Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n church_n communion_n schism_n 2,198 5 10.4367 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A96097 The arch-rebel found, or An answer to Mr. M. H.'s Brief enquiry into the true nature of schism By T.W., citizen of Chester ... T. W. 1690 (1690) Wing W111A; ESTC R43946 21,021 35

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

hinc illae lacrymae It must rather be the setting up of your Seperate Communions that hath been so much the bane of this Christian Church I am sure it was the Puritanical Faction who in their Conventicles blew up the Trumpet of Sedition and Rebellion and overturned the Government of both Church and State and through pretended Sanctity and Gospel Zeal perpetrated the most hellish Actions that ever were since Adam Then was Violence under the colour of Zeal the Note and Badge of Sanctity Loyalty to a Prince of incomparable piety and faithfulness to the most pure Christian Church was damn'd for malignancy I am sure you are of the same Tribe these were the men by whom the Church was not only rent in Pieces but for a time which was as long as they were in Power rooted out here we may truly say hinc illae lacrymae Mr. H. I lived in the time when through Blood and Rebellion your Party gave Laws and Rules to all then all that were of our Church were not Censured for little things but Branded for Reprobates Excluded from Mercy all the Clergy not only Silenced but Sequestred and many Imprisoned and starved it was not much worse with Christians under Nero and Dioclesian and all this for not Conforming to your Novel Discipline yet the gentle Penalties of the Royal Laws which were made for Peace and Unity are cry'd up by you and your Party for such a Persecution as never was Alas Sir for all your pretended Meekness and Charity now you that retain the same principles would certainly repeat the same miseries had you the same power which God of his Infinite mercy for ever prevent Amen Now I return and try whether from your Instance in the Corinthians you could not have found a far more genuin conclusion and more agreeing with the Apostles meaning If but the having one Minister of Christ though rightly ordained in admiration above another to the begetting Contention incur the Guilt of Schism and is no way to be Tollerated in the Church of God How much more am I a Schismatick who am not only not rightly ordained but keep up a Communion seperate from the Church of God in the Kingdom where I live the Argument will hold a Minori ad Majus If contentions about admiring one Minister above another be Schism then sure to maintain a Separate Communion which makes Contention much hotter fiercer and more numerous must much more be Schism In Page 15. you say That 's Schism which breaks or slackens the bon● by which the Membe●s are knit together In this you are Orthodox but you keep not to it for you say Now that bond is not an Act of Vniformity in point of Communion in the same Modes and Ceremonies but true Love and Charity in point of Affection The breach of Communion be it for want of Uniformity in the same Modes and Ceremonies or what you will that is not sinful does certainly to use your own words Break and Slacken the Bond by which the Members are knit together for to divide in point of Communion is to dis-unite and unknit the Members and consequently the Bond be it as you say Love and Charity or the Unity of the Spirit or what you please is broken and this you most truly say is Schism and yet you say that the Bond is not an Act of Vniformity c. in point of Communion which is a manifest contradiction Now all these erroneous and miserably mistaken Expositions of Scripture and inferences equally false are the Foundation upon which you erect your Description of Schism and which at present you apprehend is the true Scriptural Notion of Schism which that all who read these papers may judge of I here Insert Schism is an Uncharitable Distance Division or Alienation of Affection among those who are called Christians and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things You agree with our Church in all that you call Fundamentals and your Distance and Division you acknowledge is for little things that it is an Uncharitable Distance and Division is undeniable for the breach of Christian Communion is certainly the breach of Christian Charity here you are Condemned out of your own mouth But how far different your Description is from the Primitive Catholick Notion of Schism sufficiently appears to you by what I have shewed before You mention not Seperating or withdrawing from the Communion of the Church which is most Infamous and Notorious Schism and confine it only to breach of Charity which though always a great fault yet in many cases amounts not to Schism I now take notice of your Fourth Inference page 23. If this be Schism then there may be Separation of Communion where there is no Schism say you for thus we all agree that there may be difference of apprehension and yet no Schism provided it do not eat out Christian Love but be managed amicably as betwixt the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Church of England What strange kind of Reasoning is this If breach of Charity be Schism then separate Communion may be without Schism and to prove this you instance in the difference between the Arminians and Calvinists in the Church of England who differed in Opinions the former Asserting the Freedom or Liberty of the Will the other Election and Reprobation here was no separation of the Communion or denial of any Article of the Church for both sign'd the Articles nor from Communion one with another both parties submitting to the Uniformity required so you bring an instance to justifie seperate Communion from Schism where there was no seperate Communion at all see how illogical your reasoning is If breach of Charity be Schism then there may be separate Communion without Schism Would any man of Sence but you have made such a Conclusion from such premisses would not the Argument have run truer thus If breach of Charity be Schism then separate Communion is much more Schism But breach of Charity is Schism Therefore c. I am forced here to say what I have said before that it is most manifest that a separate Communion unless from a Schismatical Church is in it self the agravation and extremity of Schism and is naturally and infallibly the cause of the highest breaches of Charity and of the hottest and fiercest contentions which you own to be Schism But suppose there were some thing in our Constitutions that needed amendment or alteration yet every defect and supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to tear it in pieces Hear Mr. Calvins Opinion he saith where ever the Word of God is duely Preached and Reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is an appearance of a true Church whose Authority no man may dispise or reject its admonitions or resist its Councils or set at nought its Discipline much less separate from it and