Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	church_n	time_n	1,642	5	3.9468	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62918	A defence of Mr. M. H's brief enquiry into the nature of schism and the vindication of it with reflections upon a pamphlet called The review, &c. : and a brief historical account of nonconformity from the Reformation to this present time.	Tong, William, 1662-1727.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1874; ESTC R22341	189,699	204

from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan in which Quadratus and Ignatius flourished might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure confused time in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Christians besides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way as Suetonius Tacitus Pliny c. Now to fill up this Chasme Eusebius has carelesly fetch'd things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Hypotyposes of I know not what Clement for it is not Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and out of the Commentaries of Hegisippus a writer of no better Credit than the former These Perplexities the Learned Bishop of Worcester thus relates Irenic p. 322. Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succession is as muddy as the Tyber it self for Tertullian Ruffinus and others place Clemens next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustine and Damasus make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him certainly if the Line of Succession fails us here where we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church And we do not ●●●ly meet with these Difficulties near the Head of the Line but many Ages lower The Series of Popes in the Roman See after the eighth Century is very much ruffled and confused as Onuphrius tells us Horum temporum Pontifices neque Praefat. act partem secund de Romano Pontif. perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem c. The Bishops of those times have not any constant certain Writer and a great part of their Affairs are omitted whence it comes to pass that these times are so uncertain and obscure that we cannot tell in what Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put and some new Popes have crept in which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll as Basilius one Agapetus and Dommus the second which are either the same with others under a different name or else were Schismaticks or perhaps were never in being but which of these to affirm is uncertain and doubtful and he tells us that as to John the 11th Leo the 16th Stephen the 8th Leo the 7th and Stephen the 9th He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers but of Luitprandus Ticinensis and says there is a foul mistake in the account of the Martins for there never were any such men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns quanta bone Deus confusio exorta est ex veterum Historiarum ignorantia It seems our Learned Citizen never dreamed that Popish Writers should be so ingenuous as to confess these insuperable difficulties in the Succession for his part he never discours'd with any of them that did not zealously assert it and it may be so but certainly then he never discoursed with the wisest or honestest of them but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himself But 2. Were these Catalogues of Names as clear and certain as they are otherwise yet unless it were equally certain that all of these were truly Bishops and had valid Consecration the Line of Succession is still unproved and how impossible is it to have this demonstrated with that clearness requisite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend For it has been often observed that our Church Historians being left so much in the dark for the earliest Ages are forced to supply the defects of History with bold conjectures of their own and where-ever they met with the Apostles or Evangelists in any place presently they made them the Bishops of that place Irenic p. 302. so Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Millan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus Bishop of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome And through the loss of the Dyptychs of the Church which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering called their Natalitia some have mistaken Martyrs for Bishops and the time of their Apotheosis for that of their Consecration and the Learned Junius reckons among these Anacletus Cletus and Clemens at Rome And how shall we prove that all the persons mentioned in the Lists had such Ordination as is made essential to Episcopacy it is not sufficient to say there were ancient Canons decreeing that no Bishop should be Consecrated but by three at the least this is arguing a jure ad factum which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made and it is as certain they were very little regarded in that state of Apostacy and Antichristianism into which the Churches fell and lay for so long a time we know there are many examples of mens getting into the highest Church Preferments by Murther Simony Sorcery which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Administrations It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture against judging hating and persecuting one another about Ceremonies but if any shall argue from hence there were never any such Practices every age will afford instances enough for their Confutation and if there has been so notorious a contempt of the Laws of Christ Why should we think it strange if the Canons of the Church have been despised too when they have stood in the way of mens Interest Every body knows Ecclesiastical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies whilst the greater sort of Vermine rush through The Council of Lateran decreed Electio facta per civilem Magistratum in sacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat and the Jus Orientale Lib. 3. Inter. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. 4. and the seventh General Council as it is called determine Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magistratibus Episcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam esse and yet that de facto the Magistrates sometimes did elect will not be denied The second Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Bishops shall be null and void 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bernard con ad Eugen. l. 4. c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriously guilty of it and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church says Notes of the Church p. 152. It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head and that there is now no true Pope nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to for by their own Confession a Pope Symoniacally chosen a Pope intruded by Violence a Heretick and therefore sure an

their own Sence there were no separate Meetings otherwise where-ever there is a Violation of Love and Charity amongst Christians there is a breach of Communion and his whole Book tends to prove it Will this Gentleman say that by these divisions are meant the rude and disorderly behaviour of some amongst them or rather the contests that those miscarriages caused If he speaks sence he must say the latter Forit is not usual to call the miscarriages of one sort divisions Besides these miscarriages tho' very great were chiefly about the Love Feasts which accompanied the Sacrament as the Gentleman himself acknowledges and therefore were not altogether so destructive of Communion as if they had been about the Sacrament it self But if that will not do he will try the old Salvo and these divisions must be into Sects and Parties that were Heretical But how can it then be said that these Divisions arose when they came together to these Feasts what did some of them turn Hereticks presently upon the Congress And become Orthodox again when they parted and so turn Hereticks anew when they came together the next time And certainly if they were Hereticks the Apostle would have charged the rest to have cast them out and not suffered them to Communicate with them at all and that had been a proper and likely way to have put an End to such Disorders But this he grounds upon the verse following For there must also be Heresies among you and blames Mr. H. for omitting it and would fain know what we have to say to it Why I 'll tell him in a few words This does not shew that the Divisions he reproves were Heresies but gives us the reason why he believed the report which he heard of their Divisions I hear there are Divisions or Schisms amongst you and I partly believe it for there must be also Heresies amongst you I need not wonder if there be Schisms amongst you for I know there will be Heresies also which are a great deal worse Thus it has been understood by very Learned Expositors and it seems the Natural import of the words and their connexion with the former and the Particle also makes it plain enough But after all if this Gentleman will in one place make Schism to be Heresie and in another a disorderly behaviour at the Communion Table or at the Feasts attending it he will advance an Idea of it much more Novel than Mr. H's and it will fairly acquit Dissenters from being Schismaticks for he can neither charge us with Heresie nor any such disorders at the Lords Supper The last place agitated is 1 Cor. 12.15 That there be no Schism in the Body Mr. H. acknowledges that Schism is that which breaks or slackens the Bond by which the Members are knit one to another Here the Gentleman presently claps hold and says that is done notoriously by Separation and breach of Communion yes no doubt Communion is broken by breach of Communion we won't dispute that but all Separation does not break Communion if we only separate in those things wherein Christian Communion does not consist the Bond is firm still therefore Mr. H. well added but this i● Bond not an Act of Uniformity in the same Ceremonies but of true Love and Charity the Gentleman replies nor is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence We grant it Sir it is sufficient for us that the Act of Indulgence takes away the Obligation of the Act of Uniformity we do not desire it should take away Mens Obligations to preserve the Unity of the Church which we question not is as Sacredly observed in our Assemblies as in yours He falsely charges Mr. H. with saying that true Love and Charity is the onely Bond by which Christians are knit together he does not say it is the onely Bond but certainly it is the Bond though not the onely one for they are United by Faith also but it is onely the breach of this Bond of Love which is properly called Schism He tells us the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together and let us hear what they are They are incorporated into one Society or Body but is that a tye by which they are knit together or does it not rather shew us what they are when united together Their being animated by one Spirit and so having one Hope and being within the One Covenant of Grace are not so properly the Bond by which we are United but the effects of our Union to Christ by Faith and it 's that is properly the Bond or Uniting Grace on our part that joins us to the Head God in Christ and from this the other Grace of Christian Love results by which the Members are Morally united one to another How far the Unity of the Ministry is absolutely necessary to the Unity of Christs Body has been already discussed in the former part of this Treatise He concludes his Reflections upon the Enquiry with the same ingenuity which has all along appeared in him He acknowledges that Charity is a comprehensive Virtue and every Sin is a violation of it as Theft Murder Treason but as it would not be good Logick to make Uncharitableness serve for a definition of them all so neither in the case of Schism And we acknowledge it would not and where does he find that Mr. H. makes uncharitableness the Definition of Schism he makes it but part of the Definition the Genus onely and this Gentleman by his own pretty Colloquy makes it to be the Generical nature of all Sin but the Enquirer adds the Differentia taken from the subject those who agree in fundamentals and its object the smaller things of Religion and this with its Genus makes up the compleat Definition of that which Scripture calls Schism But the account which this Gentleman has given of it is so uncertain and various so far from a Definition that it falls short even of a bungling Description In one place he affirms where there is Schism there is a breach of Communion p. 9. in another there was a Schism amongst the Corinthians and yet they were in the same Communion p. 22. In one place it is Heresie p. 21. In another place Fornication p. 20. In another rude and disorderly tricks at their Love Feasts p. 29. In one place it is opposing their Orthodox Governours p. 26. In another place it is siding with them p. 25. and yet this is the Man that cannot endure any body should be thought a Conjurer in Logick and Divinity besides himself I hope the Enquiror is got safe out of this Gentlemans Hands I now proceed to do the Vindicator the same Justice in which I shall be brief because the merits of the Cause are discussed already and his little scurrilous Reflections are not worth our notice The Citizen of Chester presented his Adversary with a List of the Names of those that had done Wonders in