Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	voluntary_a	will_n	1,414	5	7.9668	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61558	Irenicum A weapon-salve for the churches wounds, or The divine right of particular forms of church-government : discuss'd and examin'd according to the principles of the law of nature .../ by Edward Stillingfleete ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1662 (1662)	Wing S5597A_VARIANT; ESTC R33863	392,807	477

scandalous and had not repented 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions when our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it Fourthly Although a Believer joyn with such a Church he is not therefore bound with the guilt nor defiled with the pollutions of others which he proves because it is lawfull to do it and so he contract no guilt by it Fifthly A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion for that speaks it to be a Church and this latter to be no Church and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church Thus for that learned and Reverend man by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion are not at such a distance from others as many imagine We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire i● no sin by the arguments by him produced And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church meerly for purer communion I 〈…〉 stand not This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition and the impossibility of communicating with her and not partaking of her sins because she required a profession of her errours and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion in which case it is a sin to communicate with her And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull In order to that we must distinguish between these things First Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church and corruptions in the practice of a Church Secondly Between corruptions whether in doctrine or practise professed and avowed by a Church and required as conditions of communion in all members of it and corruptions crept in and only tolerated in a Church Thirdly Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church and a positive and totall separation from a Church as it is such From these things I lay down these following Propositions First Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in doctrine and practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate If there be a just and necessary cause for separation it must needs be just and necessary therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the ●ction Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight triviall unnecessary cause but if the cause be great and important a Departure it may be Schism it cannot be They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God if by voluntary they mean that where the will is the cause of it the definition stands good and true for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church which was caused by the corruptions of that Church then a separation may be so voluntary and yet no Schism for though it be voluntary as to the act of departing yet that is only consequentially supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution but what is voluntary antecedently that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour that is properly Schism and ought so to be looked upon But in our present case three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion First Corruption in Doctrine the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion the Word of God Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society which is the profession and practice of the true Religion yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation for then there would be no end of separation and men must separate from one another till knowledge comes to its perfection which will only be in glory but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles as by plain denying them And my reason is this because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply not only its necessity to be believed and practised and the former in reference to the latter for things are therefore necessary to be known because necessary to be done and not è contrà but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall are not only such as are necessary to be believed but if they be are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall that is necessary to salvation doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation for if they were sufficient how can new ones be necessary The case wil be clear by an Instance Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient how can good works be meritorious and if this latter be necessary the other was not for if it were what need this be added Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider and others too who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine supposed in a Church withdrawing and separation from such a Church is as necessary as the

named a Controversie But that which I am now clearing is this that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law must be clearly revealed as such and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the Worlds end as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper But here I shall add one thing by way of caution That there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a New Law As to the former viz. the change of a standing Law as to some particular circumstance a different practice by persons guided by an infallible spirit is sufficient which is the case as to the observation of the Lords day under the Gospel For the fourth Command standing in force as to the Morality of it a different practice by the Apostles may be sufficient for the particular determination of the more ritual and occasional part of it which was the limitation of the observation of it to that certain day So likewise that other Law standing in force that persons taken into Covenant with God should be admitted by some visible sign Apostolical practice clearly manifested may be sufficient ground to conclude what the mind of Christ was as to the application of it to particular persons and what qualifications are requisite in such as are capable of admission as in the case of Infants Whereby it is clear why there is no particular Law or command in reference to them under the Gospel because it was only the application of a Law in force already to particular persons which might be gathered sufficiently from the Apostles practice the Analogy of the dispensation the equal reason of exclusion under the Law and yet notwithstanding the continual admission of them then into the same Gospel-Govenant Circumcision being the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith But this by the way to prevent mistakes We must now by parity of reason say that either the former Law in those things wherein it was not typical must hold in reference to the form of Government in the Church of Christ or else that Christ by an universal Law hath setled all order in Church Government among the Pastors themselves or else that he hath left it to the prudence of every particular Church to determine its own form of Government which I conceive is the direct state of the Question about Divine Right viz. Whether the particular form of Government in the Church be setled by an universal binding Law or no But for a further clearing the state of the Question we must consider what it is that makes an unalterable Divine Right or a standing Law in the Church of God for those who found forms of Government upon a Divine Right do not plead a Law in express terms but such things from whence a Divine Right by Law may be inferred Which I now come to examine and that which I lay down as a Postulatum or a certain conclusion according to which I shall examine others ●ssertions concerning Divine Right is That nothing is founded upon a Divine Right nor can bind Christians directly or consequentially as a positive Law but what may be certainly known to have come from God with an intention to oblige Believers to the worlds end For either we must say it binds Christians as a Law when God did not intend it should or else Gods intentions to bind all Believers by it must be clearly manifested Now then so many ways and no more as a thing may be known to come from God with an intention to oblige all perpetually a thing may be said to be of an unalterable Divine Right and those can be no more then these two Either by the Law of Nature or by some positive Law of God Nothing else can bind universally and perpetually but one of these two or by virtue of them as shall be made appear I begin with the Law of Nature The Law of Nature binds indispensably as it depends not upon any arbitrary constitutions but is founded upon the intrinsecal nature of good and evil in the things themselves antecedently to any positive Declaration of Gods Will. So that till the nature of good and evil be changed that Law is unalterable as to its obligation When I say the Law of Nature is indispensable my meaning is that in those things which immediately flow from that Law by way of precept as the three first Commands of the Moral Law no man can by any positive Law be exempted from his obligation to do them neither by any abrogation of the Laws themselves nor by derogation from them nor interpretation of them nor change in the object matter or circumstance whatsoever it be Now although the formal reason of mans obedience to the precepts of this Law be the conformity which the things commanded have to the Divine Nature and goodness yet I conceive the efficient cause of mans obligation to these things is to be fetched from the Will Command and Pleasure of God Not as it is taken for an arbitrary positive will but as it is executive of Divine purposes and as it ingraves such a Law upon the hearts of men For notwithstanding mans Reason considered in it self be the chiefest instrument of discovery what are these necessary duties of humane nature in which sense Aristotle defines a Natural Law to be that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath every where the same force and strength i. e. as Andronicus Rhodius very well interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among all that have the free use of their reason and faculties yet I say it is not bare Reason which binds men to the doing of those things commanded in that Law but as it is expressive of an Eternal Law and deduceth its obligation from thence And so this Law if we respect the rise extent and immutability of it may be call'd deservedly the Law of Nature but if we look at the emanation efflux and original of it it is a Divine Law and so it is call'd by Molina Alphonsus à Castr●● and others For the sanction of this Law of Nature as well as others depends upon the Will of God and therefore the obligation must come from him it being in the power of no other to punish for the breach of a Law but those who had the Legislative Power to cause the obligation to it It appears then from hence that whatever by just consequence can be deduced from the preceptive Law of Nature is of Divine Right because from the very nature of that Law it being indispensable it appears that God had an intent to oblige all persons in the world by it The second way whereby we may know what is of Divine Right is by Gods