Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	catholic_n	church_n	universal_a	1,773	5	9.0565	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39282	Vindiciæ catholicæ, or, The rights of particular churches rescued and asserted against that meer (but dangerous) notion of one catholick, visible, governing church ... wherein by Scripture, reason, antiquity, and later writers, first, the novelty, peril, scandal, and untruth of this tenet are cleerly demonstrated, secondly, all the arguments for it, produced by the Rev. Apollonius, M. Hudson, M. Noyes, the London ministers, and others, are examined and dissolved ... / by John Ellis, Jun.	Ellis, John, 1606?-1681.	1647 (1647)	Wing E593; ESTC R18753	75,919	94

nor were sent to so farre as is related and then it will fall out either that they did conclude and injoyne onely Doctrinally though with authority or else that a particular and ordinary Church or two or three Churches by ordinary power may prescribe and by authoritie injoyne Lawes to all Churches in the world by way of Jurisdiction It will not be easie to get safe from betwixt the hornes of this argument 5. But it will not prejudice me to yeeld it an ordinary Assembly for it is granted to any Assembly of one Church or more to do as much as is here expressed this councell to have done viz. 1. To meet for the discussion of any Doctrine that afflicts the Churches especially if they bee sent unto as these were 2. To conferre scriptures together which concerns those points 3. Light appearing by the spirit of God and Scripture they may represent their results as the will of God and minde of the Holy Ghost and so may 4. MINISTERIALLY IMPOSE and enjoyn to all other Churches what appears to be the clear mind of Christ as Paul did 1 Cor. 7. having no expresse command and as any of our Brethren do when they preach the Word Do they not injoyne obedience in the name of Christ but withall they disclaim having sole Jurisdiction so as to Excommunicate any alone by themselves if they obey not and yet they do the former by Authority because the Ministery of the Word is an Ordinance of God Object But it was an Assembly representing the Catholick Church because of the Apostles who were the Catholick Officers and the whole acted by the ordinary power of the Catholick Church Answ. 1. The Reason overthrowes the Argument For if it was therefore an Assembly of the Catholick Church because of the presence of the Apostles Then if the Apostles had been absent it had been but the Assembly of a particular Church And the Apostles when assembled alone had made an Assembly of the Catholick Church So the universality or Catholicisme of the Assembly depended wholely and solely on the Apostles Or else secondly The Apostles if alone out of this Assembly neither severally nor joyntly should have been able to determine and do what was here done Or else thirdly The Apostles in this Assembly did denude and strip themselves of their Apostolical power or at least suspend it it for that time and acted onely as ordinary Elders of the Catholick Church but then it would follow either that that particular Church of Jerusalem was the Catholick Church as Rome is said to be for there were messengers from few if from more then one other Churches Or that the Apostles though laying aside their being Elders of the universal Church for that was their Apostleship did yet act as Elders of the universal Church all which are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} crasse interferings I thinke this Church acted 1. As the mother Church 2. As having an accesse of Authority by the presence of the Apostles 3. As being the Church from which the scandal enquired about was conceived to arise Neither doth the joyning of the Elders and Brethren wholy take off the eminency and authority of the Apostles above the rest for their speeches onely are recorded no more then Paul's joyning others with him in his Epistles though it do argue that the Church of Antioch had not that esteem of them as infallible alone And thus much also for that other place brought for confirmation of the third Argument A Representative Catholick Church in Scripture The fourth and last Argument is from the Testimony of some Reformed Divines viz. Walaeus and the Professors of Leydon But the first speaks nothing for him but what all acknowledge and was granted above scil. The Church saith he may be considered two waies 1. Vniversally for the Church which by the preaching of the Gospel is called out of the world throughout the world which in a certain sense or in some respect may even be called Catholick or for a particular Flock tyed unto one place In which sense I know none denie a Catholick Church it being one of the Articles of the ordinary Creed that there is a Catholick Church that is that the Church is now no longer bound to any one place as under the Jewish Government But that the Church in respect of the several members and societies of it is dispersed over the face of the earth But this doth no more conclude that therefore they are one Visible Corporation then when we say Mankinde is spread over all the World that therefore all men are one company or body politick 2. The Professors of Leyden are against him for they distinguish betweene a Visible and particular Church and betweene the Invisible and universal and say That a Visible Church is considered two waies 1. As a company or Society of one Towne City or Province which are united not onely in the unity of Faith and Sacraments but also in the Forme of outward Government or else it is considered as a certain Oecumenical and Vniversal body dispersed in several places throughout the whole World Although THEY DIFFER IN THE EXTERNALL FORME IT SELFE OF CHVRCH-GOVERNEMENT and circumstantial Rites very much yet agreeing in the ESSENTIAL VNITY OF FAITH and of the Sacraments Whence that is common in Cyprian Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur W●ich words evidently destroy this opinion For first they make the Essentialunion or forme of the Society and onenesse of the Church to consist in the onenesse of Faith and Sacraments Secondly They imply That Government is one as it is in Christ but divers as it is in severall Churches and in the hands of severall Officers for so Calvine in Ephes. 4. 11. expounds that of Cyprian The Episcopacie he gives to Christ alone in the administring whereof every one hath his part Thirdly And which chiefly assaulteth the heart of the cause for which it is brought by this Author They make the very difference betwixt the universal Church and a particular Church to be this That they disagree in the outward or visible forme of Church-Government therefore in the sense of the Professors of Leyden the Vniversal Church is not one Governing Body for then the Government must be one not only in Essence Nature and Kinde but one in Number Existence single and Indivual being And thus much for answer in particular to Apollonius who indeed hath the substance of what hath been said for this opinion others that follow having taken his grounds and dilated them a little but not much strengthened them thereby as will appear in the sequele 2. The next Defendant of this opinion is M. Hudson cited in the first chapter his sense is the same his words and expressions not so distinct as the former Before I come to his Arguments such as seem to differ from those before 1. note that the

Scripture he brings to signifie the whole company of the * Elect are the same in sense with those which he brings to signifie one * Visible Vniversal body and so are they expounded as I have done by the best interpreters even those he makes use of His first place is Eph. 5. 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it c. This saith he is to be understood of the Elect. So also saith Beza but Beza parallels and make the same in sense with it 1 Cor. 12. 12. 27. Eph. 1. 22. and Eph. 4. 15. 16. as is to be seen in his larger notes on M. Hudsons second place cited for this Church of the Elect viz. Coloss. 1. 18. which place * Calvin understands of the Church as it is governed by Christ So that these places if they be to be understood of the mystical body of Christ and not of a Visible Vniversal Body then so are the other in the judgement of those Interpreters Besides * Calvin on that place whereon M. Hudson and the rest build their greatest strength 1 Cor. 12. 12. 27. doth evidently make the Body and Corporation whereof beleevers are members to be a spiritual and mystical one and doth so distinguish it from the society and corporation they have as a politick or a civil body of a Towne or City 2. This Authors definition doth not reach the subject of his question but contains what is of all hands confessed it is this The Vniversal Visible Church is the whole company of Visible Beleevers throughout the World Thirdly He brings the description of the Church visible out of several Authors none of which not Austins nor Calvins nor Bullingers nor Kekermans nor Zuinglius his nor Gerards nor Byfields who all take Vniversal in the sense now described and not as M. Hudson but one or two speak to the question viz. Apollonius and perhaps P. Ramus the former of which was pre-ingaged and touching the latter I referre the Reader to M. Beza's judgement of him and that as it seems with reference to this opinion Predixi quod in caeteris disciplinis-ausus esset mox etiam in Theologia tentaturum Quid non ille ante mortem molitus est ut in dogmatibus quibusdam in tota Ecclesiastica Disciplinâ Gallicas Ecclesias inter se COMMITTERET Vtinam ipsius scripta periissent quandoquidem haec est mundi INSANIA Bezae Epist. ad Vrsinum in Organ Aristot 4. He acknowledges among other Authors * Ames to be against him and yet in the very * next page cites him as for him 5. Yet those words of this Author which he cites speak nothing for him if compared with the Authors meaning they are We acknowledge a Catholick Visible Church in respect of its external and accidental forme in its parts or members both severally and joyntly Which is no more but this that Christians as they are single men and as they are combined into particular Churches are visible But M. Hudson might have known or remembred that M. Ames doth expresly and in terminis reject an universal Visible Church in M. Hudsons sense his words elsewhere are The Church since Christs coming is not one CATHOLIQVE so as that all the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world should be united in one and the same bond for outward relation and depend upon one and the same Visible Pastor or Assembly of Pastors or Presbyterie marke it but there are so many Churches as there are particular Congregations For although the Church mystical as it is in its members is distinguished into its subject and adjuncts as the English Church the French the Belgick as we use to call the sea by the name of the coast it beats upon as the Brittish the Belgick the Baltick sea although it be one and the same sea yet notwithstanding instituted Churches are several distinct species or kindes or single bodies partaking of the same common Nature as severall springs several schools several families although perhaps many of them or all may be called one Church in respect of some affection which they all have in commune Like as many Families of one and the same noble and eminent Family are called by one name as the house of Nassau or the house of Austria which comprehends the Emperour and King of Spain who yet have no dependence in point of Government one on another Now wee know who taxes some-body for this fault of citeing Authors for them who are known to be in the main against them 6. His explication of his question both confutes his opinion and also contradicteth plainly what he speaks of it For he saith That the Church Catholicke visible is one whole body all whose parts or particular Churches are alike and of the same Nature And avouches for this purpose the authority of Ames who indeed saith so Now in a body all whose parts are of like nature and quality as so many drops of water or stones in a heap each part hath the same vertue and power that the whole and all the parts together the whole Sea or whole heape of Stones have no other kinde of Vertue or power then one drop or one stone Or to make it cleer by another similitude severall Kingdomes in the world and severall Corporations in a Kingdom and severall families in Corporation if they bee all but members alike of the same Kingdome and not of a higher body whereof when they are met they may be members as Kingdomes of an Empire Corporations of a Parliament Families of a Corporation They should have no more nor greater power when met then when assunder As a multitude of single men that are not of a Corporation though they bee met yet have they not the more power then each one simply for their meeting their meeting addes no power unlesse they meet as members of a body superiour to them when severall 2. This explication contradicteth expresly what he adds in the same place pag. 21. and which is his opinion that hee would establish viz. That the Church Visible Catholique is an Organicall Ministeriall Governing body that is not such a body as is the element of water or ayre every part whereof is of the same nature vertue and power in it selfe considered but such a body as a man hath which is distinguished by severall members some principall some lesse principall some governing as head eyes some acting as hands fee● some governed as the body by the head eyes c. And such a body as all Corporations are Now this contradicts plainly the former both opinion and expression for if the Church be a similar body and all Congregations alike and the whole nothing differing in nature or constitution or power from the parts then the Catholick Vniversall visible Church is no more the Governing Church then a particular As the whole sea is no more Water then one drop nor all men if they be

yet under the command of the Parliament and Lawes Martiall published by them So Christ from the Father by the Spirit is the governour of all Churches which Churches have no necessary dependence further then that of mutuall love spirit and law one on another His 5th and last Objection is The Catholicke Church may bee by persecutions c. reduced to one Congregation His answer is It may be so but that in that one Congregation there remaines all the Essence and Priviledges of the Catholicke Church Visible though it be but one single Congregation at present yea that it hath then more properly the notion of the Catholicke Church then of a particular one yea though but of one family as it was in Noah's family in the Arke But we see what straights this Large conceipt of the universall visible Church doth drive into for this implyes what was denyed before namely That the Church Catholick is a species or lower kinde and the particular Churches the severalls of it for else confounds Vniversall and particular together making an universall thing reducible to a particular and this extendible to an universal 2. How could it bee Vniversall but as containing the Essence seeing in respect of its visible and present being it is particular In which sence every Single man is a Catholique and Vniversal creature because he containes in him the same Essence and nature that is in all men and Adam should have been so in a special manner as being the first 3. A particular thing doth not therefore become an Vniversall one because it is first in its kinde and others that are produced from it particulars Vniversalitie is a notion though founded in Nature not an existing thing to which any order of actual being can be attributed 4. If the first in each kinde have all the priviledges of that kind whilest it remaines alone it shall bee a looser when it hath company if it then part with them unlesse it hath somewhat as good in Lieu which here appears not but the contrary 5. It no way followes that because from one many of the same kinde may spring that therefore either this first suppose a Family must have government over them all or they over it or over one another whether joyntly or severally unlesse they so agree or there be an institution of one superiour to them all Now how should it appeare there hath been or ought to bee any such grant here seeing there is no such record in scripture and besides hath beene the occasion of the rise of Papacy as Mr Noyes acknowledges And thus much of the things to bee noted before his Arguments 2. Now the Arguments themselves follow to bee answered they are of two sorts 1. Certain places of scripture 2. One argument from reason But seeing the former almost all runne upon the word CHVRCH set downe indefinitely they have been replyed to before His argument is If particular Churches be visible then there is an universall visible Church for every particular or part belongs to some generall and whole and such as the particulars are such the Generall if those be visible then this also Answ. More ●are should have beene taken then to use so lax à medium in so weighty an Argument as Mr. ● in the Licence acknowledgeth this to be But to the matter There is great difference betweene Natural and betweene Metaphysicall and ●ivill or Politicke bodies For in a Naturall body all whose parts and members are actually and naturally joyned and united together the whole is visible because the parts are visible● but in a metaphysicall body or totum or whole that is in Generalls that are by the reason of man drawne from particulars the case is farre otherwise the particulars are visible the Generall or universall invisible Peter Iames and Iohn are visible but manhood or mans nature animal rationale which is the Vniversall agreeing to them all is not visible It is not to bee seene with the eye So also in Civil bodies or Corporations though the severall men may be seene yet the Corporation if great an Empire Kingdome and large Cittie cannot be seene in it selfe but in the parts unlesse by way of representation as in Parliament Common-Councell c. But 2 The whole is visible because the parts are so It is untrue even in the smallest bodies but where the parts are actually united and joyned together not where they are thousands of miles asunder such a body as a body cannot bee seene with the eye but it may be conceived to be one in the minde by vertue of some agreement or other betwixt the members of it or of its union in some Visible head but it is visible onely in respect of the severall parts of it Now in this sence none denies the universall Church to be visible that is that all Christians who are one in respect of their Religion they professe are visible in the severall places where they dwell But this is to prevaricate and to prove that which is not in question So that this reason is not so much as probable if it bee taken in the former sence much lesse any necessary concluding argument and least of all a demonstration which was promised by the Authour And in the other sence it is besides the Questio● And thus much for Mr Hu●son's first Question viz. ●ha● there is a Catholique visible Church His 2d is That this Church is the first subject of Ecclesiastique Power But because the proofs are much from the same places of Scripture which are answered above and the reasoning wholly on the same foundation viz. that ●ivers things are spoken of the Church which cannot agree to a particular Church as particular which also was replyed to before I shall not after too large a discourse already adde any more here nor shall I need for if I have acquitted my selfe in the former discourse in opposition to the notion of one universall visible Church or Corporation I neede not contend whether it be the first subject of Church power for it having no actuall being and existence at all it cannot be the subject of any power or act as non entis nulla sunt attributa so non existentis nullae sunt operationes onely the Reader may observe that the root of all the mistake in the former this authour and the rest about these questions is ●ither the not distinguishing the Nature and Essence of the Church in which respect it hath the names and things they urge given to it from the relations of Vniversall and particular which are notions and accidentall to it and confounding the Essence and existence the nature and the actuall being of the Church together applying that to the particular being as Particular which is spoken of them being particular but in respect of the common essence and nature not as particular Or 2. Not differencing betwixt the mystical● and visible state of it

of one visible Catholick Church and might both consist together in a particular one So that as neither Episcopacie nor Presbyterie absolutely considered are engaged to owne the opposed Tenet so neither doth that Truth I plead for constrain me to oppose either if within the forementioned limits My aim is the plucking up of that root from whence sprang the exorbitancy of both and what was worse then either And as I am not obliged to oppose so I would not be interpreted to plead for the one or other My businesse is to deal with the subject of Church government and that onely in its exrent and limits Now for a call to this service though it challenge the most exercised abilities and that other more able hands have undertaken it which I heard not of till these papers were almost in the Presse yet one of the * Authors I reply unto having done me the favour to invite me to a disputation about the Argument and afterward farther obliging me by sending one of the printed books to me for which I am his debtor with desire that if I excepted against any thing in it I ●ould send my thoughts in w●iting to him privately I conceived my self particula●ly engaged to deal in this argument and that not privately but publickly because what I was to speak to was published first CHAP. II. The State of the question THat we may know what we speake and vvhereof vve affirme as the Apostle phraseth it the true state of the controversie is to be expounded the mistake whereof is the rise of much of the dispute about this question For the clearer proceeding wherein four or five Termes are to bee explained First the word CHVRCH Secondly the Onenesse or unitie of it Thirdly The Vniversalitie Fourthly The Visibility Fifthly that which is included in the other the povver of it Concerning the first The word CHVRCH is taken as in other acceptations so 1. Mystically and Essentially for a company of tho●e that have owned the doctrine * of Christ 2. Politically as such a company are cast into one Society Corporation Republique or Body politique And this againe is considered either Totally as comprehending those in heaven also Ephes. 3. 15. the vvhole family in heaven and earth or partially for those on earth onely and this either generally for all as some would understand the word though we cannot give an instance of this signification in Scripture or particularly for those who live together in One place and are associated into one body called a Particular Church as the Church of Rome Jerusalem c. The next Terme is Onenesse or Vnitie which is 1. Essentiall and in Nature such as is that of all particular things in their generall heads all men as they partake of the common nature and essence of man rationalitie which is one are in that respect called one Nation or Man●inde in the singular 2. There in an accidentall unitie when the agreement is in that which is not of the essence and nature but adventitious to the things as time place appurtunances c. as some Spanjards some French some English may be one company as by occasion they are met in one place or as kingdomes and States at generall diets or by mutuall leagues become one accidentally by such unions 3. An Integrall or Bodily onenesse as I may so speake when many particulars are joyned together as one whole and this is 1. of a similer or Homogeneall body whereof all the parts are of the same nature with the whole and one with another such as is the onenesse of drops of water in the Sea and sands on the Shore or ● of a dissimilar and hetrogeneall one when the parts differ from the whole and among themselves and this is double 1. Physicall and Naturall as ●hen all the parts and members make but one individuall substance as the head feet trunke c. are all one naturall body 2. Politicall or by way of morall corporation and Republique when many single ones are bound up in one sociall relation as divers persons into one family severall families into one corporation many corporations into one Common wealth and this union againe is twofold 1. Misticall when things are one in some hidden relation that is not visible to the sence as all families descending from some First house such are all the sonnes of Adam and of Abraham all professours of the same faculty be they never so farre asunder 2. Visible and outward when the union of all parts is obvious and evident to the eye and sence as the union of the members in the bodie of man or members of a society when they are met and act visibly together as the City of London in Common Councell the Kingdome of England in Parliament 4. There is a Collective or aggregative onenesse which differs from the former in that this is only by collection or gathering as an heap of stones is one by being gathered together into one place but in a body whether naturall or politique there is required moreover a mutuall incorporation and inward dependance on one another c. Thus of the second terme The third is Vniversall or Catholick It is taken 1. Properly for that common nature in which particular things agree as common to them all Rationall creature in the general is the universall nature in respect of all particular men And in this sence universality is only a notion framed in the minde of man and collected from observation of severall particulars but hath no reall actuall being in time and place 2. Improperly for that which though it be a single thing either naturall or by way of relation is yet in regard of the wide spreading of its parts called universall catholicke and Generall as we say the Kingdome of England in generall or universall doth this or that though it be but one single Kingdome c. and in this sence that which is called universall may have an actual being and existence The Fourth Terme is visibilitie It is an accident or addition to the nature of things as they are perceiveable to the eye or in a large acceptation by any other sence the subject whereof is alwaies a corporal or bodily thing representing it selfe as one unto the sence The last Terme included though not expressed is Church power It is first Doctrinall vix Teaching Discussive Determinative and concluding in points of controversie by the Word 2. Active and this is either General and common and answers to that power that all men by vertue of the onenesse of Nature and onenesse of the Law of nature have in order each to other As 1. to take care of and do good to one another to protect each other from violence c. 2. Properly Rective and Iuridical and this is either 1. Extraordinary in some unusuall cases as every man hath power of life and death in