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	visible_a	2,312	5	9.1171	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52414	The charge of schism continued being a justification of the author of Christian blessedness for his charging the separatists with schism, not withstanding the toleration : in a letter to a city-friend.	Norris, John, 1657-1711.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1245; ESTC R40651	37,244	145

Mr. Hales a very Free and for the most part Judicious Writer and one very remarkable for his Moderation especially as to all Church-matters and who writes of Schism with all the tenderness imaginable handling it as if he were feeling the Edge of a Razor And yet after all his Endeavours to reduce it into as narrow a compass as he could by making as few guilty of it as might be he could find nothing to justifie Separation but only Sinfulness of Communion As may appear from several Passages that occur in his Tract of Schism For says he Page 195. For the further opening the Nature of Schism something must be added by way of difference to distinguish it from necessary Separation and that is that the Causes upon which Division is attempted proceed not from Passion or Distemper or Ambition or Avarice or such other Ends as Human Folly is apt to pursue but from well-weigh'd and necessary Reasons and that when all other Means having been tried nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience but open Separation So that Schism if we would define it is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church of which they were once Members Again says he Page 198. Unadvisedly and upon Fancy to break the Knot of Union between Man and Man especially among Christians upon whom above all other kind of men the tye of Love and Communion does most especially rest is a Crime hardly pardonable and that nothing Absolves a man from the guilt of it but true and unpretended Conscience Again says he Page 209. What if those to whose care the execution of the Publick Service is committed do something unlawful c. yet for all this we may not separate except we be constrain'd personally to bear a part our selves The Priests under Eli had so ill demean'd themselves about the daily Sacrifice that the Scriptures tell us they made it stink yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest For in these Schisms which concern Fact nothing can be a just Cause of refusal of Communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. Again says he Page 215. Why may I not go if occasion require to an Arian Church so there be no Arianism exprest in their Liturgy And again Lastly Page 227. speaking of Conventicles says he It evidently appears that all Meetings upon unnecessary occasions of Separation are to be so stiled so that in this sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismaticks From these and other like Passages any one may be satisfy'd that Mr. Hales with all his Moderation could not but see that where Separation is not necessary there Communion is and that to depart from the Communion of a visible Establisht Church with whom you may lawfully Communicate is to be guilty of Schism And so much seems to be granted even by the Author of the Letter of Toleration who defines Schism to be an ill grounded Separation in Ecclesiastical Communion made about things not necessary 'T is true indeed by things not necessary this Author means as he afterwards explains himself things not expresly contain'd in the Rule making him a Schismatick that separates from a Church because that Church does not require what the Scripture does not But this will come to one and the same thing For why is he a Schismatick that makes a Separation from a Church for not requiring more than is expresly contain'd in Scripture but only because he might Communicate with that Church notwithstanding this her frugality and reservedness and consequently his Separation was unnecessary This is the thing into which the Schism of such a Separatist must be at last resolv'd And then for the same reason why is not he as much a Schismatick that separates from a Church that does require more than the Scripture expresly contains provided it be not contrary to the Rule of Scripture since with this Church he may also lawfully Communicate and therefore has no Necessity for his Separation 'T is the unnecessity of the Separation that in both Cases makes the Schism So that this Notion of our Author though at first sight it seems to offer somewhat New resolves it self at long run into the Old Common Notion of Schism which has all along obtain'd in the Christian World Where-ever therefore there is no necessity of separating there the Church has a Right to Communion which to with-hold from her is Schism or else there is no such thing as Schism in the World This Right the Church of Rome had before her falling into her gross Corruptions and this Right the Church of England and all other Churches have that are Reform'd from them And this Right every Lawfully Constituted Church has by vertue of the Divine Law which is her Original Charta and which of it self lays upon all Christians a sufficient Obligation to Church-Unity though there should be no Civil Authority to back and inforce it For indeed unless it were so how could there be such a thing as the Sign of Schism in the Apostles Times and in the more Primitive Ages of the Church There was then no Civil Law to Oblige Christians to Church-Communion so far from this that the Edge and Point of the Civil Sword was turn'd directly against it The State and the Church then not only moved in two Different but in two Opposite Spheres And yet we find that in those early times the Sin of Schism was as much condemn'd and Schismatical Persons as deeply branded as in any of the after Ages Nay more indeed because of the singularity and strangeness of the Crime Punish'd indeed they could not so well be for want of the Concurrence of the Civil Sword which was not then in a Christian hand but they were censured and condemn'd and according to the Apostle's Admonition those were mark'd and avoided that caused Divisions And therefore though we should allow the Present Toleration to Silence the Civil Law whereby Conformity is injoyn'd which yet from the Premises appears to be far otherwise yet since the Divine Law requiring all possible Unity stands uncancell'd for sure the Toleration won't be pretended to reach that those that make Caufeless and unnecessary Divisions will still be guilty of Schism notwithstanding the favour of the Toleration which I am afraid will prove but an indifferent Plea for Separation at the Last day to those that have no better What then you 'll say is the Effect of a Toleration Or what can be supposed to be the just and reasonable intent of it I answer As to the Effect it cannot release at all from any preceding Obligation It does not release so much as from the Obligation of the Civil Law whose Penalty it only suspends much less does it release from Obligation to the Divine Law with which it has nothing to do and upon which it has