Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	church_n	member_n	1,786	5	7.7946	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26184	Three letters to Dr. Sherlock concerning church-communion wherein 'tis enquired whether the doctor's notion of church communion be not too narrow and uncharitable, both to dissenters, and men of larger principles / by a lay-man of the Church of England ...	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1683 (1683)	Wing A4183; ESTC R11681	18,335	41

can give us right to Church-Membership is to observe the Conditions of the Covenant He destroys the Unity of the Church who is not subject to its Censures Every Member is a Member of the Whole Baptism does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal founded only on Divine Covenant Every Act of Christian Communion must be an Act of Communion with the whole Church And 't is impossible to live in Communion with the whole without Communion with some part when it may be had ' T is necessary to communicate with some Church by Communion with the Church in which we live if it be a sound Member I communicate with the whole According to the Primitive Rule of but one Bishop in a City they who divide from the National Church are guilty of Schism Nothing can justify Division but such a distance as hinders the Exercise of Joint-Communion To sum up what I take to be the force of all this The Apostles and their Successors were by our Saviour invested with a power of receiving Members into his Church upon his Terms and with such Rites as they should think fit And they who are not so receiv'd into the Church have no right to any of the Benefits promis'd to the Members of Christ's Body This Power is by an uninterrupted Succession derived upon the Governors of our National Church Wherefore all others that pretend to the exercise of this Power within this Nation are Usurpers And all the Laity baptiz'd by their Pastors not being duly admitted into any particular Church are so far from being Members of Christ's Body that they are Usurpers and Traitors to that Power which is deriv'd from him in a right Line Durus hic Sermo Wherefore I may well upon the whole desire that you would seriously consider 1. Whether a pious Dissenter suppos'd to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Church-power is in as bad a condition as a moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist 2. Whether the submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which unites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the Benefits of being a Member of Christ's Body So it is with every one excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful Cause If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this sound Church But you will say which I think is not much to this Question That he ought to communicate if Communion may be had But then Query Whether the Dissenters may not reply That they are ready to communicate if the Communion be not clogg'd with some things which are no part of the Divine Covenant As for instance An adult Person would be baptized if he could be admitted without the Sign of the Cross Or would receive the Sacrament if he might not be obliged to kneel Which he supposes to have been in use and required only since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation divided the Church Yet however Query 3. Whether where Communion may not be had upon those Terms which our Saviour Instituted a Church may not at least in some cases be gathered without any immediate derivation from other Church-Governors besides Christ himself if it may not What think you of a Lay-Christian quietly permitted to teach the Word of God amongst Heathens and to Disciple such as will receive his Doctrine If a Church in such case may be erected then surely God's only way of forming Churches and investing some Persons with Power of receiving others is not from a constant succession from the Apostles but from under his Institution who has appointed a Power in his Church which expires no more with any particular Governors than the Power of Kings his Vicegerents dies in any Nation for want of some Monarch just going before from whom the Claim is to be made Though the Power of a King be God's Power yet I dare say you will own that at least in some Kingdoms a King may be duly chosen to this Power by Men. You will say perhaps though still the force of my Objection will remain that this is an extraordinary Case of utmost necessity not to be instanced in amongst us But then I ask 1. Whether upon allowing no other Case you will not put the Being of our Church upon a very hazardous Issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a True Church before the Reformation 2. Whether supposing this Church to have been Antichristian before which I think is the Doctrine of our Homilies The Case I put of a Layman's discipling Heathens supposes a more violent necessity of acting without Authority from a succession of Church-Officers than at least 't is possible may be the Case of our own Church 4. Q. Whether from the Supposition that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one True Church within another and that the nature of Catholik-Communion is such that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the distance of place It do's not not follow 1. Either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of every one though a licensed Stranger to communicate with this Church 2. Does it not follow from the Obligation to communicate or to be ready to communieate with any True Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with the Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church Nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church If they may then constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional is lawful Dr. Stillingfleet indeed says That if a Man were obliged to be a Member of the French Church or the like and thought it lawful to communicate sometimes constant Communion would be a Duty But according to you no Man is obliged to be a Member of one sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may communicate with both 5. Query Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1 Pet. 3. 21. 6. Query Why a profess'd Atheist who has been Baptiz'd and out of