Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	catholic_n	church_n	profess_v	6,124	5	9.0713	4	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

never for there never was yet any universal meeting of the Catholick Church nor its officers though some Councells have been called Generall because of the number of Bishops unitie of places from whence they have come and the Emperours latitude of Dominion that called them 3. From hence would follow that very many particular Churches would be in peril to be greatly damaged seeing in appeals they must be adjudged by those that are many thousand miles distant from them and could not have perfect * cognizance of the cause nor in case they wanted information for their guidance in judgement could by reason of distance have it in time 4. Great would be the vexation charges travel c. that would arise from such a Court as whereunto Appeals were to come and yet such there must be if the whole Church be but one Corporation 3. A third and fourth prejudice and probable exception against this opinion is T is Papal and Anti-Protestant 1. Papal not indeed in regard of the height of it as it refers the root and head of this universallity unto Rome onely but in regard of the opinion it self An universal visible Church a mayne ground of the former M. Hudson and so M. Noyes indeed would avoid this prejudice also but with Labour in Vain He saith he stateth not the question as the Papists do because they take Visible for Glorious Catholick for Romane and subject it to the Pope For 1. whatsoever the Papists add to the question yet the substance and substratum of it is the same In vain should they fix the seat of it at Rome and subject it to the Pope if it might not be in it self one Corporation and Republique 2. Again they do not take visible for glorious but for that which is obvious to the sense though they make Glorious an adjunct thereunto 3. They so fix the seat of the Church at Rome and subject it to the Pope severall of the most eminent of them as that it is onely in the absence of a general Councel which they make above the Pope as being the Church Catholick Representative as is shewed else-where But to return Bellarmine de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 11. haveing related the opinion of the Protestants and propounded the Romish in opposition thereunto viz. There is a visible Catholick Church He proves it by the same places that the Authors of this opinion do to wit Mat. 16. Vpon this Rock I will build my Church and Chap. 18. Tell the Church which though in that place he bring to prove it Visible yet it implies to make it universal also for both these joyntly Catholick Visible he was to prove in opposition to the Protestants for as they say this could not be meant of a particular Church So hee that it cannot be meant of an invisible And he defines it to be one visible Church or Congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same faith and participation of the same sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors and especially of that onely Vicar of Christ on earth the Pontiffe or Bishop of Rome In the definition it is to be noted that hee makes all beleevers but one single Corporation or Congregation though divided in places under one single Governent under one visible head the Pope of Rome In all but the last clause which is not Essential to the thing though it be to those persons the definition agrees to the minde of the authours of the opinion here impugned And 2. It is Anti-Protestant being opposed generally by them Calvine disputing against the Papists about the unitie and visibilitie of the Church saith as was noted before The onenesse of the Church consisteth in the onenesse of faith And for the visibilitie he saith It is not necessary for the preserving of this unitie that we should see the Church with our eyes Chamier in his Answer to Hardings Argument against Jewell Art 4. Sect. 17. urging that Every multitude in it selfe one did stand in need of one Governour by whom it might be managed but the Church visible is in it self one saith The Church as it is Catholicke or Vniversall is not one in it selfe because it is one generall or universall gathered and aggregated of many particular Churches as if one should say the kingdome or a Kingdome not this or that Kingdome but Kingdome in generall the parts whereof are all particular Kingdomes the French Spanish English For SO the word CHVRCH being taken it is compounded mark not constituted of infinite particular Churches the Romane Constantinopolitane c. Now that which is one in that sence it is manifest that it needs no one governour for not as to every Kingdom there is a King so to all Kingdomes there is one King that that which is called Kingdome in Generall may have a being and therefore not in the Church neither as it is understood to be one collected of many particular Churches Is it necessary that one should be president He evidently both denyeth and excellently refuteth this Catholick union by this very thing because the Church is Catholicke therefore not really one but notionally only as all the Kingdomes in the world are one in the nature and notion of Kingdomes but not one corporation or one Government And so before him Bishop Jewell in answer to the same Papist proving the minor or second part of the former argument viz. That the Church is one visible Congregation or societie because as our brethren do there is one faith and Baptisme one calling so one Church as Saint Paul saith ye all are one body and members one of another and in our Creede wee all professe to beleeve one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church saith that whereas Mr Harding had proved the major also out of Aristotles 12. booke of his Metaphysicks out of Homer Never did Aristotle or Homer dreame of this NEW FANCY that one King should rule over the whole world And by consequence or that the whole world was but one Kingdome and so he implyeth it to be as ridiculous that all Churches should bee but one governing Church and hee addeth what is considerable in this Argument wherein reason is followed rather then scripture His reason were better if either Peter or Paul or any Catholick Father had used it and then citeth Austin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 28. who saith To attribute much to discourse of reason in understanding scripture haec consuetudo periculosa est this custome is dangerous per scripturas enim divinas multo tutius ambulatur It is far safer following of the Scripture So that Bishop Jewell conceiveth this against both scripture and Antiquitie Mr Rutherford also due right of Presbytery pag. 231. titleing the page thus How our Church hath been visible makes it out only by this That in all Ages there have been some who have held the same points with us in the main Implying the visibility

many houses of the Hebrews have but onely one * Power Nature and Condition as the Churches throughout the World and in several Provinces being many in Numbers are but One Church Where he makes them One in that they have One Nature and Condition but saith they are Many in number Whereas this opinion makes all the Churches in the world to be but one in number in respect of Corporation and Government as all the houses in a City make but one single Corporation and all the Corporations in England make but one single Kingdom So that this Testimony taking the distinction above mentioned of onenesse in Nature of those that are many in number looks as much if not more on us then on our opposites 2. CLEMENS ALEXAND. * There is absolutely but one Ancient and Catholick Church in the Vnity of one Faith whereunto agreeth that of CALVINE The unitie of the Church consists in the unitie of the Faith and expresly against this universal visible Government he addes it is not necessary that we see it the Church Catholick and that it be visible for preservation of that unity 3. CYPRIANUS when he professedly disputeth the question about the unity of the Church passing by the corruptions added in this place and some of his * Epistles by the Papists defineth the unity of the Church by Doctrine and Discipline and saith This onely is the cause of Schismes Quod magistri Coelestis Doctrina suis quod idem est Ecclesiae vivitas non servatur That the Doctrine of our heavenly Master or which is ALL ONE the unity of the Church is not preserved and as there is one God one Christ one Faith so there is one Church one Discipline in it one Bishoprick whereof in the whole every one hath his share and as the Sun hath many beams but one light and the boughes of a Tree many but one Trunk so many particular Churches whereof unum lumen unum Caput una Origo one light one head one original in all which he makes the unity of the Church to consist in onenesse of nature faith spirit head not in number and Government As the leaves and boughes are not one in number and in themselves but in their Original and Root so are the Churches one in Christ and the spirit and nature though different in suppositum and Government 4. HIERON. It is called one Altar as it is said one Faith and one Baptisme and one Church but faith and Baptisme are said to be one in respect of Kind and nature not Integrally and numerally 5. AUGUSTINE He speaking of the first Subject of the keyes or Church power saith For all the SAINTES the●efore that doe cleave inseparably to the body of Christ did Peter receive the KEYES of the Kingdom of heaven because not he alone but universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata the universal Church doth binde and loose sins But that he doth not mean joyntly as one body or Corporation but severally every Church by it selfe and so the onenesse of the Church here implyed is in nature and kind not in number appeares by what he saith in other places as where repeating that about Excommunication Mat. 18. If he hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen he saith He who joyneth him to himself which is after this order cast out he not permitting being orthodox by vvhom he is cast out juris sacredotij sancti limites Excedit doth violate the rights of holy Priesthood He doth imply that particular Churches did excommunicate within themselves or the universal Church distributively taken 6. EUCHERIUS The Church dispersed throughout the whole world consists in one and the same faith and fellowship of Catholique truth and vvheras there is an innumerable multitude of the faithfull yet they rightly are said to have one heart and one soul in respect of their society in the Common faith and love Where all the universal onenesse hee implyeth it of faith and love This opinion then doth not appeare in prime and best Antiquitie nor with any evidence in those that followed so that till better testimonies appeare we must say that it is therefore absolute new 2. It is more new Relatively 1. In reference to the protestant party who Generally save very few excepted have never owned it but on the contrary constantly opposed it as shall be shewed anon But it is most nevv in regard of the Presbytirians these Brethren being the first we have met with or as it seemes themselves either for those they quote make rather against them as will appeare afterward certaine it is that Calvine whom they vouch as the first restorer of that Government though his was but a voluntary association as we saw before gave evidence expresly against it Also Chamier speaking the sence of the French Churches as afterward must be related but we need not be sollicitous to prove this seeing the Brethren of this opinion confesse this conceit to be opposed by the greatest part of the protestant writers as wil appear in the fourth Argument If therefore Novelty and new light be a prejudice against other opinions it cannot but reflect suspition upon this 2. Another just prejudice against this opinion may be that it is of Dangerous Consequence For if the whole Church that is Visible and to be seen on earth be one single Corporation or Kingdom and the first subject to whom all Government in Church affairs belongeth and in whose right and by power from which all particular Churches do act then of necessitie 1. There must be Viniversal and General officers and some one above the rest to whom the particular Churches may have continual recourse For all Corporations have officers that are officers of the whole Corporation and over all and not particular onely as not onely the Constables of the severall Parishes or Aldermen of cath Ward but the Major also of the whole who hath though not a divided yet a distinct and superior power in order to the Corporation above the rest though conjoyned 2. Seeing Christ hath provided a seasonable and standing means for the continual exercise of the Government of his Church that may be made use of as occasion requires therefore these officers must have alwaies residence in some one place though they may also remove to another they must have an actual being and residence as being the officers for the exercise of the power of the universal Church For it is impertinent to say that it is sufficient the universal Church meet by parties in severall Countreys and Ages for the meeting of officers of Corporations must be in one place and time as the Parliament Convocation Consistory c. And it were notably vaine to imagine that Christ hath committed the government of his Church first chiefly to that body that should not meet six times in sixteen hundred yeares * nay

and by consequence the onenesse also to consist in onenesse of Faith and doctrine But he hath a little before pag. 206. a considerable passage at this time about the call of our first reformers and saith that any enlightened by the spirit of God and members of the Catholick Church should teach informe and help their fellow members being seduced and led by blinde guides is agreeable to the law of nature Also that In extraordinary times men may go beyond the ordinary path so the thing done be materially good But this by the way Lastly the Professors of Leyden cited for this opinion by Apollon. which is much to be wondered at doe distinguish betwixt the Church Catholick and particular and say that The former is one in doctrine and faith but the latter one in discipline and government also Evidently implying the universall Church not to be one in Gouernment or not to be one Corporation And thus of the third and fourth inconveniences of this opinion and so much also for the first generall head of exceptions against it viz. the just prejudices and suspicious appearances of it as being Novell dangerous Papall and Anti-Protestant CHAP. IIII. Demonstrations against an Vniversall Visible Governing Church HItherto have been handled the lesse Artillery and as 't is hoped not without successe The main Batterie now follows by Arguments demonstrative and such as necessarily conclude against this opinion and that this may be done I premise as granted these principles 1. That the Author of all Ecclesiastick power in the Churches is Iesus Christ for unto him all of it was committed and from him derived 2. That he expressed plainly enough whatsoever was of great consequence for the well ordering of his house as for all other things concerning the salvation of his people 3. That the Apostles were appointed by him to perfect by themselves or Deputies whilest themselves were living either by precept or practise whatsoever concerned the Churches in such particulars 4. That they accordingly did faithfully discharge this trust 5. That Christ and his Apostles in those their precepts and practise are a rule to all Churches to the end of the World I am with you viz. in observing these things which I have commanded you unto the end of the World 6. That they are our rule both negatively and positively i. e. what they did not in such and such cases when they had opportunity we may not in the like and what they did we must do so also as occasion requires and opportunity serves The former particulars are plain enough the last not difficult if these places following and the like be considered Act. 15. 24. The Apostles charge the urgers of Circumcision upon the Gentiles not onely because they taught such Doctrine but also because they taught it having received no such Commandment unlesse we understand those words as having reference to what those Teachers it may be boasted viz. That they had Commission from the Apostles for that Doctrine Again The Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews insinuates it to be sufficient proof that the Priesthood did not at all belong to the Tribe of Iuda but of Levi because the Scripture speakes nothing saith he concerning the former in that respect The speech of Balaam implies as much and that other of the Prophet if the Lord have not spoken who can prophesie We know how the Lord thundereth against those who prophesyed and the Lord had not spoken to them which yet we would have understood as was said before with this caution viz. not spoken neither expresly nor by neer consequence in things of special concernment to the Church 7. That the Government of the Church of Christ it being his house and the knowledge of the first subject or chief trustee to whom the keys of that house is committed is of very great concernment and therefore to be laid down in Scripture at least by such evidence as with moderate opening to godly knowing and impartial men may comfortably be perceived These things premised we come to the Arguments The first whereof is taken negatively from the Author and Founders of the Church viz. The silence of Christ and his Apostles touching one Catholick Visible Governing Church This I conceive is not to be found in Scripture unlesse by such strayning of reason as we saw before Austin saith is dangerous in the things of God What is brought on the contrary out of Scripture shall be examined in another place to wit in the fifth chapter when the Arguments for this opinion if God permit shall severally be discussed onely for methods sake this being the joint for this Argument naturally to fall into 't is here mentioned The second Argument is from the same persons positively to wit the contrary Institution of Christ and his Apostles gathered plainly from their Teaching and Practise 1. If the keyes of Government were given first and fully with entire power immediately to a particular Church then there is no universal visible Governing Church because that is therefore contended for as the first subject of Government but the first is true therefore the latter The former is thus proved All Church power was given first and fully to the Church of the Jews But the Church of the Jews was a particular Church not the universal unlesse by accident because so it was that there was no other Church state in the world at that time unlesse we shall hold as * some do that there were other societies of Beleevers that were not united to the Jewish Church as Iob and his family c. but this is doubtful I therefore omit it The Church of the Jews was a particular one 1. It is every where called One congregation 2. All the Church in the chiefest Sex of it met together to solemn worship at one place in the Temple three times a year constantly and oftner as occasion served in Fasts War Thanksgiving Consultations c. neither had they any thing to do with those that joyned not themselves to their body as Cornelius Act. 10. A beleever and yet one that Peter might not go to And though it be granted to have been a Type of the Church of the New Testament yet not as Catholick but as Congregational as it self was or else as mystical for even our Brethren denie that order of Governours to bind under the Gospel though the Papists contend for it 2. The first Institution of the Church under the new Testament by Christ does give entire power of Government immediately to a particular Church Matth. 18. If thy Brother offend thee c. Tell the Church if he hear not the Church let him be as a Heathen c. Now this was a particular Church for it was such an one as one might complain to and it was endued with entire power even to excommunication 2. If the power and presence of Christ be so with a particular Society

that Whatsoever they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. and this be given immediatly to a particular society of Christians then the assertion is good but so it is in that Chapter When two or three are gathered in my Name I am in the midst and so as that what they binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. As by the coherence may be gathered Object But this is meant of the Jewish Church Answ. 1. If so the former Argument takes place But 2. It is not * likely for where is the Jewish Consistory called the Church it is called by Christ Matth. 5. the lower Assembly a Councel the greater Sanhedrin a Iudgement but not a Church 2. He had chap. 16. spoken of his Church and it is like had explained himself more fully about it for all could not be written as Iohn informes us chap. 21. ult. 3. In the former chapter Matth. 18. 18. he giveth the greatest Ecclesiastick Power to a Congregation of Christians Whatsoever ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. it is added immediately upon his precept of telling the Church as the reason of it and to corroborate it he assures them in the same place that what they should aske in his Name should be done and to strengthen that he promiseth that when they were gathered together he would be in the middest of them By all which it appears that he speaks of a particular Christian Church and which is to be noted without any mention of appeal to a higher Judicatory if right should not be done there 3. The first execution of the greatest act of entire power was by admonition and command of the Apostle himself but not by his power exercised in a particular Church without appeal to or consulting of the universal Church which they might have done according to this opinion the Apostles then being surviving viz. delivering one over to Sathan the Apostle saith when ye of Corinth are gathered and my Spirit consent and approbation or the holy Ghost acting in you and me by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ not which he hath committed to me but which is among you for besides that Paul according to this opinion being but one of the Catholick Ministers could not orderly have excommunicated this man without consulting with or by authority of the rest of the Apostles Representatives of the universal Church if the Catholick Church be the first subject of Church power It is certain that Ecclesiastical Power i●herent in any cannot be delegated or transmitted over to another but of transmitting Apostolical power we read not 4. If entire power were first committed to particular men then not to the Catholique Church and so it was not the first subject of Church power and so not one visible governing Church but entire power was committed to the Apostles severally and to all joyntly as hath been hitherto confessed by all Ergo c. Object But the Apostles represented the Catholick Church Answ. 1. Not in all the power they received for they might do that which all the Churches cannot as constitute Articles of Faith c. 2. They represented the Church not as united but as multiplyed for Paul had as much power as any and yet he was not personally united to them as appears Gal. 1. 17. 3. Howsoever they had no successors in Apostolick power as neither had Moses in his At the first planting of a Church more power is to be used then afterward is needfull as our Brethren of Scotland alleadge both for their having at the first and for not reteining Generall Visitors still 5. If the first reproofe from Christs own mouth for the englect of exercise of Church power was directed to particular Churches alone by themselves and not to the combination of them though neere one the other much lesse to the universall Church then particular Churches had entire Independent Ecclesiasticall power as single Churches and not as parts of one visible Catholicke but the former is true from the second and third chapters of the Revelation where Christs reproofs are directed to the particular Churches and not to the Presbytery over all or to the Catholicke Church though some of these Churches were but 8. or 10. miles one from the other and the furthest but two hundred being all in the lesser Asia and this after Christianity had been about 70. years in the world so that they had time to have combined or united into an Vniversall or at least into a Nationall or Provinciall societie or Classis if it had been so taught them by the Churchfounders Christ and his Apostles 2. Sort of Arg. From the matter or members of this universall Governing Church laying for ground what was noted before viz. That every subject or agent that hath reall and actuall properties and effects must some time or other have existence and being as one if one Naturall then so if one Civil then must they be as one body gathered into one place as the Jewish nation as we said before Corporations in their Halls Kingdomes in their Parliaments This being undenyable though Mr Hudson deny it against all experience and reason because It is sufficient saith he that they are under one King and governed by the same Laws but how should they be so if they never met at least by their Deputies formally or virtually to yeeld to such a government not as was proved before any cleare institution left by Christ for such incorporation The 1. Argument is That which never had an actuall being and existence in the world that neither is nor is the subject of Church povver much lesse the first but this Church Catholick as such never had a being because it was never together gathered into one place neither in its members nor in its Deputies and therefore can bee one not actually or really in it self but by * imagination onely and conceit Either in regard of the same onenesse of kinde and nature that is betwixt Churches or of relation they have to one head and in order to and dependance on one rule or law the word of God As several Armies to use M. Hudsons similitude gathered by Commission from one Generall in severall parts of a Kingdome or of an Empire or of the world and never yet brought together nor intended so to be but to abide under their severall particular commanders one perhaps in England another in India might be called one Army in Regard of one Commission and one chief General Yet such a similitude will not here so properly serve because the Onenesse of the Church is denyed by our brethren to be such as is of an Army where all are under the command of one the whole Church and its Officers are by them said to govern all particulars Object But Mr Hudson saith 1. That it is sufficient that the Church Catholick have existence and a