Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	roman_a	4,251	5	8.1795	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81826	Of the right of churches and of the magistrates power over them. Wherein is further made out 1. the nullity and vanity of ecclesiasticall power (of ex-communicating, deposing, and making lawes) independent from the power of magistracy. 2. The absurdity of the distinctions of power and lawes into ecclesiasticall and civil, spirituall and temporall. 3. That these distinctions have introduced the mystery of iniquity into the world, and alwayes disunited the minds and affections of Christians and brethren. 4. That those reformers who have stood for a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, have unawares strenghthened [sic] the mystery of iniquity. / By Lewis du Moulin Professour of History in the Vniversity of Oxford.	Du Moulin, Lewis, 1606-1680.	1658 (1658)	Wing D2544; Thomason E2115_1; ESTC R212665	195,819	444

that there was no true proper church but a particular church that therefore a presbyterian nationall church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery is not properly said to be a church I am of opinion that the Roman church upon that account is very improperly called a church but most improperly a t●ue church for if it hardly deserveth the name of a church how can it be called a true one at least morally though it may be metaphysically it being a consociation of erroneous and hereticall churches for if every priva●e church within the Roman communion is so disfigured that I do not think it deserveth the name of a church how improperly then is a systern made up of those particular churches stiled a church And so I conceive that the question about the truenesse of the Romish church which hath so puzzled men may be easily resolved I have but one passage more of Amyraldus to alledge which a man could hardly believe to be the language of a professed enemy to the cause of the brethren For if they should state their own opinion of the power and independency of churches they cannot use more significant words then those of Amyraldus who in his disputation de concil author thes 28. saith that private churches ought to retain their full right li●erty and power untoucht specially in matters of great concernment as points of faith not submitting slavishly their own judgements to synods but expecting that synods should define and decree nothing till they have had the advice and approbation of particular churches This is the passage in Latin Alibi diximus pulcherrimum saluberrimum esse earum ecclesiarum institutum quae concillorum decreta ad res magni moment● qualia sunt dogmata fidet pertinentia rata esse noluerint nisi prius consultis synodis ecclesiis particular●bus quarum quaeque symbolam suam ad veritatis cluc'dationem conferat Salmasius followeth the steps of Amyraldus or rather Amyraldus of him for Amyraldus wrote last He is very large in his apparatus ad libros de primatu and I should be tedious to the reader to set down here all that he hath handsomely stated about the nature of a church I will only quote two pages which are 265. and 266. The substance of his discourse is comprehended under these 4 or 5 heads 1. That all churches by right are equall in power and dignity and are independent 2. That the consociation under the heathen Emperours was voluntary and by consent 3. That under Christian Emperours a consociation was introduced by humane right so that what was at first by free and mutuall consent came afterwards under the Christian Emperours to be of humane institution and constitution 4. That the unity of churches consisted not in an united collection of private churches but in an agreement in faith and doctrine for such an union there is betwixt the Helvetian Belgick and French churches who agreeing in the same faith and doctrine do notwithstanding differ in discipline so that these churches may be called independent each on the other yet they keep an union and communion among themselves No other communion and independency do the reverend dissenting brethren admit and practise either among themselves or with the presbyterian churches both at home and abroad 5. The fifth head is that a consociation of many particular churches joyned with the same band of discipline and under the direction counsell advice not the command or judiciall power of any synod or presbytery doth much conduce to the keeping the unity of faith the band of charity and the communion of saints In the same place and many others throughout his apparatus he saith that the communication betwixt particular churches was voluntary and by way of counsell every church reserving to themselves full right and power as to those acts of their discipline and the acts of binding and loosing so that every church had power to take cognizance of any fact and crime committed in their body to censure and excommunicate them or reconcile them again without any appeal to other churches or synods except it were to beg their friendly intercession for so they were wont to consult and entreat Bishops and namely him of Rome to review the sentence repairing to him as to an umpire not a judge to disannull or evacuate the judgement which makes the Romanists take those applications to the Bishop of ROme as an acknowledgement of supremacy over all the churches To these authorities Iwill adde that of learned and moderate Spanhemius who did not use invectives as others but arguments and reasons as good as he could yet in my opinion the good man mistaketh much in his Epistle to David Buchanan not so much through ignorance of the right as of the fact yet in the 55. page he hath these words which are much to the advantage of the brethren A particular church hath no power at all over another but they are all collateral and of equall right and authority Let us now hear other advocates of the brethren before the word independency came to be given to Protestants in the world The first is learned Amesius in his first book of the marrow of Divinity chapt ●0 where after he hath in the 17 18 19 20. and 26 sections spoken of the parity and equality of particular churches in right and power in the 27. section he tells us what consociation of particular churches may be admitted these be his words Particular churches may yea ought to have a mutuall confederation and consociation amongst them in classes and synods that by a common consent they may be helpfull one to another with as much commodity as may be chiefly in things of greater concernment but this combination doth not constitute a new frame of church neither ought it in any sort to take away that liberty and power which Christ hath left to his churches since this form is only usefull by way of direction John Mestrezat a very learned orthodox Divine lately deceased minister of Paris goeth upon the same grounds with Amesius in his book of the church written in French and his testimony is most considerable because being a French-man he could not know or foresee as Amesius perchance might any such plea in England about right or power of churches aggregated It would be too long here to set down his own words at large For those that understand French they may see specially the 1 chap. of the 3. book where he saith that all power to do any church acts is placed in the particular church that all church-priviledges and promises were made and granted unto and in consideration of a particular church assembled in one place As for aggregation and consociation of churches he holds it not to be grounded upon any pattern or command from Scripture or even from a judiciall power given by Christ to classes synods presbyteries over particular churches but meerly assumed prudentially for mutuall preservation

clergy-man or not was decided capitall only excepted For matters of faith I confesse there be many Emperours sanctions forbidding secular courts to meddle with them but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more then declarative not sancitive For 1. This very sanction that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith was a law of the Emperour and the episcopall courts or synods could not challenge any power therein but by a commission from the Emperour 2. The Emperours did not conceive themselves obliged to receive lawes concerning faith from the Bishops or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperours dominions except they were approved of and ratified by them 3. The Emperours did not think themselves much obliged to receive lawes of doctrine and faith from the Bishops in regard that most of the lawes and constitutio is concerning the fundamentall points of faith were composed reduced and inserted into the Code without so much as taking counsell or advice of the Bishops though we never read that they ever complained thereof Only a late famous Lawyer and a Papist in his book de Iustinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiasticall power seated in the clergy 4. And the power that the Emperours challenged to belong solely to them to call synods to chuse members to review their acts to approve ratifie disannull or give them the vigour and strength of lawes obliging all churches and men to obedience either active or passive is an argument that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperours did in calling of synods making lawes and decrees and requiring from all churches and church-members obedience to them the Emperours did not conceive otherwise of those acts of theirs but as of acts of magistracy taken up by consent for want of a Christian magistrate and which was to last no longer then till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperours and the Bishops at that time how came it that Constantine the Great the other Christian Emperours that came after him did not rather wish the Bishops clergy to call synods upon their own authority as they were wont to do and how came it that O●ius Spiridion Paphnutius did not disswade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods telling him that it was more then did belong to him and speak in the language of Mr. Gillespie that ministers by virtue of their office are to call and assemble synods that it is altogether unreasonable that they should be abridged of what they had enjoyed for 300. years and now loose a main branch of their ecclesiasticall power that hitherto it was not so much as thought on that magistracy which is not a thing essentiall to the church should so far entrench upon the government of Christ wherewith the ministers are solely entrusted But these notions came not into the minds either of the Emperours or of Osius Eustatius Paphnutius and others nor of Hierom who questioned the validity of a synod that was not convocated by the Emperour These good men did not quarrell either at the convocation of synods or at the making or giving of lawes to churches by the sole authority of the Emperours 5. A further proof that neither the Emperours nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces conceived that Bishops and clergy-men had any judiciall power distinct from theirs is that for many 100. years in most parts of the Roman Empire as it then was Emperours and Kings kept state-assemblies where both clergy and laity sate and voted without any such distinction of power ecclesiasticall and civil I should here shew as I promised in the beginning of the chapter that the very heathens never knew any such distinction of power for although the law of nature and nations taught them that there must be a sacred function distinct from others yet they never knew nor understood that the jurisdiction of that function was distinct from that of the others for many thousand years neither the people of God nor the heathens knew any such distinction Aristotle in the third of his politicks ch 10. speaking of heroick Kings the Kings saith he were judges and moderators in all divine matters So was the Roman Senat both before and after it was governed by Emperours for it was wont to consecrate Emperours and the name of Pontifex Maximus of which they were so jealous was taken by the Emperours even till Gratians time In short they alwayes conceived that a common magistracy and soveraign power was made up of these two main ingredients viz. ceremonies about religion and humane lawes both put in trust with the soveraign magistrate One thing I cannot but observe that the very heathens by the light of nature have gone here beyond Mr. Gillespie For to confirm a common errour that the church jurisdiction is wholly independent from the magistrate and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporall life having nothing to do with promoting the eternall good of the soul to confirm I say this errour he teacheth us that magistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediatour ex natura rei But this errour is refuted by the very heathen namely Aristotle in his 3. book of Politicks ch 16. where he saith that the scope of politicks is not simply to live but to live well I should ask Mr. Gillespie when a magistrate turneth from heathenism to Christianity whether his first duty is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven both for himself and all that are under his charge There is also a notable passage of Pareus among his Miscellanea Catechetica artic 11. aphoris 18. where he lamenteth that heathens should surpasse Christians in this particular in attributing more to the magistrate for ordering matters of religion and that they in this point should be more orthodox these be his words Ac sane dolendum est rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos qui unanimi consensu regi suo demandarunt curam religion●s cultus Deorum idque persuasi tam jure naturae quam gentium As pregnant a proof that the same persons amongst the heathens had the managing of religious as well as civil affairs is that of Cicero in his Oration pro domo sua ad Pontifices the words are these Praeclare à majoribus nostris constitutum est quod vos eosdem religionibus Deorum immortalium summae reipublicae praeesse voluerunt ut amplissimi clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo religiosissimi religiones sapienter interpretando rempublicam conservarent It was excellently well ordained by our ancestours that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion and the supreme government of state that so whilst the most

the magistrate is not head of the church more then of other societies for as the callings of a physitian merchant smith sea-man so of a Christian as Christian and church-member are not subordinate to magistracy but only under the notion of and as they are members of families societies corporations and commonwealths in all which magistracy is virtually and eminently resident in regard that no society of men can be imagined to be governed either without a power delegate from the magistrate or without assuming magistracy within it self In that sense the magistrate may be said for these three or four reasons to be head of a visible nationall church 1. Because the matter manner and extent of the power exercised by that church being wholly the same with that of the magistrate it is needlesse to make of one power two and therefore the magistrate being the supreme governour in the managing of that power exercised alike in all kinds of societies within his dominion he may very properly be the supreme governour as well of churches as of all other societies 2. The magistrate may be said to be head of the visible church because there is no man of what place function calling dignity so ever he be that in an externall visible way can so much promote the interest of Jesus Christ and the building up of his Kingdom as the supreme magistrate not so much considered as Christian but as magistrate and by vertue of his magistracy None doth doubt but that one single woman namely Queen Elizabeth being a magistrate did contribute more for establishing and spreading the Gospell of Christ in England then all the godly ministers put together in the dayes of Queen Mary Let but one single magistrate countenance religion this will avail more then thousands of Greenhams or Bradfords under a magistrate of a contrary religion Sure where God hath given more ability and power to do good he also hath placed there more right duty to promote that good I think there was more stresse of duty laid upon Queen Elizabeth to advance Christs Kingdom in England then on 100. Bradfords Latimers and Ridleys in Queen Maries dayes A 3. ground may be added why the sovereign magistrate may be called the head of the church and which is much pressed by Reynolds Martyr Musculus Bullingerus Gualterus Zanchius Pareus is because all the decisions of ministers about matters of faith or discipline are but mere counsels advices and directions not binding externally that is actively or passively any church society or corporation except they receive a sanction from the magistrate and besides that these sanctions are not to be made by him caeco judicio with a blind judgement standing to their determination without examination and doing as much as those of Beroea who ere they believed St. Paul searched the Scriptures to know whether it was so as he preached As no obedience is to be rendred by any person society or corporation without they duly weigh in their judgement of discretion whether the command be just or no so a command is not to be made by the person whose duty and part it is to command untill he first understandeth and apprehendeth by his judgement of discretion the thing to be a good and a fitting rule of obedience So that since presbyteries and ●ynods cannot enforce obligation of obedience to their declarations and decisions without the injunction and command of the magistrate since also he is not to enjoin or command any thing repugnant to his own judgement it doth consequently follow that good reason it is that he who last is to judge and command any thing propounded and debated in whatever assembly of men should be stiled the sovereign judge head ruler and governour of those things that are solely in his own power Fourthly he may be said to be head of the church because of three main duties which are annexed to his office of magistracy which comprehend what is requisite for life godlinesse and happinesse The 1. is provisio mediorum conducentium ad finem optimum provision of the means conducing to the best end 2. remotio impedientium the removing of hinderances 3. actualis directio in illum finem an actuall direction ordering things to that end These 3. conditions Javellus a Romish Bishop layes down to assert the soveraign power of the magistrate in judging providing ordering and removing in order to obtaining the best end which he saith is the main felicity of man Lastly he may be well called head of the church that receiveth appeals from all church-judicatories and disannuls or ratifies their judgements and sentences But Mr. Rutherfurd denieth those acts to be appeals being not in eadem serie from a lower ecclesiasticall court to a superiour ecclesiasticall court and saith that from an ecclesiasticall court to a civil as to the magistrate there is no appeal but a removall by a declinator a complaint a refuge But we having proved that synods presbyteries c. have no jurisdiction but what they have from the magistrate therefore all appeals from a church-judicatorie to the magistrate are but from an inseriour court of the magistrate to a superiour of the same magistrate Rivet on the decalogue had not learned such squibs of distinctions betwixt appeals and refuges complaints and declinators for by any means he would have men to appeal to the magistrate from church-sentences Ministers as ministers are the subjects of the soveraign magistrate and why may it not be lawfull for subjects to appeal from the judgements of subjects to the supreme magistrate and why may it not be lawfull to the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects to ratifie them if they be good and abolish them if they be bad For call those removals what you will so that the thing be still the same for he that from an unjust sentence of a church-judicatorie hath his recourse to the magistrate both declines the sentence of that court appeals to a higher court and makes his complaint to him that can redresse him help him and disannull the first sentence I confesse if a man be condemned in England he may have his refuge to some neighbour Prince but this Prince can but protect him from the execution of the sentence against him but cannot disannull the sentence against him nor restore him in statu quo prius Such are the examples of Chrysostomus Flavianus and Athanasius which are to no purpose for they repaired to the Bishop of Rome desiring indeed to be judged by him but they did not look upon him as their superiour that could relieve them and quash the sentence against them they repaired to him only as to a mediatour and intercessour Authorities should now make good what I have proved to be consonant to reason such as might be brought out of the best reformers as Martyr Reynolds Pareus Chamier who make no other supreme visible governour of the church then the soveraign magistrate but I will