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	member_n	visible_a	6,329	5	9.5436	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70260	Several tracts, by the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton Coll. &c. Viz. I. Of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel. III. Of the power of the keys. IV. Of schism and schismaticks, (never before printed by the original copy.) V. Miscellanies	Hales, John, 1584-1656.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning sin against the Holy Ghost.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning schisme.	1677 (1677)	Wing H276A; Wing H280; ESTC R14263	61,040	260

the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with Nature so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own endeavour to hinder an inquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it peradventure truer that so the deformity of their own might not appear But howsoever in the common manage Heresie and Schism are but ridiculous Terms yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment the one offending against Truth the other against Charity and therefore both deadly where they are not by imputation but in deed It is then a matter of no small importance truly to descry the nature of them that so they may fear who are guilty of them and they on the contrary strengthen themselves who through the iniquity of men and times are injuriously charged with them Schism for of Heresie we shall not now treat except it be by accident and that by occasion of a general mistake spread throughout all the writings of the Ancients in which their names are familiarly confounded Schism I say upon the very sound of the word imports Division Division is not but where Communion is or ought to be Now Communion is the strength and ground of all Society whether Sacred or Civil Whosoever therefore they be that offend against this common Society and Friendliness of men and cause separation and breach among them If it be in civil occasions are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion if it be by occasion of Ecclesiastical difference they are guilty of Schism So that Schism is an Ecclesiastical Sedition as Sedition is a Lay Schism Yet the great benefit of Communion notwithstanding in regard of divers distempers men are subject to Dissention and Disunion are often necessary For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for Truth and Acts either unlawful or ministring just scruple are required of us to be perform'd in these cases Consent were Conspiracy and open Contestation is not Faction or Schism but due Christian Animosity For the further opening therefore of 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 from Ambition or Avarice or such other Ends as humane folly is apt to pursue but from well weighed and necessary Reasons and that when all other means having been tryed 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 Now as in Mutinies and Civil Dissentions there are two Attendants in ordinary belonging unto them one the choice of one Elector or Guide in place of the General or ordinary Governor to rule and guide the other the appointing of some publick place or Rendezvous where publick Meetings must be celebrated So in Church Dissentions and quarrels two Appurtenances there are which serve to make a Schism compleat First The choice of a Bishop in opposition to the former a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients and which many times was both the cause and effect of Schism Secondly The erecting of a new Church and Oratory for the dividing Party to meet in publickly For till this be done the Schism is but yet in the Womb. In that late famous Controversy in Holland De Predestinatione Auxiliis as long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatched but as soon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the separating Party there to meet now what before was a Controversy became a formal Schism To know no more than this if you take it to be true had been enough to direct how you are to judge and what to think of Schism and Schismaticks yet because in the Ancients by whom many Men are more affrighted than hurt much is said and many fearful Dooms are pronounced in this case will we descend a little to consider of Schisms as it were by way of Story and that partly further to open that which we have said in general by instancing in particulars and partly to disabuse those who reverencing Antiquity more than needs have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of Schism above due measure for what the Ancients spake by way of censure of Schism in general is most true for they saw and it is no great matter to see so much that unadvisedly and upon fancy to break the knot of Union betwixt man and man especially amongst Christians upon whom above all other kind of men the tye of Love and Communion doth most especially rest was a crime hardly pardonable and that nothing Absolves a man from the guilt of it but true and unpretended Conscience yet when they came to pronounce of Schisms in particular whether it were because of their own interests or that they saw not the Truth or for what other cause God only doth know their Judgments many times to speak most gently are justly to be suspected Which that you may see we will range all Schism into two ranks For there is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick for where cause of Schism is necessary there not he that separates but he that occasions the separation is the Schismatick Secondly There is a Schism which both parts are the Schismaticks For where the occasion of separation is unnecessary neither side can be excused from the guilt of Schism But you will ask who shall be the Judg what is necessary Indeed that is a Question which hath been often made but I think scarcely ever truly answered not because it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it but because the true solution carries fire in the tail of it For it bringeth with it a peice of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiors To you for the present this shall suffice If so be you be Animo defoecato if you have cleared your self from froath and grownds if neither sloth nor fears nor ambition nor any tempting Spirits of that nature abuse you for these and such as these are the true Impediments why both that and other Questions of the like danger are not truly answered if all this be and yet you see not how to frame your resolution and settle your self for that doubt I will say no more of you than was said of Papias St. John's own Scholar you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your abilities are not so good as I presumed But to go on with what I intended and from which that interloping Question diverted me that you may the better judge of the nature of Schisms by their occasions you shall find that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of

Vera effigies doctissimi Viri D. IOHANNES HALES Colleg. Eton. Socii et Eccles. Colleg. Windesoriensis Canonici SEVERAL TRACTS By the ever memorable Mr. JOHN HALES Of Eaton Coll. c. VIZ. I. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel III. Of the Power of the Keys IV. Of Schism and Schismaticks Never before printed by the Original Copy V. Miscellanies Printed in the Year 1677. A TRACT Concerning the SIN Against the Holy Ghost By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eton Colledge c. LONDON Printed for John Blyth at Mr Playfords Shop in the Temple 1677. A TRACT concerning the SIN against the HOLY GHOST MAny have Written of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and in defining or describing of it follow their own zealous conceits and not the Canon of Holy Scriptures The more dreadful the Sin is the more fearful we must be in charging it upon any special crime or particular person In defining a sin of so heynous a nature direct and evident proof from Scripture is requisite It is not enough to consider as many do what sins are most desperate and deadly and therefore to conclude such sins are against the Holy Ghost Thus indeed the Schoolmen have done who have made six differences of this sin V. in fine without any ground or warrant from Scripture for so doing And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing on such as he calls Hereticks that his opinion is that a Man can scarce be a learned Protestant without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost Neither are the Papists the only Men that are mistaken about this sin but too many Divines of the Reformed Churches have started aside from the Scripture and have given us such intricate and contradictory definitions of this sin as tend only to the perplexing the tender Consciences of weak Christians To make good this Censure I will briefly set down so much touching this sin as I conceive is warranted by the Word of God and humbly submit to the judgment of the Learned The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was an evil speaking of or slandering of the Miracles which our Saviour did by those who though they were convinced by the Miracles to believe that such Works could not be done but by the power of God yet they did malitiously say they were wrought by the power of the Devil In this Definition these points are observable 1. I forbear to call it the sin against the Holy Ghost but the Blasphemy for though every Blasphemy be a sin in general yet our Saviour Christ terms it the Blasphemy And the Evangelists do all agree to give it the same term and 't is now here in holy Scripture called the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet it appears both in St. Mathew and St. Mark that there was just occasion offered to our Saviour to call it so where he compares it with the sin against the Son of Man but he forbears to call it any thing but the Blasphemy thereby no doubt to teach us it consisteth only in cursed speaking and Blaspheming A serious consideration of this point may teach us so much moderation as to confine our selves to that term which our Saviour in the three Evangelists hath prescribed unto us I cannot find that any Man that hath writ upon this Argument hath made any observation or noted this phrase and term used by the Evangelists in pronouncing the dreadful sentence of our Saviour against the Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost I will cite these Texts where it is named Math. 12. 31. Mark 3. 28 Luke 12 10. 2. A second Observation is That Blasphemy is a speaking against another as both St. Mathew and St. Luke expound the word for in the Original it is a blasting the Fame or blaming of another for from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the French Nation and our English by contraction have made the word blame 3. To pass from the Name to the Thing it self we may observe by the coherence of the Texts that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was spoken of by our Saviour concerning the Scribes and Pharisees It was saith St. Mark because the Pharisees said he had an unclean spirit and that he cast our Devils by Belzebub c. This speech of the Pharisees whereby they slandered his Miracles wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost is properly the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost How transcendent a crime it was to traduce that power by which our Saviour wrought his Miracles may appear from the end for which these Miracles were wrought which was to prove to the people that saw them that he was the Messias which is evident from the places of Scripture wherein he appealed to his works 10 Joh. 37. 38. 14. Joh. 11. 11 Math. 4. 4. Joh. 29. These and other places shew that the working of Miracles was an act of the most glorious manifestation of the power of God by which at the first view the simplest people were led by their outward sense to the great mystery of inward Faith in Christ their Redeemer Therefore for those men that were eye-witnesses of those Miracles which did make them know that Christ was a Teacher come from God to Blaspheme that power by which these Miracles were wrought and to say they were done by the help of the Devil was the most spightful and malicious slander that could be invented for thereby they attempted as much as in them lay to destroy the very principles of Faith and to prevent the very first propagation of the Gospel to the universal mischief of all Mankind And though these Pharisees were no Christians and therefore could not fall away from faith which they never had yet they did know and believe that Christ was a Teacher come from God for so our Saviour tells them 7 Joh. 28. Ye both know me and whence I am They did not believe him as a Saviour but as a great Prophet from God as the Mahometans do at this very day they trusted to be saved by their Law and because he taught such things as did abrogate their Law in which they so much gloried they were so malicious to his Doctrine which they did not believe that they spoke evil of his Miracles which they did believe least the people by approving his Miracles should believe his Doctrine 4. Observe that it s said to be Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because by the Holy Ghost the Miracles were wrought Math. 12 28. 1 Cor 12. 10. 5. The Blasphemy against the Son of Man was when men considered Christ as a mere man and did disgracefully tax his conversation by saying behold a glutton a bibber of Wine a friend to Publicans and sinners But the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was when Men beholding Christs Miracles did enviously ascribe them to the Devil which they knew and believed to be done by Gods power 6. The Texts formerly cited out of the three Evangelists being

not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of Fact All the rest of Schisms of that kind were but Wantonness this was truly serious In this the Schismatical party was the Synod it self and such as conspired with it For concerning the use of Images in Sacris First it is acknowledged by all That it is not a thing necessary Secondly It is by most suspected Thirdly It is by many held utterly unlawful Can then the enjoyning of the practice of such a thing be ought else but abuse Or can the refusal of Communion here be thought any other thing than duty Here or upon the like occasion to separate may peradventure bring personal trouble and danger against which it concerns every honest man to have Pectus bene praeparatum further harm it cannot do So that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schism arising upon occasion of variety of opinion It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning not to content themselves with that measure of Faith which God and Scriptures have expresly afforded us but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed they have attempted to discuss things of which we can have no light neither from Reason nor Revelation neither have they rested here but upon pretence of Church-authority which is none or Tradition which for the most part is but figment they have peremptorily concluded and confidently imposed upon others a necessity of entertaining Conclusions of that nature and to strengthen themselves have broken out into Divisions and Factions opposing man to man Synod to Synod till the peace of the Church vanished without all possibility of recall Hence arose those ancient and many separations amongst Christians occasioned by Arrianism Eutychianism Nestorianism Photinianism Sabellianism and many more both ancient and in our time all which indeed are but names of Schism howsoever in the common Language of the Fathers they were called Heresies For Heresie is an act of the Will not of Reason and is indeed a Lye not a mistake Else how could that known speech of Austine go for true Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo Indeed Manichaeism Valentinianism Marcionism Mahometanism are truly and properly Heresies For we know that the Authors of them received them not but minted them themselves and so knew that which they taught to be a Lye But can any man avouch that Arrius and Nestorius and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity or the Person of our Saviour did maliciously invent what they taught and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake Till that be done and that upon good Evidence we will think no worse of all Parties than needs we must and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schisms upon matter of Opinion In which case what we are to do is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover so be Distemper and Partiality do not intervene I do not yet see that Opinionum Varietas Opinantium Unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that Men of different opinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church Why may I not go if occasion require to an Arrian Church so there be no Arrianism exprest in their Liturgy And were Liturgies and publick Forms of Service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree Schisms on Opinion were utterly vanished For consider of all the Liturgies that are or ever have been and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any Party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the event shall be that the publick Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our publick Forms with the private Fancies upon which we differ is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading of Scriptures Exposition of Scripture Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private Opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments of prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick of matter concerning the Dead of many superfluities which creep into the Churches under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self For to charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruples of Conscience began to be made or pretended then Schisms began to break in If the spiritual Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with superfluities and not over-rigid either in reviving obsolete Customs or imposing new there were far less danger of Schism or Superstition and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yeeld a little to the imbecillities of Inferiors a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do Mean while wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a peice of the Church Liturgy he that separates is not the Schismatick For it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falshoods as to put in practice unlawful or suspect actions The third thing I noted for matter of Schism was Ambition I mean Episcopal Ambition shewing it self especially in two heads one concerning Plurality of Bishops in the same See another the Superiority of Bishops in divers Sees Aristotle tells us that Necessity causeth but small faults but Avarice and Ambition were the Mothers of great Crimes Episcopal Ambition hath made this true For no Occasion hath produced more frequent more continuing more sanguinary Schisms than this hath done The Sees of Alexandria of Constantinople of Antioch and above all of Rome do abundantly shew thus much and our Ecclesiastical Stories witness no less of which the greatest part consists in the factionating and tumultuating of great and potent Bishops Socrates Apologizing for himself that professing to write an Ecclesiastical Story he did oft-times interlace the actions of secular Princes and other civil businesses tells us that he did thus to refresh his Reader who otherwise were in danger to be cloyd by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which as a man might say they made Butter and Cheese one of another For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may shew you a cast out of my old Office and open you a Mystery in Grammar properly signifieth to make Butter and Cheese Now because these are not made without much agitation of the Milk hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a borrowed and translated signification signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult But that I may a little consider of the two heads which I but now specified The first I mentioned was the Pluralitie of