Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	council_n	decree_v	3,988	5	10.1493	5	false

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

Bishops in one Sea For the general practice of the Church from the beginning at least since the original of Episcopacy as now it is was never to admit at once more than one Bishop in one Sea And so far in this point have they been careful to preserve unity that they would not suffer a Bishop in his Sea to have two Cathedral Churches which thing lately brought us a Book out of France De Monogamia Episcoporum written by occasion of the Bishop of Langres who I know not upon what fancy could not be content with one Cathedral Church in his Diocess but would needs have two which to the Author of that work seems to be a kind of spiritual Polygamy It fell out amongst the Ancients very often sometimes upon occasion of difference in Opinion sometimes because of difference amongst those who were interessed in the choice of Bishops that two Bishops and sometimes more were set up and all Parties striving to maintain their own Bishop made themselves several Churches several Congregations each refusing to participate with others and many times proceeding to mutual Excommunication This is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altare to this doth he impute the Original of all Church disorders and if you read him you would think he thought no other Church-Tumult to be a Schism but this This perchance might plead some excuse For though in regard of Religion it self it matters not whether there be one or more Bishops in the same Diocess and sometimes two are known to have sat at once for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome makes Peter and Paul the first and St. Austin acknowledgeth that for a time he sat fellow Bishop with his Predecessor though he excuseth it that he did so by being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the Council of Nice yet it being a thing very convenient for the Peace of the Church to have it so neither doth it any way savour of vice or misdemeanor their Punishment sleeps not who unnecessarily and wantonly go about to infringe it But that other Head of Episcopal Ambition concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Sees one claiming Superiority over another as it hath been from time to time a great Trespasser against the Churches Peace so it is now the finall Ruine of it The East and the West through the fury of the two prime Bishops being irremediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement And besides all this mischief it is founded in a vice contrary to all Christian humility without which no man shall see his Saviour For they do but abuse themselves and others that would perswade us that Bishops by Christ's Institution have any Superiority over other men further than of Reverence or that any Bishop is Superiour to another further than positive order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed For we have believed him that hath told us That in Jesus Christ there is neither high nor low and that in giving honour every man should be ready to prefer another before himself which sayings cut off all claim most certainly to Superiority by title of Christianity except men can think that these things were spoken only to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub supra all this comes from Composition and Agreement of men among themselves Wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial Now concerning Schism arising upon these Heads you cannot be for behaviour much to seek for you may safely communicate with all Parties as Occasion shall call you and the Schismaticks here are all those who are heads of the Faction together with all those who foment it for private and indifferent Persons they may be Spectators of these contentions as securely in regard of any peril of Conscience for of danger in Purse or Person I keep no account as at a Cock fight Where Serpents fight who cares who hath the better the best Wish is that both may perish in the fight Now for Conventicles of the nature of which you desire to be informed thus much in general 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 Yet Time hath taken leave sometimes to fix this Name upon good and honest Meetings and that perchance not altogether without good reason For with publick Religious Meetings thus it fares First it hath been at all times confessed necessary that God requires not only inward and private Devotion when Men either in their hearts and Closets or within their private walls pray praise confess and acknowledge but he further requires all those things to be done in Publick by troops and shoals of Men and from hence have proceeded publick Temples Altars Forms of Service appointed Times and the like which are required for open Assemblies yet whilst men were truly pious all Meetings of men for mutual help of Piety and Devotion wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated were permitted without exception But when it was espied that ill affected persons abus'd private Meetings whether Religious or Civil to evil ends Religiousness to gross impiety as appears in the Ethnick Fleusinia and Bacchanalia and Christian Meetings under the Pagan Princes when for fear they durst not come together in open view were charged with foul imputations as by the report of Christians themselves plainly appears and Civil Meetings many times under pretence of friendly and neighbourly Visits sheltered treasonable Attempts against Princes and Common-weals Hence both Church and State joyned and jointly gave order for Forms Times Places of Publick Concourse whether for Religious or Civil Ends and all other Meetings whatsoever besides those of which both Time and Place were limited they censured for Routs and Riots and unlawful Assemblies in the State and in the Church for Conventicles So that it is not lawful no not for Prayer for Hearing for Conference for any other Religious Office whatsoever for people to assemble otherwise than by Publick Order is allowed Neither may we complain of this in Times of Incorruption for why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private which warrantably may be performed in publick But in Times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions wherein Religious Assembling is dangerous private Meetings howsoever besides publick Order are not only lawful but they are of Necessity and Duty else how shall we excuse the Meetings of Christians for publick Service in time of danger and persecutions and of our selves in Queen Maries days and how will those of the Roman Church amongst us put off the imputation of Conventicling who are known amongst us privately to assemble for Religious

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

into had not our Saviour extraordinarily prayed for confirmation of his Faith And the Precept of confirming his Brethren is but that charitable Office which is exacted at every Christians hand that when himself had escaped so great a Wrack to be careful in warning and reclaiming others whom common frailty drives into the like Distress These Circumstances that Peter is first named amongst the Disciples that he made the first Sermon and the like are too weak Grounds to build the Soveraignty over the World upon and that he spake Ananias and Sapphira dead argues spiritual Power but not temporal But that Peter called the first Council in the Acts is a Circumstance beyond the Text for concerning the calling of the Council there is no word all that is said is but this that the Disciples and Elders met no Syllable of Peters calling them together That Peter was 25 Years Bishop of Rome is not to be proved out of Antiquity before St. Hierom who shuffled it into Eusebius Chronicle there being no such thing extant in his Story Yea that he was Bishop at all as now the name of Bishop is taken may be very questionable For the Ancients that reckon up the Bishops of Rome until their times as Eusebius and before him Tertullian and before them both Iraeneus never account Peter as Bishop of that See And Epiphanius tells us that Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome at once by which it is plain he took the Title of Bishop in another sence than now it is used For now and so for a long time upward two Bishops can no more possess one See than two Hedge-Sparrows dwell in one Bush St. Peters time was a little too early for Bishops to rise Answer to the Bishop of Romes Practice of Supremacy To the first That so many of the Bishops of Rome were Martyrs what makes that to the purpose Is Martyrdom an Argument of the Supremacy To the second That Victor indeavoured to excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops is true but withall it is as true that he was withstood for his Labour For the Bishops of Asia themselves did sharply reprove him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Words of Eusebius and Irenaeus wrote against him for it To the third That the first four Councils were called by the Popes is an open Falshood for in the two first the Bishops of Rome are not so much as mentioned save only as persons cited In the two last they are mentioned only as Petitioners to the Emperour There are extant the Stories of Eusebius Socrates Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomenus the Acts of the Councils themselves at least some of them the Writings and Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome In all these there is not one word of the Pope farther than a Supplicant and the whole calling of the Bishops together is attributed to the Emperour Take for Example but the last of them Leo Bishop of Rome was desirous that some things done in a meeting of Divines at Ephesus should be disannulled for this he becomes a Suitor to Theodosius the junior to have a General Council but could never procure it of him After his death he continues his suit to Marcianus Successor to Theodosius who granted his request But whereas Leo had requested the Council might be held in Italy the Emperor would not hear him nay which is more the Pope upon good reason had besought the Emperor to put off the day design'd for the holding of the Council but the Emperor would not hear him So that Leo could do nothing neither for the calling the Council nor for the Place nor for the Time And all this appears by Leo's own Epistles If the Popes could do so little well near 500 years after Christ how little could they do before when their horns were not yet so long The Plea of the Protestants concerning the Corruption of the Church of Rome which by them is confessed sometimes to have been pure is no more prejudicial to Christs Promise to his Church that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her than the known corruption of the Churches in Asia in St. Johns time or of other Churches after The Close of all is a Demonstration A Word unfortunately used by your Author to bewray his Logick For indeed a Reason drawn from so poor and empty a sign falls many bows wide of demonstrative Proof First it is false that all the rest of Patriarchal Sees are extinct The See of Constantinople yet stands and shews her Succession of Bishops from St. Andrew till this day as well as the Church of Rome can from St. Peter The See of Alexandria yet subsists and the Bishop of that place calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judge of the World as my self have seen in some of his Letters a Title to which he hath as good Right as the Bishop of Rome hath to be the Worlds Sovereign If any reply they are poor in misery in persecution and affliction this can make no difference since with Christ there is neither rich nor poor but a new Creature And again their case now is as good as was the Bishops of Rome under the Ethnick Emperors for their Lot then was no other than those Bishops is now But grant that it had lasted longest what then some of them must needs have consisted longer than the other except we would suppose that they should have fallen all together Peradventure the reason of her so long lasting is no other but that which the Cyclops gives Ulysses in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulysses should be eaten last of all However it be this Vaunt seems but like that of the wicked Servant in the Gospel tardat Dominus venire and we doubt not but a day of the Lord shall overtake him who now eats and drinks and revels with the World and beats his fellow Servants FINIS * Plin. Nat. Hist l. 28. c. 10.