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
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

Divine Providence nor yet each with other but also to discharge them from their useless employment in seeking knots in so even a rush by proving that none can be found so that they must be forced to cut this Gordian knot because it cannot be untied § 3. As to the material cause The matter of every Oath of Covenant being either necessary unlawful or indifferent And each of these again being possible or certain or impossible or uncertain If the matter of the Oath to which we are speaking be necessary as commanded us by the Word of God or indifferent where Gods Word hath left us at a liberty except it be impossible we are certainly bound to the performance of it by our Oath in the judgment of all Divines that we ever yet met with From whence every conscientious Christian by the way must needs conclude thus 1. If the Officers as to the external administration of the Church of Christ under the Gospel be so determined by the Word of God That no Church under Heaven nor any other powers can make any alteration in them but only ratifie and confirm what God hath there appointed Then unless we can find that Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons are the Officers appointed by Gods Word for the Government of his Church we are most certainly obliged by our Oath to endeavour their extirpation The reason is because although we had not sworn yet we are bound as Christians to endeavour in our place and calling that the Church to which we belong have in it no Plants which are not of our Heavenly Fathers planting and according to our former rule what we are bound to do without an Oath we are much more having sworn obliged to 2. Suppose the Government of the Church be not so determined by the Word of God as to the external Administrators of it but it be in the power of the Magistrate or the Church to add some Officers not there mentioned or to chuse what Form they please yet we having sworn against this Form of Government and against these Officers we cannot set them up nor own them but must if they be imposed upon us suffer under them The reason is because the matter of the Oath was indifferent libera and Juramentum tollit libertatem we having sworn it is to us no longer free § 4. No one can challenge the Covenant as giving an uncertain sound at least not as to this Branch of it What we sware to was not the general will of another nor the unknown Rights Statutes and Priviledges of a Society yet many Oaths of that kind are judged lawful by Casuists and generally judged obligatory though not without some exceptions but the thing in this Oath is expressed Prelacy and the particular species of Prelacy set down as plainly as can be imagined so that there can be no escape for any soul that feareth an Oath § 5. It remaineth therefore that those who plead the non-obligation of this Oath and have set up this new trade of absolving souls from it must assert the matter of it unlawful either primarily or secondarily either in its own nature or in respect of some accident § 6. Dr. Sanderson tels us that an Oath as to the matter of it is unlawful in its own nature primarily when it is contrary to the Word of God Secondarily When it is contrary to the just Lawes of any community in which we are involved That an Oath may as to the matter of it be unlawful ex accidenti when it hinders some good or occasioneth some evil to our selves or to others when a man 's own Conscience judgeth it unlawful Others add when it is contradictory to it self or to some former Oaths c. § 7. But the Casuists generally agree that every unlawful Oath is not presently void if once taken it will be necessary therefore not only to examine whether the Covenant as to the matter of it were unlawful but whether it were so unlawful that it doth not now being taken oblige which unquestionably it was if as some pretend it were contrary to the Word of God in this particular for no soul can be by an Oath bound to sin against God according to that known Rule Juramentum non potest esse vinculum iniquitatis § 8. But those who plead the Obligation of the Covenant upon this account null will easily understand that they will stand concerned to prove from the Word of God That God hath somewhere determined that either his Church Catholick or his particular Church in England should inalterably be governed by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons c. Which when they have done we will freely grant them that the Covenant in that Point doth not oblige But this is such a task as none we have met with durst undertake § 9. That therefore which they chiefly insist upon is that the matter of the Covenant was secondarily unlawful as contrary to the Lawes of the Church or State-communities in which we are involved where we have two things to do 1. To examine Whether what they say be truth And 2. To examine whether it be conclusive § 10. The Church is either Catholick and Universal or particular Either Entitive Ministerial or Organical When we speak of a Church supposed to be in a capacity to make Lawes obliging others we must understand an organnical representative Church either Catholick or National or Provincial § 11. The Catholick Church in this sense must consist of a due proportion of Members sent from all particular Churches in the world who meeting in a Synod shall determine or have determined such and such things and we do confess though we dare not assert such Lawes universally obliging to all Christian People to the worlds end that we have and should have a great reverence for such constitutions But we do not believe that ever any such an Assembly met upon the earth nor do we believe the world in a capacity to convene such an one we have indeed read of some Councils called General Councils but besides that we find no such Law made by them neither do we believe them to have been such Assemblies strictly considered § 12. They must therefore understand the National Church of England Which may be taken as we said before entitively or organically In the first sence The Church of England is the whole number of Christian people in England professing the Christian Faith But when we speak of a Church making Lawes we must not understand Church in this Notion but must understand it considered as organical and then their power of making Constitutions or Canons obligatory to others must be derived either from the Word of God or from the Civil Magistrate What power can be pretended from the Word of God must be bottomed upon Acts 15. From whence all that is possible to be concluded is this That particular Churches of

several indeed supposed it that an Oath so directed and imposed doth not oblige against such a pretended imperfect legal establishment is we confess a piece of divinity the depth of which we cannot fathom nor yet believe that there is any truth in it If any of our Brethren in earnest think otherwise they should do well to bring forth their strong Reasons or to tell us what one Divine Ancient or Modern is of their minds till that time it is sufficient for us out of a reverence to the sacred Name of God to dissent from them in this notion proved as yet by no Scripture no reason nor any creditable authority § 39. For what some tell us that this Covenant was against Magna Charta the Petition of Right c. they appear to us scarce to have read either The latter saith not a word of the Government of the Church In the former there is only this general Article We have granted to God Magna Charta cap. 1. and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever That the Church of England shall be free and have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable And may she not be so though Prelacy by extirpated Are Archbishops and Bishops c. more concerned in Magna Charta than Abbots and Priors Yet what are become of their Liberties Was not the priviledge of Sanctuary of making Canons c. some of those Rights Yet are they not taken away by Act of Parliament Surely so may the Church-Governours mentioned in the Covenant CHAP. VII The Absolvers Plea from Schisme considered The nature of Schisme No guilt of Schisme by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant to the matter of former Oaths particularly the Coronation Oath the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and Canonical Obedience answered and found vain § 1. OUR Absolvers foreseeing these easie Answers to their afore-mentioned Pleas or at least being aware that if Prelacy be left to stand only upon a Parliamentary Foundation it will be liable to extirpation by succeeding Parliaments have not rested here but raised their Plea higher telling us That Episcopacy hath no Original but from the Apostles and looks very like an immediate institution of Christ's either preceptive and explicit or tacit and exemplary so that to abjure it runs us upon a Rock of Schism and dasheth us both in Opinion and practise against the judgment and custom of the Catholick Church in all places and ages till of later daies from the Apostles daies with whom we ought to keep communion in all things of so ancient tradition and universal observation In these words or to this sense they speak all § 2. It is very observable that if there were any truth in this Plea it would not only conclude all our Brethren of the Reformed Churches in France Holland Geneva Scotland N. England most parts of Germany Schismaticks For that is nothing with those with whom we have to do but it would also supersede all civil power 's thoughts for ever medling with the Government of the Church for fear of violating an Institution of Christ and the order of the whole Catholick Church and being posted up for Schismaticks § 3. But is it so indeed Or is this the noise of those who thunder thus because they cannot hope with any solid Arguments to do much let us a little consider these big phrases and see what they signifie The Papists have so enured us to this suffering under the reproach of Schismaticks for breaking off from the order of their Catholick Church that we begin not so much to regard the Charge or at least not to believe every one who calls out Schism and Schismaticks when they have nothing else to say § 4. Schism properly signifies a Rent or Breach which when it is from or in the community of a Church is very sinful both because against the Command of God directly and interpretatively but it must be from the Communion of a Church walking according to the Divine Rule otherwise if the Churches deviation especially be great there 's no great fear of any guilt by Schism in departing from it § 5. If indeed God by his Word hath any where appointed that the Government of his Universal Church shall be by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Chancellours Commissaries c. and the Church hath alwaies walked in that order we confess then that out Oath against it is Schismatical But we desire our Brethren to prove this § 6. Nay if God hath left the Church to its liberty to set up what Form of Government she pleases and the Universal Church hath at any time met in a perfect General Council and determined this inalterable Form or by an universal practise hath kept to such a Form there may be some colour to charge us but neither shall our Brethren prove this to us § 7. We challenge all the friends of Prelacy to make it good from any authentick Record that for three hundred years after Christ there were any such Creatures known in the Church of God as Archbishops Archdeacons Prebends Commissaries Chancellors Pope Stephen indeed in the 3 Century is called the chief Bishop of Rome in the fabulous decretal Epistles but Cyprian writing to him cals him no more than his Colleague In the 4 Century we read of Bishops Elders and Deacons Ambrose mentions them Dionisius and Optatus mention no more in this age Hierom in his Epistle to Nepotianus tels us l. de Dign Sacerdot that Bishops and Presbyters were the same only the latter were the younger men Ambrose tels us they had one and the same Ordination Indeed towards the end of the 4 Century which was 400 years after Christ they began to multiply Ecclesiastical Officers then came in Readers and Exorcists Subdeacons Archdeacons and Archbishops c. But we have already forsook the Order of the Church at that time when it was wofully declined from its Primitive Purity and shall be no more guilty of Schism in going a little further § 7. We said before that we find in Ecclesiastical story early mention of Bishops but not of such as ours were in England Our Bishops 1. Lay claim to a sole and single power in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. They are not chosen by the People nor Clergy 3. They are attended with Deans and Prebends Archdeacons c. 4. They execute their power by Lay Chancellours Commissaries c. 5. They have used to exercise a power in depriving Ministers suspending silencing excommunicating for trivial cases not paying a Tythe Goose or Pig c. Let our Brethren shew us such an Episcopacy before Antichrist was up in his Throne if they can if not they vainly charge us with Schism in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of such a Prelacy for which is no foundation in the practise either of the Primitive or any Reformed Church § 8. We are further told how truly