Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	member_n	mystical_a	10,421	5	11.0632	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41330	The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1681 (1681)	Wing F962; ESTC R16085	105,802	120

member and yet both he and that particular Church too may be guilty of Schism So that his definition is too strait I will give him more advantage and let him take it I shall then give a description of Schism and open it Then I will lay down several Propositions tending to the clearing of the Question who are the true Schismaticks Schism is a renting or dissolving that Vnion which Christ our Head requireth in his visible body To open it I shall be short 1st That Christ hath a Body Natural and Mystical or a body in a mystery which is to him as his natural body is known to all Christians Ephes 1.22 speaking of Christ He is the head over all to the Church v. 23. which is his body This Head and this Body make up one Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 so is Christ 2ly This Body of Christ is but one two Bodies joined to one Head much more thousands were monstrous All the believers in all the particular Churches of the world make up but this one Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ehes 4 4. one body So Rom. 12.4 5. 1 Cor. 12.12 so Revel 19. ch 21. one Bride one Wife 3ly This body hath its bands or ligaments whereby the body is tyed to the Head and the members one to another For those to the Head I omit the other concern me in this place how the members are tyed one to another Now these ligaments are first Internal secondly are External 1. Internal and they 1. The blessed Spirit of Christ Ephes 4.4 One body and one spirit so 1 Cor. 12.13 The second is love Col. 3.14 Eph. 5.16 2. The External bands are the Sacraments or Seals of the New Covenant whether Government be any thing I shall touch afterwards But for the Sacraments they are the bands of this visible body they belong only to the members of this body one Baptism Ephes 4.5 belong only to that one body v. 4. 1 Cor. 11.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread Hence Excommunication in which men are cut off the Body and rendered durante hoc statu as Heathens and Publicans not visible members of Christ is by casting them out of Communion with their Body in these Ordinances In these Ordinances the visible members of the body declare that unity and internal band of love one to another Panis igitur fractio est unitatis dilectionis symbolum Virtute hujus Sacramenti con a lescimus in unum corpus invicem cum Christo Par. in loc Paraeus in loc who quotes Chrysostom and the practise of the old Christian Churches how Christians in this Ordinance did manifest their unity and love A Christians love I speak to the business in hand is twofold 1. There is a Christian love common to all 2. There is a Christian Ecclesiastical love proper to some as for Christian love I am bound to manifest that to the bodies and souls of all though Heathens I will pray with Heathens a silly thing to turn Excommunicated persons from Prayer which is Natural Worship I will Preach to Heathens I will exhort reprove encourage Heathens privately to comfort a Heathen as a Christian I cannot else I call not to mind what effects of love I manifest to a Christian but I will to a Heathen But for Christian Ecclesiastical love manifested by Communion in these Symbols or signs I will not manifest that to one Heathen only to the members of this visible body being one with them As for Episcopal Government which Dr. Goodman and this late Commencer adds First I would thank either of them if they would give us a stout piece against Erastus and his followers 2ly If by Episcopal Government they mean such as now is among us let them first prove it is of Divine Institution which all the Commencers in Cambridg or Oxford shall never be able to do so long as there is a Bible and if they cannot do that then where is the schism It 's rather our duty to separate from what is not of Christs planting in his house 3ly But let the Government be of Christs Institution yet wherein doth that Government shew it self among other things in letting in or casting out of this body by admitting or casting out from these Ordinances of the Sacraments but that refusing or separation from such Episcopal-Government meerly as Episcopal should be Mortale schisma this is but the figment of the delirant-brain of a Prelatical Zealot 2ly This Schism is in the visible body of Christ I hear there are schisms among you 1 Cor. 11.8 the house of Cloe 1 Cor. 1.11 saw them who informed Paul Schism it seems comes under the senses then it must be in the visible body when this body visibly met together By the visible body of Christ I understand all that make profession of their Faith in the Lord Jesus and the Doctrine of the Gospel soundly and do in their conversation visibly walk according to his Rules in his Gospel so that their conversation do not openly be●ly and deny their profession Tit. 1.16 That the one body of Christ mentioned 1 Cor. 12.12 in which there ought to be no schism v. 25. is meant the visible body of Christ I think none will deny So Rom. 12. Ephes 4. 1. It is such a body in which the Lord had set Apostles Evangelists 1 Cor. 12.18 Ephes 4.11 such a body to which extraordinary gifts were given But these were Apostles not to one particular Church but the Catholick Church visible 2. One member is to suffer or rejoice with another 1 Cor. 12.26 Ay if it be a member and real member of our particular Church of Corinth but for other Churches and unless we are sure they are invisible members let them go Is this the meaning 3. Are we baptized into a particular or the Catholick Church 1 Cor. 12.13 and Baptism belongs to the visible Church Other things I might mention but I think it will not be denied 3ly When then that union our Lord and Head requireth in this his visible body is rent dissolved when Communion is denied among the members of it contrary to his appointment Now Schism appears when the internal band Love is broken there is something of the nature the root of the sin is in it but that is hid Men can hypocritically and vilely meet together and hold communion in that Ordinance which holds forth unity and love and have their hearts wretchedly divided one from another this may be hid as I said But Schism properly so called is when the external band is broken when communion in those symbols or signs is denied on one side or refused on the other side without warrant from Christ so that the members do not meet and hold their communion as they ought but split into several pieces opposite one to another as if they were not members of that one body Now Schism is apparent

Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon