Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	apostle_n	church_n	time_n	1,801	5	3.9369	3	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

sinful separation For the Assembly of Divines urged their dissenting Brethren to comply with their Rules of Church-Government and charged them with Schism if they did it not whereas they only desired to enjoy such liberty as to their separate Congregations as is now pleaded for by our dissenting Brethren This say they would give countenance to a perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed irritations between the Parties and would introduce all manner of Confusion And they thougt it a very unreasonable thing for them to desire distinct and separated Congregations as to those parts of worship where they could joyn in Communion with them and they thought no Person was to be indulged as to any Error or Scruple of Conscience but with this Proviso that in all other parts of worship they joyn with the Congregation wherein they live and be under the Government to be established To this the dissenting Brethren answered that such a variation or forbearance could neither be a Schism nor endanger it and that the great cause of Schism hath been a strict obligation of all to Uniformity that as long as in their separate Congregations they did practise most of the same things and the most substantial in their Rule it could not be called a total separation especially considering that they professed their Churches to be true Churches and that they had occasional Communion with them which is the very same Plea made use of at this day among us To which the Assemblies party smartly replied that since they acknowledged their Churches to be so true that they could occasionally join in all Acts of worship they conceived they were bound to act with them in joint Communion by one Common Rule and not by different Rules and in separated Congregations And they add that to leave all ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when opposition or offence offers it self is to separate from such a Church in the Scripture sense such separation was not in being in the Apostles times unless it were used by false Teachers all who professed Christianity held Communion together as in one Church notwithstanding differences of Iudgement or corruptions in Practice and that if they can hold occasional Communion without sin they know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin too and then separation would be needless To which they subjoin these remarkable words which I heartily wish our Brethren at this day would think seriously upon To separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemth to be a most unjust separation So that whatever false colours and pretences some men make use of to justifie their present practice if the judgement of their own Brethren may be taken upon the most weighty debate and most serious deliberation it is no better than plain and downright separation And I must needs say I never saw any Cause more weakly defended no not that of Polygamy and Anabaptism than that of those who allow it to be lawful to join in Communion with us and yet go about to vindicate the separate Meetings among us from the guilt of a sinful separation For although they allow our Churches to be true and that it is lawful to communicate with them which is the most plausible Plea they have this is so far from extenuating that it doth aggravate the fault for as the Brethren of the Assembly said Though they do not pronounce an affirmative Iudgement against us yet the very separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure But whatever may be said as to other Pleas for their present practices my Text seems to afford the strongest of all viz. that men are to be pressed to go no farther than they have already attained and not to be strained up to an uniformity beyond the dictates of their Consciences but to be let alone as the Apostle directs in the foregoing verse If any one be otherwise minded he must be left to God and that manifestation of his will which he will be pleased to give him The clearing of this will give a full answer to the second enquiry viz. 2. What is to be done if men cannot come up to the Rule prescribed To this therefore I answer in these particulars 1. This can never justifie men in not doing what they lawfully may do For this Rule of the Apostle makes Communion necessary as far as it is lawful and that upon the account of the general obligation lying upon all Christians to do what in them lies for preservation of the Peace of the Church Therefore as far as ye have attained walk by the same Rule do the same things which words saith Cajetan the Apostle subjoyns to the former left the persons he there speaks to should think themselves excused from going as far as they can as to the same Rule Which plainly shews that men are bound in Conscience to go as far as they can and I cannot see how it is consistent with that tenderness of Conscience which our Brethren pretend to for so many of them to live so many years in a neglect of that Communion with our Church which themselves judge to be lawful I dare say if most of the Preachers at this day in the separate Meetings were soberly asked their judgements whether it were lawful for the People to joyn with us in the publick Assemblies they would not deny it and yet the People that frequent them generally judge otherwise For it is not to be supposed that faction among them should so commonly prevail beyond interest and therefore if they thought it were lawful for them to comply with the Laws they would do it But why then is this kept up as such a mighty secret in the breasts of their Teachers Why do they not preach it to them in their Congregations Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to that is not to be imagined of mortified and conscientious men Is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves while they preach against Separation in a Separate Congregation This I confess looks oddly and the tenderness of a mans mind in such a case may out of meer shamefacedness keep him from declaring a Truth which flies in his face while he speaks it Is it that they fear the reproaches of the People which some few of the most eminent persons among them have found they must undergo if they touch upon this Subject for I know not how it comes to pass that the most Godly People among them can the least endure to be told of their faults But is it not as plainly written by S. Paul If I yet please men I should not be the Servant of Christ as Woe be unto me if I preach not the Gospel If they therefore would acquit themselves like