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	part_n	visible_a	2,559	5	9.1219	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64556	The charge of schism renewed against the separatists in answer to the renewer of that pretended peaceable design, which is falsly call'd, An answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's late sermon.	S. T. (Samuel Thomas), 1627-1693.	1680 (1680)	Wing T972; ESTC R23566	12,847	24

of their Ecclesiastical enjoyments To these Apologies of theirs for preaching against Law they presume it will be said by the Episcopal Party But you may Conform If so say they we must then desire one or both of these Learned Moderate and Judicious Doctors Stillingfleet and Tillotson to contribute but this one thing towards it to answer the ensuing Objections those especially which concern the Political part of Conformity about the Oxford Oath and Subscription For say they If there be but one particular impos'd upon us as a condition of Conformity which we prove to be sinful and they cannot refel it there 's no man has been more forward than Dr. Stillingfleet to let us know out of Hales That 't is not the Refuser but the Imposer is guilty of the Schism That which Mr. Hales said is this That there is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick for where the cause of Schism is necessary there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick But with the leave of that great man and of another that opines according to that dictate I do deny that there can be any necessary cause of Schism for all Schism is sinful and there can be no necessary cause of Sin. 2. The Paragraph is non-sense if we should accept of Mr. Hales his own definition of Schism For says he Schism if we would define it is nothing else but an unnecessary separation of Christians from that part of the Visible Church whereof they were once Members The Paragraph then must be thus Paraphras'd There is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick for where the cause of Schism that is of unnecessary separation of Christians is necessary there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick The Non-sense whereof appears in its own light 3. 'T is absurd upon another account for himself grants that what Sedition or Rebellion is in the State and in reference to Civils that Schism is in the Church and in reference to Ecclesiastical union He may as well say therefore that where cause of Rebellion is necessary there not he that Rebels but he that is the cause of rebellion is the Rebel which is very pretty when it happens at any time that the Supreme Governour proves a Tyrant And so upon that or any other less account is the pretended cause of his Subjects Rebelling Indeed a necessary cause he cannot be let him be never so great a Tyrant But that makes that Dictate which this Author would persuade us the Doctor makes so much use of but does not nor I believe can he tell us where so much the more absurd That Tract of Schism tells us That 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 I shall not stay to question the truth of this Assertion as to those parts of it or uncertain and or ministring just scruple But though I should allow him that in those cases consent were Conspiracy yet open contestation against our proper Governours may be sinful He has not told us what he means by the Expression nor what sort and kind what measures and degrees of open Contestation he intended but I affirm there 's a medium between Consent and open Contestation and that is an humble and modest Refusal to comply with those impos'd Propositions or Actions which upon due enquiry and diligent examination we judg untrue or unlawful and humbly and meekly tendring our Reasons if required why we so judg That any greater Contestation then this amounts to of Subjects against their Governours is in any case necessary or lawful is more than I believe can be prov'd I am sure if the Contestation be so open and proceed so far as either to set up another Bishop in opposition to the former or to erect a new Church or Oratory for the dividing Part to meet in publickly Mr. Hales himself pronounces such separations compleat Schisms and till this be done the Schism he tells us is but yet in the Womb. And as he goes on In that famous Controversie in Holland De Praedestinatione Auxiliis As long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats the Schism was all that while un-hatch'd 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 Controversie became a formal Schism Whence it follows that even in this man's judgment our Non-conforming Barn-sweepers and in them Pulpit erectors in order to meeting and preaching against Law are formal Schismaticks To the same purpose Arthur Jackson aforesaid in the same Letter before quoted has these words I confess I dread the falling upon the Rock of Separation but as long as I desire not to set up a new Church but am willing to joyn with the Publick Assemblies in Hearing and Prayer and only withdraw from what is not of Scripture-Institution I hope this partial Non communion cannot be justly called Separation In the same Tract Mr. Hales asserts That it is not lawful no not for Prayer or Hearing for Conference or any other Religious Office whatsoever for People to assemble otherwise than by publick Order is allow'd neither says he may we complain of this in times of Incorruption For why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private which may warrantably be perform'd in publick And in another part of the same Treatise ' What says he if those to whom the execution of the publick Service is committed do some thing either unseemly or suspicious or peradventure unlawful What if the Garments they wear be censured which indeed be superstitious What if the gesture of Adoration be us'd to the Altars What if the Homilist have preach'd or deliver'd any Doctrine of the Truth whereof we are not well persuaded A thing which very often falls out yet we may not Separate except we be constrain'd personally to bear a part in them our selves The Priests under Eli had so ill demean'd themselves about the daily Sacrifice that the Scripture tells us they made them to stink yet the People refus'd not to come to the Tabernacle nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest For in those Schisms which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. Thus he which passage by the way may serve for a rebuke to these mens greater edification-Argument before insisted on But because that expression or suspected Act comes trumping in our way again I shall here take so much notice of it as to acquaint the Reader if he know it not