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	people_n	presbyter_n	5,436	5	9.9023	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61568	The mischief of separation a sermon preached at Guild-Hall Chappel, May 11. MDCLXXX. being the first Sunday in Easter-term, before the Lord Mayor, &c. / by Edw. Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1680 (1680)	Wing S5604_VARIANT; ESTC R35206	32,588	67

such thing in all the Cities of Creet in his time And if we look over the antient Canons of the Church we shall find two things very plain in them 1. That the notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocese or such a number of Christians as were under the inspection of a Bishop 2. That those Presbyters who rejected the Authority of their Bishop or affected separate meetings where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Church were condemned of Schism So the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus who withdrew from the publick Congregations on pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia were condemned by the Council at Gangrae so were those who separated from their Bishops though otherwise never so orthodox by the Council at Constantinople and the Council at Carthage wherein before St. Cyprian had so justly complained of the Schism of Felicissimus and his Brethren who on pretence of some disorders in the Church of Carthage had withdrawn to the Mountains and there laid the Foundation of the Novatian Schism But when false Doctrine was imposed on Churches as by the Arian Bishops at Antioch then the people were excused in their separation so at Rome when Felix was made Bishop and at Sirmium when Photinus published his Heresie but I do not remember one instance in Antiquity wherein separation from Orthodox Bishops and setting up Meetings without their Authority and against their consent was acquitted from the sin of Schism Indeed some Bishops have sometimes refused Communion with others upon great misdemeanors as Theognostus and St. Martin with the Ithacian party on the account of the death of Priscillian but this doth not at all reach to the case of Presbyters separating from Bishops with whom they agree in the same Faith The followers of St. Chrysostom did I confess continue their separate Meetings after his banishment and the coming in of Arsacius but although they withdrew in his time being unsatisfied in the manner of his choice yet when Atticus restored the name of St. Chrysostom to the Diptychs of the Church they returned to communion with their Bishop as St. Chrysostom himself advised them as appears by Palladius which is far from justifying the wilfull separation of Presbyters and People from the Communion of their Bishops when they do agree in the same Faith 2. But suppose the first Churches were barely congregational by reason of the small number of Believers at that time yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant-state They do not think it necessary to reduce the first Community of Goods which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches they do not think it necessary to wash one anothers feet although Christ did it and bad his Disciples do as he did they believe that the first civil Government was appointed by God himself over Families do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to their first institution If not why shall the Peace of the Church be in so much worse a condition than that of the Civil-state It is very uncertain whether the Primitive form were such as they fancy if it were it is more uncertain whether it were not so from the circumstances of the times than from any institution of Christ but it is most certainly our duty to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians and it is impossible so to do if men break all Orders in pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform It is a great fault among some who pretend to great niceness in some positive Duties that they have so little regard to comparative Duties For that which may be a duty in one case when it comes to thwart a greater Duty may be none This Doctrine we learn from our blessed Saviour in the case of the obligation of the Sabbath which he makes to yield to duties of Mercy And can we think that a Duty lying upon us which in our circumstances makes a far greater Duty impracticable Is there any thing Christ and his Apostles have charged more upon the Consciences of all Christians than studying to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians This is that we must follow after even when it seems to fly from us this is that we must apply our minds to and think it our honour to promote this is that which the most perfect Christians are the most zealous for this is that for the sake of which we are commanded to practise meekness humility patience self-denial and submission to Governours And after all this can we imagine the attaining of such an end should depend upon mens conjectures whether five thousand Christians in times of persecution could make one Assembly for Worship Or whether all the Christians in Ephesus or Corinth made but one Congregation On what terms can we ever hope for Peace in the Church if such Notions as these be ground enough to disturb it What stop can be put to Schisms and Separations if such pretences as these be sufficient to justifie them Men may please themselves in talking of preserving Peace and Love under separate Communions but our own sad experience shews the contrary for as nothing tends more to unite mens hearts than joyning together in the same Prayers and Sacraments so nothing doth more alienate mens affections than withdrawing from each other into separate Congregations Which tempts some to spiritual Pride and scorn and contempt of others as of a more carnal and worldly Church than themselves and provokes others to lay open the follies and indiscretions and immoralities of those who pretend to so much Purity and Spirituality above their Brethren 2. Others confess that to live in a state of separation from such Churches as many at least of ours are were a sin for they say that causeless renouncing Communion with true Churches is Schism especially if it be joyned with setting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably against them but this they deny that they do although they Preach when and where it is forbidden by Law and worship God and administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requires This is not dealing with us with that fairness and ingenuity which our former Brethren used for they avow the fact of separation but deny it to be sinful these owning it to be sinful have no other refuge left but to deny the fact which is evident to all Persons For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be separation in some and not in others They are very unwilling to confess a separation because they have formerly condemned it with great severity and yet they do the same things for which they charged others as guilty of a

is no sin 2. That a State of Separation would be a sin but notwithstanding their meeting in different places yet they are not in a state of Separation And herein lies the whole strength of the several Pleas at this day made use of to justifie the Separate Congregations both which I shall now examine 1. Some plead that it is true they have distinct and separate Communions from us but it is no sin or culpable separation so to have For say they Our Lord Christ instituted only Congregational Churches or particular Assemblies for Divine Worship which having the sole Church power in themselves they are under no obligation of Communion with other Churches but only to preserve Peace and Charity with them And to this doctrine others of late approach so near that they tell us that to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which must suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawful and insupportable Which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert But to clear the practice of Separation from being a sin on this account two things are necessary to be done 1. To prove that a Christian hath no obligation to external Communion beyond a Congregational Church 2. That it is lawful to break off Communion with other Churches to set up a particular independent Church 1. That a Christian hath no obligation to external Communion beyond a particular Congregational Church They do not deny that men by Baptism are admitted into the Catholick visible Church as Members of it and that there ought to be a sort of Communion by mutual Love among all that belong to this Body and to do them Right they declare that they look upon the Church of England or the Generality of the Nation professing Christianity to be as sound and healthful a part of the Catholick Church as any in the World But then they say Communion in ordinances must be only in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were only particular and Congregational Churches Granting this to be true how doth it hence appear not to be a sin to separate from our Parochial Churches which according to their own concessions have all the Essentials of true Churches And what Ground can they have to separate and divide those Churches which for all that we can see are of the same nature with the Churches planted by the Apostles at Corinth Philippi or Thessalonica But I must needs say further I have never yet seen any tolerable proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a Separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that assoon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an independent Authority It is very strange that those who contend so much for the Scriptures being a perfect Rule of all things pertaining to Worship and Discipline should be able to produce nothing in so necessary a Point If that of which we read the clearest instances in Scripture must be the Standard of all future Ages much more might be said for limiting Churches to private families than to particular Congregations For do we not read of the Church that was in the House of Priscilla and Aquila at Rome of the Church that was in the House of Nymphas at Colosse and in the House of Philemon at Laodicea Why then should not Churches be reduced to particular Families when by that means they may fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the scandal of breaking the Laws But if notwithstanding such plain examples men will extend Churches to Congregations of many Families why may not others extend Churches to those Societies which consist of many Congregations Especially considering that the Apostles when they instituted Churches did appoint such Officers in them as had not barely a respect to those already converted but to as many as by their means should be added to the Church as Clemens affirms in his Epistle The Apostles saith he went about in Cities and Countries preaching the Gospel and appointed their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them for Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who were to believe From hence the number of Converts were looked on as an accession to the Original Church and were under the care and Government of the Bishop and Presbyters who were first settled there For although when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptistry and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a great stranger to the History of the Church can ever call it in question I am sure Calvin a person of great and deserved reputation among our Brethren looks upon this as a matter out of dispute among learned men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a whole City but of the adjacent Country too and the contrary opinion is a very novel and late fancy of some among us and hath not age enough to plead a Prescription It is true after some time in the greater Cities they had distinct places allotted and Presbyters fixed among them and such allotments were called Titles at Rome and Laurae at Alexandria and Parishes in other places but these were never thought then to be new Churches or to have any independent Government in themselves but were all in subjection to the Bishop and his College of Presbyters of which multitudes of examples might be brought from most authentick Testimonies of Antiquity if a thing so evident needed any proof at all And yet this distribution even in Cities was so uncommon in those elder times that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria and therefore it is probably supposed there was no