Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	member_n	soul_n	7,274	5	5.4826	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

has wrote on this Subject unless you will avow all that they have said on the necessity of the intention of the Priest to concur with his Acts or otherwise Your last Discourse occasions only my adding this farther Query Whether if the nature of Catholick Communion requires a readiness to communicate with any sound Church and yet a Church obliges us to communicate with that alone while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent communion with others Is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the nature of Catholick Communion Or at least is it not impossible that he who communicates sometimes with one True Church sometimes with another can be a Schismatick or any more than an Offender against a positive humane Law Be pleased to send me your thoughts upon the particulars of my enquiry to c. directed to SIR Your Servant Anonymus Feb. 4. 1682 3. The Third LETTER Feb. 19. 1682 3. SIR SInce it is more than probable that I have occasioned the speedy printing of your Discourses concerning Church-Communion I am now become a Debtor to the Churches of God to publish those Objections which arose in my mind and which you have not yet thought fit to answer though earnestly press'd thereunto And me-thinks you who have heretofore been a zealous Patron for universal Grace should be very ready to clear your self from the least imputation of stinting it more than our most gracious God nay than your most narrow principled Adversaries have ever done Though he who questions the Dictates of his Spiritual Guids had need run to the protection of Obscurity yet one would think that he who prints in the dark what he publish'd on the House top before the Face of the Congregation brings a foul suspition upon his Doctrine 'T is well known that the Pulpit is more licensed from Contradiction than the Press wherefore the former is most properly assigned for a Clergy-mans Recantation Nor indeed did I think you far from making publick satisfaction when you own'd in your Sermon preach'd Feb. 11. on Luke 12. vers 4 5. That the Censures of the Church are formidable only when duly applied and that God Almighty has not trusted fallible Men with a power of shutting out those whom he will receive Keep to this and make good your Notion of Schism if you can If Schism be as you say a very great Sin and such as will damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder God forbid that it should consist in such ticklish Points as would place many thousands of truly charitable and pious Men within the fatal Roll. But to my thinking while you blame Men for having no Notion at all of a Church or no Notion of one Church and that they know not wherein the Unity and Communion of this Church consists you remove their Guilt and grant that their Schism is involuntary and only an Error of their Understandings Alas mistaken honest Men how unhappy is your condition who must be damn'd for not understanding Dr. Sherlock when he fancies that he puts Matters past all doubt tho others may think he only amuses People with equivocal Words and Terms I beg of you to consider whether you do not impose upon your self or would not upon others by a confused notion of the Church and of separation from it wherein you make Schism to consist Great is Diana of the Ephesians and great is the use of the word Church when good Crafts-masters have the handling of it and of all Men those of Rome have succeeded best at this play of words By the using it indefinitely as you do the Pope keeps the Kevs of Heaven and Hell at his Girdle and truly this in some Cases comprehends things as different as Heaven and Hell are such as shall be sav'd and such as are already under the dominion of Satan If you use it for several purposes I hope for the future you will define what you mean by the Church when you are to consider it as Catholick and Universal what when you take it in a more restrain'd sence otherwise you speak not like a Minister of the Gospel but as one that would pervert that use of words which in you especially God Almighty designed for instructing us candidly in the Truth Indeed you may play a little more securely with the word Schism because unless it be taken to lie wholly in want of Charity People may not so well understand what it is how distinctly soever the Notion of Churches be taught them surely 't is much a question whether it lies wholly in causless separation from a sound part of the Catholick Church To my thinking St. Paul when he speaks of it supposes a continuance still of the same Body and ascribes it to Christians continuing such nay and communicating with each other Thus writing to the Corinthians of whom he says Ye are the Body of Christ and Members in particular He tells you to this effect that there is but one Spirit which communicates it self amongst them in various Dispensations and enables them according to their different Capacities and Attainments to promote each others growth in Grace And then having compared them to the several parts of a natural Body God saith he hath tempered the Body together having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked That there should be no Schism in the Body but that the Members should have the same care for one another Which seems no more than that God obliges the Members of his Church to live together charitably and to be ready to assist each other from the consideration of the distribution of his Gifts and Graces in such manner that even the meanest and most despised Christian may administer Aid and Comfort to those that are in the highest Station But all this was written to the Church at Corinth that Body of Christ there which assembled together in the same place and yet the Apostle charges them with real Schism for says he Whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions are ye not carnal and walk as Men But from the Apostle's Notion of Schism I shall come to yours as you have jumbled it together with the equivocal word Church of which you would make one believe that there can be no true Idea but as particular visible nay and that national too wherefore be pleased to weigh a little with your self 1. Whether you do not appropriate that to the National Church which belongs to the Catholick visible and invisible As where you say No Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a state of Communion with the Christian Church that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a Member of And that he is no Member of the Church who is not at least visibly admitted into God's Covenant by Baptism Now I would ask you this plain Question Whether

a Man has a right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian that is I should think a true Member of the Catholick Church or becomes a Christian only as receiv'd into a particular Church I take it Infants are received with us by virtue of the federal right in the Parents and as the Apostle says The believing Wife sanctifies the unbelieving Husband else were the Children unclean Nor I conceive doth our Church receive any adult Person whom it does not believe to be a true Christian before But to make your Fallacy the more evident you tell us The Divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us That there is but one Body and one Spirit which plainly signifies that the Operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body it animates I would fain know what need any Man has to deny this for avoiding the Consequence that therefore 't is an improper way for edification to forsake Communion with a National sound Church where he lives for the Apostle makes it as plain as words can make it that he speaks of the Invisible as well as Visible Church For the Passage you cite Ephes. 4. 4. is but a continuation of what the Apostle taught in the foregoing Chapter where he says For this cause I bow my Knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of whom the whole Family in Heaven and in Earth is named This which is there called a Family is elsewhere the whole Body of which Christ is the Head the increase and edifying of which Body in love is ascribed to his Influence If I should enter my self of another Family not owned by Christ I thereby should renounce all claim to the Promises of the Gospel But admit several parts of this great Family live by different Customs and Rules not owning each others Members for their own in which case you will have them separate Churches as well as upon the account of Doctrine Government or Worship provided the things wherein they differ and for which they make distinct Communions are not destructive of common Christianity doth he put himself out of Christ's Family who can and actually doth comply with the Rules and Customs of both One would think that a Member of the Church of England communicating with Presbyterians here does not thereby enter into a state of Separation even from this Particular Church because he does not thereby so much as virtually renounce the Communion of our Church being nothing is required of him to capacitate him for Communion with them which is not required in our Church much less any thing contrary to it and perhaps the Independents may come within the last circumstance But to be sure neither of them forsake our Church in what essentially constitutes it a Church of Christ and therefore it does yet remain a Question whether this can be a separation from the Communion of Catholick Church that happy Family above-mentioned You know even in the Primitive Times about the end of the second Century there fell out a Division between the Latin and Asian Churches and that upon what one would think were neither Matter of Doctrine of Government nor of Worship for it was only about the Time of keeping Easter Holy-day Victor the Bishop of the Latin Church in a Council or as some will have it a full representative of that Church excommunicates the poor Asians for a little mistake in Arithmetick each Church was far from owning the others Members as its own Here was a Schism perhaps on both sides especially on theirs who were so peremptory in imposing their own computation for Catholick But what should the poor Lay Christians do in this divided state could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves or was it as necessary to know which was in the right as to know which is the True Religion 'T was not enough in such case to know which of these divided Communions was a true and sound Member of the Catholick Church which when known they were bound to communicate with for here both were sound Members at least they might be notwithstanding this Difference And yet according to you they who communicated with both these were contrary to themselves and on one side or other went sure to be Schismaticks and if you please you may say the Prayers and Sacraments in those Churches were not Acts of Christian Communion but of Schismatical Combinations But secondly I must desire you to consider whether you do not enforce the necessity of communicating with the National Church from Arguments which prove no more than that Men ought to serve God in publick in distinct Congregations as well as in private and so apply that to a National Church which belongs to the Church in a more limited sense But this is no wonder since you manifestly go upon the Supposition that there can be no True Church which is not National at least which is not the only true Church within the Nation or City where one resides Upon which Ground you affirm That Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church or as you elsewhere vary it the sound and orthodox Part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place Now if there be a possibility that there should be several sound and orthodox Parts in the same place be it the same City or same Nation all your building here falls to the Ground Wherefore I desire you to consider whether it is not possible that at Aleppo for the purpose or any other place where the National Religion is Ethnick there may be several sound parts of the Catholick Church as the Greek or the French Protestants and the English Churches with either of which one may communicate as sound parts of the Catholick But to come back to your method of bringing all into the National you tell us that you suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to worship God according to our Saviour's Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account They continued stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread According to your own Argument here would it not seem that the only Church of our Saviour's instituting is such an one as is described 1 Cor. 14. 23. where 't is said If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and all speak with Tongues and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers will they not say that ye are mad Pray Sir is it absurd to suppose that there should be several such Churches in a City

May not every one of these have lawful terms of communion such as an honest minded Christian may submit unto though some of them may have harder than others May not such a Man be more especially united in Communion be it as a Member or how you will call it to that which he thinks the best and yet occasionally communicate with others without being an occasional Member of Christ's Body which is but one united in Charity under differences of Opinions and Practices Admit that two of these Churches divide from each other by separate Communion and by making more things necessary to Communion with either than Christ made make a Schism and Rent in Christ's Body why does it follow that he who can and does communicate with both as requiring nothing of him which he looks upon as sinful must needs be guilty of Schism which if you think it a clearer Expression you may call communicating in a Schism To follow you in your Repetitions to this purpose you assert That we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church in which we constantly live and communicate occasionally with that part of the Church where we are occasionally present And that There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for occasional and another for constant Communion without Schism for it is evident those two are distinct Communions and that our Relation to them is as different as it is to an House we live in and to an Inn where we lodg for a Night But it is evident that one of these must need be cut off from Christ's Body if not why may I not communicate with one or both and thereby communicate with the Catholick Church But besides how came you here to talk of a different Relation and as if that look'd like occasional Membership by which you elsewhere would expose such Communion When before you had told us That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church Then again how does it appear that it is necessary to communion with the Catholick Church that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church where we constantly lives Farther is it self-evident that I am bound to communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of the Catholick Church because I live where there is such an one You may remember vvhat Mr. Chillingworth said to this purpose with the approbation of the great Learned Men of this Time If says that Admirable Author your require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceases and so the imputation of Schism to us vanishes into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our Separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of Communion Truly I should think that that which essentially makes one a Member of Christ and so of his Church is the Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ this is fundamental to it intrinsecal and essential What is external and visible in respect of the Members which are gathered to Christ the Head of the Church is subject to changes and various circumstances of this outward World And 't would be an hard case with us if what is not within our power as the derivation of an uninterrupted succession of Church-Officers or the like should be the concernment of our Souls To this purpose I cannot omit another Passage of Mr. Chillingworth's I believe says he our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a visible true Church on Earth I mean a company of Men that professed at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there vvill be somevvhere or other such a Church to the World's end I am sure your Notions tend to the destroying the foundation of all Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments and methinks you should be loth to deprive Protestantism of such a Champion though by the bafling him you might the more securely triumph over that part of it to which you seem to oppose your self I will not here dispute because it alters not the state of any Question which I sent you whether I mistook you or you have since corrected what you preach'd concerning the Rites of Admission into the Church Now you tell us that the Persons invested with Power and Authority to receive others into the Church-Covenant must do it according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant-Rites and Forms of Admission as he viz. God is pleased to institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision Truly I had thought you had said such Rites as they viz. the Church-Governors fallible Men had thought fit which is but needful to your Hypothesis But if the Rites and Forms of Admission must be of God's institution what think you of the Sign of the Cross of which Dr. Stilling fleet says As Baptism is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the Sign of the Cross is into our Church But then as Baptism is compared unto Circumcision does not the Apostle decide the Question when he tells us That Circumcision is that of the Heart I have only one farther Consideration to press to you which is That you would seriously bethink your self whether your method of converting these damnable Schismaticks who are in your Opinion as bad as Murderers and Adulterers be not the most effectual means of keeping up the Schism If want of Charity makes Schismaticks surely this is not the way to convince them that that guilt lies at their Door Certainly if our Church required conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation it could not blame Men for dividing from it and he who tells us or he says nothing That the Divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Unity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other terms I hope you are none of those that think Dissenters come in too fast and that they are to be preach'd out again I heartily wish they could conquer all their Scruples that we might not only have such love and sympathy as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body which I hope all good Christians have as Members of Christ's Body though of different Communions but that all might be able to go to the House of God together as Friends of one Mind and one Heart For my part if I had any Scruples of this kind they would arise from what our Church-men infuse and when you talk of the danger of communicating in a Schism it would make me bethink my self whether the Church with which I communicate may not be guilty of imposing