Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	christian_a	church_n	pastor_n	1,389	5	9.1051	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26859	Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denyeth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendred, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.; Answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation. 1680	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1680 (1680)	Wing B1183; ESTC R10441	92,845	104

or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the

doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buck●ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Ass●ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Lo●don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there

would be so bad in us but also to accuse us so publickly to Magistrates for not forbearing to preach the Gospel when we were solemnly devoted to it and pleading against the toleration of it when Non-toleration must be by Imprisonment Banishment or Death or such Disablement against such as believe they are bound to preach while they are able § 5. Yet you can tell that they are ill Men that reported you stir up Magistrates to Persecution If that much will prove it it 's like they will be emboldened to call you an ill Man too for such faults are so common that we may say as Seneca Quid ulcus leviter tangam omnes mali sumus Indeed they do not well that use that word Persecution when your words are but against Toleration and the Church of England ' s endeavour after Vniformity which are publickly known § 6. And no wonder if they are ill Men when you are but finding out a certain Foundation for a lasting Vnion which is impossib●e to be attained till Men are convinced of the evil and danger of the present Separation c. That is you are but proving our Union impossible for I have elsewhere proved that the Conviction which you speak of is morally impossible to become the terms of a common Union It is impossible that we should all be convinced that none of the Particulars imposed are sinful which I have named in my first Plea And secondly 't is as impossible that we should all be convinced that it is any more lawful for us to forsake our Ministry to which we were vowed in our Ordination than to break our Oath of Allegiance and deny our Duty to the King So that you do no worse than for Union to prove our Union impossible and who is it that makes it so § 7. And this Impossibility you infer from this Principle That it is lawful to separate on a pretence of greater Purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship Answ 1. Was there not this Agreement in the case of Cyprian and the Council who persuaded the People to separate from Martial and Basilides And is not Union possible with such as Cyprian and the Carthage Bishops 2. We that are accused by you do not say that we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms or their imposing Power we never denied this difference But we say in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the Form of Government and imposed Abuses we agree And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church that yet held only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniversal Church and would take none that confess it not for Christians were it a Sin to separate from that Church 3. Suppose that Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and you and make themselves our Pastors against our wills is it unlawful to separate from them though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worship And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right which for 700 yea 1000 years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent I need not tell you how far this will reach 4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worship will not receive you unless you will deliberately profess or subscribe an Untruth or covenant against some Duty or commit a known Sin is it intolerable for you rather to separate from them than to sin And must we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do § 8. I think you need not expect the Censures of the chief makers of our Divisions And as to the inferiour Sectaries if you are a Sacrifice it will be an unbloody one You well admonish us in the end not to complain too much when we are silenc'd impoverished and imprisoned The counsel is good But for the Dean of Pauls c. that is deservedly loved and honoured by us all whom you thus deal with and by those great Men whose esteem he deservedly more valueth while he liveth in this Plenty and Honour to call himself a Sacrifice if a few poor Men say He wrongeth them when he pleadeth against the Magistrates enduring them or against their Judgment that think they should be endured Doth not this seem to another greater tendency than for me only to say de facto I was laid in the Common Gaol and fain to make away my Goods and Library to save them from Distress But so much to your Epistle The Sermon followeth § 9. And what could a Man have desired more to end the main differences among us than the serious consideration of your Text in its very plain import and drift 1. That the Text speaketh for Unity and Concord is past question 2. And that it speaketh both to the Pastors and the Flocks 3. And that it speaketh to all Christians though of various degrees of Attainment And therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences 4. All the doubt is what is meant by the same Canon or Rule And there are these several Expositions pleaded for 1. That by the same Rule is meant only the General Concord idem velle nolle to agree and live in Peace and to mind the same things 2. That by the same Rule is meant the Essentials of Christianity received by all Christians which they should have concordantly practised notwithstanding other differences 3. That by the same Rule is meant the Doctrine which the Apostles had concordantly delivered to all the Churches 4. That it was the Churches Creed which is supposed then to be in use as the Symbol of Christians 5. That it is the Canonical Scriptures in the times that they were written and delivered to the Churches 6. That it is the Example of S. Paul before described or the matter of it● that is to hold fast what he had attained and press forwards towards the heavenly perfection by desire hope diligence and patience 7. Some take the one Rule to be the end as it is to be attained by the means that is the common good of the Church and furtherance of the Gospel and our Salvation Let all be done to edification 8. Some say that it is the great Duty of Love which is made the Rule for our undetermined actions or that the fundamental duties are made a Canon to the Superstructures as it seemeth to be meant Gal. 6. 15 16. And by Christ Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice To tell you which and how many of these I take to be meant in the Text and why is none of the work which you call me to but to tell you that which-ever of these it is or if all these we fully consent All these Canons we must all walk by 9. But some say

one Church when it is upon unwarrantable cause or reasons If one Church unjustly renounce Communion with another whole Church as no true Church or as Heretical I think that it is done by a whole Church against a whole Church makes it worse But perhaps you mean that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful No doubt of that But to what purpose is it Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worship or Discipline And so may two Diocesan or Parish-Churches in our Nation if the King please at least § 15. You add Which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to govern and reform themselves Ans Have not all Diocesan Churches power to govern and reform themselves Government is of various species Only the King or summa Potestas Civilis hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government But every Bishop may govern and reform his Church as a Bishop as every Master may his Family as a Master and every Man himself as a Man It 's a strange Man Family or Church that hath not power to govern and reform it self though not Regal Power Though Kings have Power they have not God's Power and all Power that is Humane is not Regal § 16. Serm. By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government Ans 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire as Abasia c. 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did 3. Christian Societies are of divers species Do you mean Christian Civil Societies Kingdoms free Cities c. or Churches Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same as the Erastians do If so I suppose half the Conformists will be against you as well as I. At least you must confess that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church it is equivocally and that there is a sort of Christian Churches which are of another Constitution Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that a Church in the common sence was not constituted of another sort of Regent part that had the Power of the Keyes Two species of Governours make two species of the Societies if they are not subordinate but prime constitutive Parts But the Prince and the Pastor are two species well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean Are these notifying Terms for a Definition 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents 2. There are Rules made by Contract such as Grotius thinks Canons are and Rules made by Governours which are binding Commands or Laws 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys Do you mean all these Or which of them 1. All Christian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule and is not consent to that enough to make a Church 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract 3. The same Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom and also the same Rule for some Accidents to divers Churches under them who differ in other great things And doth agreement in those Accidents do more to make them O● Church than their difference in Integrals to make them many 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did leave the Bishops in Councils to make their own Rules by consent and make no common Imperial Rule for them Are they ever the less One Church 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the several Bishops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their several Churches Were they therefore the less one National Church So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church than if you had said nothing There is a whole Dioces●● Church and a whole Parish Church as well as a whole National Church And what the Power is and what the Rule of Order must be whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates and whether about Essential or Integrals or Accidents and what Accidents whether all or many or few and which that must make a Church to be One whole Church you never tell us An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the same Rule of Order to his Christian Subjects in a whole Kingdom Is he therefore the constitutive Church-Head Or will you say as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth That if he be the Head of a Christian Church it is necessary that he be a Christian To tell us of Common Ties and Rules of Order and never tell us what those Ties and Rules are may serve your Ends but not my Edification § 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth that God hath instituted no one Form of Church-Government as necessary And if so then not a National Church-Form And is it not a whole Church if it be without a Form which not God but Man is the Author of Then God made or instituted no such thing as a whole Church Then it is a humane Creature Then why may not Man make yet more Forms and multiply and make and unmake as he seeth cause and several Countries have several Forms And forma dat nomen esse And if God made not any whole Church we should be acquainted who they be that were not a Church that had Power to make the first Church-Form and who hath the Power ever since and how it is proved and how it cometh to be any great matter to separate from a Church-Form which God never made and whether humane Church-Forms be not essential and constitutive Causes of the Churches and whether every commanded Oath Subscription Declaration Office or Ceremony be an essential part of this Church-Form And there be as many Church-Forms and Species as there be Orders Liturgies and Ceremonies And all these Differences in the same Kingdom constitute so many Schisms and Separations § 18. Do you take all the Christians in the Turkish Empire to be one National Church or not If not then one Head