Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	catholic_n	communion_n	external_a	3,566	5	9.8048	5	false

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

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

such cases and bind Christians to observe them as we find in that famous decree made upon great deliberation in a Council of the Apostles at Ierusalem wherein they determined those things which they knew were then scrupled and continued so to be afterwards whereever the Judaizing Christians prevailed But notwithstanding all their dissatisfaction the Apostles continued the same Rule and S. Paul here requires the most forward Christians to mind their Rule and to preserve Peace and Unity among themselves But doth not S. Paul in the 14th Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans lay down quite another Rule viz. only of mutual forbearance in such cases where men are unsatisfied in conscience I answer that the Apostle did act like a prudent Governour and in such a manner as he thought did most tend to the propagation of the Gospel and the good of particular Churches In some Churches that consisted most of Iews as the Church of Rome at this time did and where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the Gentile Christians as we do not find they did at Rome the Apostle was willing to have the Law buried as decently and with as little noise as might be and therefore in this case he perswades both parties to Forbearance and Charity in avoiding the judging and censuring one another since they had an equal regard to the honour of God in what they did But in those Churches where the false Apostles made use of this pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches and to separate the Communion of Christians there the Apostle bids them beware of them and their practices as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence So that the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing Separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his directions and that makes him so much insist on this advice to the Philippians that whatever their attainments in Christianity were they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things II. We take notice of the Duty and obligation that lies upon the best Christians to walk by the same Rule to mind the same things From whence arise two very considerable Enquiries 1. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an established Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in 2. What is to be done if men cannot come up to that Rule For the Apostle speaks only of such as have attained so far Whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule 1. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an established Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in This I think the more necessary to be spoken to because I cannot perswade my self that so many scrupulous and conscientious men as are at this day among us would live so many years in a known sin i. e. in a state of Separation from the Communion of a Church which in Conscience they thought themselves obliged to communicate with It must be certainly some great mistake in their judgements must lead them to this for I am by no means willing to impute it to passion and evil designs and out of the hearty desire I have if possible to give satisfaction in this matter I shall endeavour to search to the bottom of this dangerous mistake to which we owe so much of our present distractions and fears But for the better preventing all mis-understanding the design of my Discourse I desire it may be considered 1. That I speak not of the Separation or distinct Communion of whole Churches from each other which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to Govern and Reform themselves By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just 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 Such as the Church of Macedonia would have been if from being a Roman Province it had become a Christian Kingdom and the Churches of Thessalonica Philippi and the rest had united together 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 Just as several Families uniting 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 Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and rules of Worship For the true notion of a Church is no more than of a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion And it is a great mistake to make the notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that the adequate notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the name of Churches to particular Congregations Whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved assoon as the Congregation is broken up but if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other bond that unites them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church And if there be one Catholick Church consisting of multitudes of particular Churches consenting in one Faith then why may there not be one National Church from the consent in the same Articles of Religion and the same Rules of Government and Order of Worship Nay If it be mutual consent and agreement which makes a Church then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation For is not the Kingdom of France as truly a Kingdom consisting of so many Provinces as the Kingdom of Ivetot once was in Normandy which consisted of a very small territory Among the Athenians from whom the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into the Christian Church it was taken for such an Assembly which had the Power of Governing and determining matters of Religion as well as the affairs of State For the Senate of 500 being distributed into fifties according to the number of the Tribes which succeeded by course through the year and was then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one of these had 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regular Assemblies in the last of which an account of the Sacrifices was taken and of other matters which concerned Religion as in the Comitia Calata at Rome From whence we may observe that it was not the meeting of one of