Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	bishop_n	church_n	deacon_n	1,417	5	10.6336	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

Colledge though in the great remote end they both agree But you fly to that poor shift of bidding me take heed of absurd and ridiculous Suppositions not argumentative c. As if you had shewed any absurdity in these Suppositions Or as if plain undeniable Instances had no place in Arguments or Answers but were ridiculous Suppositions and he that would say that a Kingdom is greater than a Family and the King than a Master or Major used a ridiculous Supposition Just thus the poor Nonconformists are perswaded by your Pithonalogy to subscribe swear c. But I seem you say to assert this my self by saying there is a small difference between Bishop Usher's Model and the present Answ It 's tedious disputing with one that must have still another Writing to help him to understand that which he will first confute yea and seemeth not willing to understand It is a fallacy A dicte secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I only askt you What Farthing doth it take from their Estates What Title from their Honour Power Negative voice even their Lordships and Parliament places But is this the Question We then laboured to satisfie the unsatisfied Ministers that not only Bishop Usher's Reduction but even the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs had changed the very species of Prelacy without any of those Abatements If you would know it is by one word Consent restoring the inferiour Pastors and Churches though not to their Integrals yet to their Essentials And we were so inclinable to Conformity that on that supposition we had Conformed had but that Declaration stood though some of the Sects are of another mind whom you Arguments would confirm For we judge that a Bishop of one only Church consisting of five hundred or a thousand Chappels or Congregations that are strictly no Churches as having no Bishops doth specifically differ from a Bishop of a thousand Churches which have every one their proper Bishop and so he is truly an Archbishop or General Bishop But I am not to trouble you with this And now how impertinent was it to bid me Rub up my Philosophy about Maximum quod sic minimum quod non Know you not that the common use of those Writers are to intimate the same thing that I am saying against you That there is a subjective maximum minimum which only are capable of the relative form But I am next turned to Vossius de invoc sanct of which he hath there disputed and one Histor Thes and I am not told which of them but the words are in the first Thes 49. to prove that the Saint in Heaven and those on Earth make one Society Quare cum nihil obstat quo minus unius civitatis cives dicamur nec causae quicquam erit quo minus aeque civilis honos dicatur qui civibus coelestibus exhibetur quam qui civibus terrenis Nam grad● quidem honores isti differunt sed uterque tamen est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And was it possible that you should think that this made for you Because the world or Universe of Rationals are one Body or Society and so civil honour is the same thing as such in genere to them in Heaven as to them on Earth doth it follow that in this universal Society there are no Kingdoms Cities or Families specifically different Nor no different species of the civil honour what not to Kings Parents Masters What a thing is factions Interest Vossius only proveth Generical Identity of civil honour and the specifical difference of it from the honour of Religious Adoration The Church universal is one and the love and honour which we owe to the Saints in Heaven and Earth is Generically of the same kind But do you believe therefore that there are no subordinate Species of Churches and Honour on Earth What not the Honour due to the King the Bishop the Chancellor the Parish Curates the Deacons and the Beggars Yet all this with you are Premises sufficient to conclude And then it may be you may give leave to Magis minus non variant speciem to be a Maxim still See what Evidence it is that must perswade us to Nonconformity Are they not worthy to be silenced and branded as you have done that can resist such Light But you come to the quick and say Is there no Communion but personal Answ Yes else they could not be two ends to make two Societies You add Many of the Kings Subjects never saw his face yet they have many Hands and Eyes in respect of their subordinate Officers so have Diocesans in their Curates Answ Very true And that proveth that a Kingdom is one Society and a whole Diocess also one Ignoras Elenchum But doth that prove that there are no subordinate Societies in these Which though subordinate in point of Power yet specifically differ Is there no such thing as Personal Communion in presence because there is such a thing as distant Communion of another sort For all that your terms of Hands and Eyes would hide it I scarce think you are ignorant that under the King there are Heads as well as Hands and Eyes Heads of Families Schools Colledges Universities Corporations Cities who are constitutive parts of real Societies which are not of the same species with a Kingdom though in it And if Archbishops be of God's appointment so it should be with Archbishops and Bishops and every Church should have a Bishop But if you will not have it so but we must only have a Bishop and Curates and a Diocesan Church and Chappels you betray our Cause to the Brownists who easily prove No Bishop or Pastor no Church in sensu politico And so when you have granted them that we have no true Parish Churches there are few of them whose Wit is so weak as not to disprove the pretended right of such Diocesan Churches as consist of the Carkasses of many hundred mortified Parish Churches § 50. My Answer I must not repeat take it how you will you here come to the very Controversie I will not begin it with you because I cannot prosecute it I have so much to say on it as at these rates may engage you and me in dispute for many years if we lived so long which I find no reason allowing me to undertake Get me leave to Write and Publish it and I will write you a just Volume of it since it is published till then I again tell you I have said enough though too negligently in my Dispute of Church Government though one hath nibled at the Forms of some Arguments in it If you would have more answer Gers Bucer Parker and Ames's fresh Suit to name no other § 50. I shewed the invalidity 1. Of your Licitis honestis 2. And of former Obedience sub poena anathematis as nothing to our case in hand and do you deny what I said and disprove it 2. I tell you that so far as Bishops or

poor Bishop that renounced all their Communions for it is Canonized a Saint while Hooker himself justly reproacheth Ignatius And it made me marvail to read in Bellarmine de Scriptor Ecles pag. 100. this great Lie that Ithacius whom he falsly makes the same with Idacius who was one of the same Synod and Author of the Chron. in Jos Scaliger de emend temp In eo reprehensus punitus ab Episcopis fuit quod Priscillianum apud seculares judices accusaverit occidi cur averit Whenas 1. The Bishops never punished him for it 2. The Synod of Bishops joyned with him 3. Martin was despised as an unlearned Hypocrite and Favourer of the Hereticks that did renounce their way and Communion 4. Ithacius and Idacius because of the common Odium would have pretended that they put not on the Magistrate hereunto And that Bellarmine one of the Tribe that is for burning Hereticks should yet leave this blot on Idacius and seek by untruths to excuse the rest of the Bishops of it whence is it but that the Memory of the just shall be blessed and the Name of the wicked the cruel especially shall rot I digress only to tell you that the honour of violence will end in shame and he be odious to Posterity who may be set up as high as Gardiner or Bonner to serve the turn in some present Execution And I had rather be luke-warm than have a destroying or slandering heat To what you say of Beza and Selden I answer 1. Did I or the present Nonconformists ever subscribe to Beza or Geneva 2. Is it not palpably against your self that cry down Lay Elders though many with Ministers have power but in one Presbytery or Synod when our Lay Chancellor hath the power over hundreds of Ministers and Churches You that cry up or keep up Lay-mens Church Discipline may worse speak against Lay-mens Church Discipline than we that are against it in all whomsoever 3. But Beza and Geneva do not take them for Lay Elders nor the Scots neither but for Church Elders and part of the Clergy of Divine Institution none of which is pretended for Lay Chancellors And is that no difference For Selden as I know what he saith against the Diocesan Church Bishops in Eutychius Alexandr So I know what he saith against all of us for Erastianism de Synedriis better than by any Citations out of Heylin And I know he was one of the Long Parliament that raised the War whom even now you had possessed with the Spirit of Presbytery And you may judge of many of the rest by Selden And must you or I be Erastians because Selden and other Lawyers in the Parliament were so § 46. The Quibble in this Section is Content without an Answer § 47. I judged but of your Words and judge you of my Motives for refusing a Bishoprick no worse than I give you cause I answer you it intimated no Ingratitude to His Majesty nor did I ever repent And that I did it not to keep up a Party or Interest in them the Lord Chancellor had Evidence and my voluntary endeavours against all Faction and casting away my Reputation with all such declareth when I could as easily have kept it as you with yours and had no outward interest to move me to renounce it I say this because you seem suspectingly to talk of my Motives § 48. Our Question is Whether a Church of One Altar as they spake of old Associated for personal Communion and a Church of never so many Altars or Congregations Associated for other ends and not for personal Communion be ejusdem speciei And so whether the word Church here signifies but one Species You hold the Affirmative of both and I the Negative My reason is 1. Because it being a Relative which is in question The ends of the Society specifically differing make the Societies specifically to differ the Terminus being essential to the Relation But here are different sorts of ends Ergo here are different sorts of Relations I use the word ends to signifie the nearest end which specifieth and not the remote And to avoid the ambiguity of the word Terminus which as Finis cujus finis cui are distinguished so they use variously sometimes for the Correlate and sometimes for the nearest end and so I now use it As a Master to teach a Grammar-school and a Master to rule a Family or to guide a Ship are Relations specifically distinct à fine And so is a Magistrate and a Pastor and a Physician c. This is clear And for the Minor That these Churches in question have different nearest ends is evident For the end of a particular Church is personal ●ummunion in God's publick Worship and holy living to their mutual assistance But the ends of Churches that never know each other but live an 100 or 1000 Miles asunder They say some of our Islands and Plantations are parts of some English Diocesan Church can be no such thing but only a distant communion in the same Faith Love and Obedience The end of a single Church is the personal Communion of Christians in that one Society The end of an Association of many Churches is the Communion of those many Churches in distant mental Concord or by Delegates or Synods sometimes in ●ase of need And who ever thought that a particular Church a Patriarchal Church and a Pabal or the Universal Church were ejusdem spe●i●i when they agree only in remote ends and differ in the Terminus vel finis proximus As a Kingdom and a Corporation differ Ex differentia ●inium because though both are Societies for Ci●il Communion and Government and so agree ●n genere yet the end of one is Kingdom government and Communion and the end of the other is ●ut Corporation-government and Communion 2. Where there are different sorts of Relates cor●elates there are different sorts of Relations But ●● a particular Church and a Patriarchal Dioce●n or other Combination of many Churches ●here are different sorts of Relates correlates Ergo there are different sorts of Relations The ●hing supposed in the major is undeniable that ●●e Relate correlate enter the definition ●●erefore the major is undeniable The minor●pposeth ●pposeth a Church to be Constituted of the ●ars dirigens vel regens and the pars subdita as relate correlate which is undeniable And ●en it is proved per partes 1. The Pastor of a ●●gle Church and a Patriarch Pope or Dioce●n of a multitude of combined Churches are not the same Relate for they have not the same Relation I suppose the Relation of a Church to be thus Constitute of the two Complicate Relations as well the Church subjectively of the two Relates For 1. The different Work 2. And the different Correlate prove these Pastors to be two sorts of Relation however agreeing in●genere 1. It is not the same sort of Works personally to guide a present people in Doctrine Worship and Discipline