inserted an answer to M. Stone in that my fourth Chapter which now I am prevented in by this surreptitious coming forth of this second Edition without my knowledge and therefore I have added this Postscript I first therefore shall clear that there is a Church-Catholick visible Some of our brethren which have lately written tell us that a particular Church is a particular company of Saints in mutuall union for mutuall worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and the edification