Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	nature_n	soul_n	unite_v	6,882	5	9.6339	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61546	A discourse concerning the power of excommunication in a Christian church, by way of appendix to the Irenicum by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. Irenicum.	1662 (1662)	Wing S5583; ESTC R38297	24,655	38

the subject is capable of these following things First that the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth Secondly that the power of the Church over its members doth not arise from meer confederation or consent of parties Thirdly That this power of the Church doth extend to the exclusion of offenders from the priviledges of it Fourthly That the fundamental rights of the Church do not escheat to the Common-wealth upon their being united in a Christian State If these principles bee established the Churches power will stand upon them as on a firm and unmoveable basis I begin with the first That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own nature distinct from the Common-wealth which I prove by these arguments 1 Those Societies which are capable of subsisting apart from each other are really and in their own nature distinct from one another but so it is with the Church and Common-wealth For there can bee no greater evidence of a reall distinction than mutual separation and I think the proving the possibility of the souls existing separate from the body is one of the strongest arguments to prove it to bee a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although wee are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other arguments evincing the soul to bee a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate souls and their visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand wee have all evidence desirable for wee are not put to prove possibil●●y of separation meerly from the different constitution of the things united but wee have evidence to sense of it that the Churh hath subsisted when it hath been not onely separated from but persecuted by all civil power It is with many men as to the union of Church and State as it is with others as to the union of the Soul and Body when they observe how close the union is and how much the Soul makes use of the Animal Spirits in most of its operations and how great a sympathy there is between them that like Hyppocrates his Twins they laugh and weep ' together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to bee any thing else then a more vigorous mode of matter so these observing how close an Union and Dependence there is between the Church and State in a Christian Common-wealth and how much the Church is beholding to the civil power in the Administration of its functions are apt to think that the Church is nothing but a higher mode of a Common-wealth considered as Christian. But when it is so evident that the Church hath and may subsist supposing it abstracted from all Civil Power it may bee a sufficient demonstration that however neer they may be when united yet they are really and in their own nature distinct from each other Which was the thing to bee proved 2 Those are distinct societies which have every thing distinct in their nature from each other which belong to the constitution or government of them but this is evident as to the Church and Common-wealth which will appear because their Charter is distinct or that which gives them their being as a society Civil societies are founded upon the necessity of particular mens parting with their peculiar Rights for the preservation of themselves which was the impulsive cause of their entring into societies but that which actually speaks them to bee a society is the mutual consent of the several parties joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one common interest So Cicero de Repub. defines populus to bee caetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus There is no doubt but Gods general providence is as evidently seen in bringing the World into societies and making them live under Government as in disposing all particular events which happen in those societies but yet the way which providence useth in the constitution of these societies is by inclining men to consent to associate for their mutual benefit and advantage So that natural reason consulting for the good of mankinde as to those Rights which men enjoy in common with each other was the main foundation upon which all civil societies were erected Wee finde no positive Law enacting the beeing of civil societies because nature it's self would prompt men for their own conveniencies to enter into them But the ground and foundation of that society which we call a Church is a matter which natural reason and common notions can never reach to and therefore an associating for the preserving of such may bee a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot bee And that would make a Christian Church to bee nothing else but a society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagorians who do either not understand or not consider whereon this Christian society is founded for it is evident they look on it as a meerly voluntary thing that is not at all setled by any Divine positive Law The truth is there is no principle more consistent with the opinion of those who deny any Church power in a Christian state then this is and it is that which every one who will make good his ground must bee driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending only on consideration such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common-Wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or Mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbritrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake mee not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this bee a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it bee not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into it's principles leads us higher than wee think for and the main thing in debate must bee whether there bee an obligation upon conscience for men to associate in the profession of Christianity or no If there bee then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there bee not then those inconveniencies follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implies a contradiction

make the power of censures in the Christian-Church to be nothing else but a lex cenfederatae disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be derived from a higher original then the meer arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how far the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary Constitutions as it was among the Jews in their Synagogues It cannot be denyed but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it for although I affirm the original of this power to be of Divine institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the rules and orders of this Society Having now proved that the power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over offendors nor that the Church doth subsist by divine institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of excommunication and seem rather to say that Church officers may far more congruously to their office inflict any other mulct upon offendors then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious offendors from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church-officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist Ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular reason drawn from the nature of the Lords Supper above all other parts of divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same office in the body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the liver doth in the natural body viz. to be colum sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lords Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from communion with the Churches visible society constituted upon the ends it is but because communion is not visibly discerned but in administration and participation of Gospel ordinances therefore exclusion doth chiefly refer to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest priviledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for qui potest majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power if there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar reason as to the one more then to the other 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the controversie was managed concerning excommunication among the Jews viz. whether it were meerly because of ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple-worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successful pains he hath taken in the proving of that my reason is because the Temple-worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. the blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their faith towards God and repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those ordinances which suppose admission into the Church by baptism do thereby suppose an alsufficient sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin and consequently the subsequent priviledges do not immediately relate to the obtaining of that but a grateful comemmoration of the death of Christ and a celebration of the infinite mercy and goodness of God in the way of redemption found out by the death of his Son And therefore it stands to great reason that such persons who by their profane and unworthy lives dishonour so holy a profession should not be owned to be as good and sound members of the society founded on so sacred a foundation as the most Christian and religious persons To this I know nothing can be objected but that first the passeover was commemorative among the Jews and secondly That the priviledges of that people were then very great above other people and therefore if God had intended any such thing as excommunication among his people it would have been in use then To these I answer 1. I grant the passeover was commemorative as to the occasion of its institution but then it was withall typical and annunciative of that Lamb of God who was to take away the sins of the world and therefore no person who desired expiation of sins was to be debard from it but the Lords Supper under the Gospel hath nothing in it propitiatory but is intended as a Feast upon a sacrifice and a Federal rite as hath been fully cleared by a very learned person in his discourse about the true notion of the Lords Supper