A congregational church is a catholike visible church, or, An examination of M. Hudson his vindication concerning the integrality of the catholike visible church wherein also satisfaction is given to what M. Cawdrey writes touching that subject, in his review of M. Hooker's Survey of church discipline / by Samuel Stone ...

About this Item

Title: A congregational church is a catholike visible church, or, An examination of M. Hudson his vindication concerning the integrality of the catholike visible church wherein also satisfaction is given to what M. Cawdrey writes touching that subject, in his review of M. Hooker's Survey of church discipline / by Samuel Stone ...
Author: Stone, Samuel, 1602-1663.
Publication: London :: Printed by Peter Cole ...,; 1652.
Rights/Permissions: To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms: Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664. -- Inconsistencie of the independent way.; Hudson, Samuel, 17th cent. -- Vindication of the essence and unity of the church catholike visible.; Church polity.
Cite this Item: "A congregational church is a catholike visible church, or, An examination of M. Hudson his vindication concerning the integrality of the catholike visible church wherein also satisfaction is given to what M. Cawdrey writes touching that subject, in his review of M. Hooker's Survey of church discipline / by Samuel Stone ..." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A61677.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 8, 2024.

Pages

PROPOSITION IIII.

The abstraction of genus, or the general universal nature of things, from the things themselv••s, by mental consideration; is no argument to demon∣strate the non-existence of genus and universals in rerum naturâ. The ab∣straction of heat from fire, or dryness from the earth, or a colour from a bo∣by coloured, i. e. the consideration of any of these in their own distinct na∣ture, is no evidence that these things are not really existing in nature; so like∣wise, the abstraction of genus and universality, is no evidence against their real existence and being in nature; but a good argument (as we shall per∣ceive presently) of their real entity, and that they are extant in rerum naturâ. Is there no colour really existing, because I can abstract it? the universality of things doth not consist in their abstract nature (as M. Hudson p. 78. con∣ceives) as the quantity and quality of things consist not in their abstract na∣tures; that is, they are not so, because I discerne them; but they are existing, and therefore I discerne them. I know not the reason why Mr Hudson should call the nature of things, their abstract nature: for the nature of things is the same, when they are not abstracted and discerned, and when they are taken into consideration by our understanding. Colours are the same seen or unseen: our apprehension cannot change the nature and property of things. I cannot assent to that notion of Mr Hudson p. 78. that as the genus exists, it loseth his abstract nature; for by that reason, nothing existing could be abstracted. I can consider the nature and definition of integrum, without the consideration of this or that integral; and yet Mr Hudson confesseth, that integrum is always existing.