Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	communion_n	schism_n	2,211	5	10.6231	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66431	A vindication of A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation on account of the oaths from the exceptions made against it in a tract called, A brief answer to a late discourse, &c.	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1691 (1691)	Wing W2738; ESTC R7770	26,360	45

in their room then why is there a Separation before it and his Argument proceeds upon this that they are bound to join and go along with the Bishops Why must this necessitate a Schism to all For are those Diocesses and Clergy who have their Bishops equally involved in the same case with those that are deprived of theirs Or why must it necessitate a Schism when the Metropolitan and Bishops deprived declare their Aversion to any such Separation This Argument will serve either way for if the Clergy and People are obliged to submit to and obey their Bishops and the Bishops their Metropolitans Then those that are of the Province and Diocesses where their Metropolitan and Bishops have taken the Oaths are obliged to adhere to their Metropolitan and Bishops and may as warrantably and as much ought to separate from these that set themselves against Authority and refuse to swear Allegiance to it as they on the other side think they may and ought to separate from those that do comply with it Again if they are obliged thus to go with their Metropolitan and Bishops then if the Metropolitan and Bishops notwithstanding their Deprivation continue in the Communion of the Church then they are obliged also to continue and if they separate when those don't separate they must by his Argument become Schismaticks Lastly If they separate because they proceed as he saith according to the Sense Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church I would fain understand when the Christians ever refused Communion with a Church because of Matters of State or divided from others because those they divide from thought it lawful and their Duty to swear Allegiance to the Sovereign Power In fine a Schism it must be and a Schism they are resolved to make let there be a reason or none for it And as Truth will out so he hath at last revealed the Mystery and after all the pretences they make that it 's for not deserting God his Church and their Duty there seems to be something else at the bottom and whether it be so or no I leave the Reader to judg by what he tells us we must expect and why viz. Though they may go clothed in Purple and fine Linen as some others would have done or thought to have done had the happy days of the last Reign continued and fare sumptuously every day whilst care is taken that we may be starved yet they must expect to be Pelted and then Men will speak and write their Minds freely For in vain do you imagine that when Men have nothing to lose they have any thing to fear No Sirs if nothing else will do it we will humble you and throw such a Fioe into your Church by the Schism we will make that you may be sensible you have provoked Men of Spirit and that if we cannot have Purple and fine Linnen and sumptuous Fare with you will make you as miserable as our selves Look you to it for betwixt Dissenter and Dissenter we will grind you to Death and make you rue that ever we left your Church or that the Government hath made us thus uneasy under it This I take to be but a just Comment on this bold Text of his But let him and those of his Mind cherish this malignant humour I am confident no wise or good Man but will think those that are of this Kidney had better be out of the Church than in it They are such as there was no great reason to oblige when in our Communion nor to fear threaten as they will when out of it But as for those whom by their frantick Zeal and fair Pretences they delude we ought to pity and to pray for them and with Meekness to shew them their Error Whether our Author hath stated the case righly I shall with him leave to indifferent Persons to judg but if he hath not as I think has been sufficiently proved then to use his Words they may wash their Hands with Pilate but they cannot wipe of the Crime of Schism they are by this new Separation justly charged with §. II. Of the Publick Good But now he opens a new Scene Before he considered the case with respect to the Church but now he comes to consider it with respect to the State His Design before was to vindicate themselves if he could from a Schism and to charge it upon us But now his Design is to expose the Arguments for the Oaths and to make those that take them guilty of Perjury In order to which he thus states the case for his Adversary The whole stress of his Discourse saith he is founded on this single Point That the Consideration of the publick Good doth dissolve the Obligation of an Oath to a Sovereign Prince rightfully claiming For this he must mean if he will speak to the Purpose In Opposition to this he saith That no Pretence of publick Good whatsoever can warrant us to destroy a lawful King or take off the Obligations of an Oath whereby we have bound our selves in all things lawful and honest to obey him And he immediately adds The contrary our R. Author undertakes to prove which I cannot reflect upon without Grief because it seems to me a task which would much better become a Committee-Man or Sequestrator than a Divine of the Church of England And certainly so it would if the Author of the Discourse had undertaken to prove what he here charges him with viz. That the publick Good will warrant us to destroy a lawful King c. But all the while this Man cannot believe himself and therefore he returns to the Consideration of the Proposition concerning the dissolving of an Oath for the sake of the publick Good or as the Discourse words it p. 7. The publick Good is the true and just Measure of the Obligation in publick Oaths Against which he saith If we should grant that he had proved it in Thesi yet he has no where so much as offered to prove it in Hypothesi and apply it to our particular case Surely our Author never read the Book he pretends to answer or if he did he must have a bad Memory or a very bad Conscience for the Discourse thus proceeds upon it p. 3. I shall enquire into two Things 1. The Nature and Measure and Obligation of political Oaths in general 2. The Difficulties which relate to our Oaths in particular upon the last of which he spends two thirds of the Book And now let us see what our Author has to offer in Confutation of what is rightly called the single Point in the Discourse about the Obligation of Political Oaths and the Influence the Consideration of the publick Good has in them I shall try in his Phrase to bring his rambling Arguments into some order and what he has to say is 1. That the publick Good is impracticable and liable to be abused 2. Who shall be the Judg 3. What is the publick Good I hope