Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	book_n	church_n	faith_n	2,919	5	5.3557	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42757	Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G744; ESTC R177416	512,720	654

and as they say cum grano salis between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government We can not from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed setled ordinary rule The examples which have been alledged for the administration of Church-Government the purging away of scandals the ordering of the Ministery in the old Testament by the Temporall Magistrate or civill powers onely and by their owne immediate authority how truly alledged or how rightly apprehended shall appeare by and by this I say for the present diverse of them were extraordinary cases and are recorded as presidents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority not in a reformed and constituted Church but in a Church which is full of disorders and wholly out of course needing reformation So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires are no whit better than the Popish and Prelaticall Arguments for the lawfulnesse of the civill power and places of Clergymen as they called them drawne from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joyning with Moses and Eleazer with Ioshua in civill businesse of greatest consequence of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest and by Samuel the Prophet of the anointing of Iehu to be King by Elisha of the killing of Athaliah and the making of Ioash King by the authority of Iebojada the Priest of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah by fourscore valiant men of the Priests and such like cases Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a speciall commission from Artaxerxes to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy so Magistrats did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly sometimes by their own authority when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order place Ministers and restore the true service of the Lord after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperours and Kings also in the light of the new Testament yet where the Ministery of the Church is once lawfully constituted and they that are placed doe their Office faithfully all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to beare and obey their voyce and reverence the Majesty of the Sonne of God speaking in them In the third place let us take a particular survey of such Objections from which the Erastians doe conclude that the power of Church-gov●rnment in the old Testament was onely in the hand of the Magistrate And first concerning Moses it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Lawes and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord yea as a type of Jesus Chri●t the great Prophet Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civill Magistrate 2. Object We read not of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin adjoyned with Moses but onely of a civill Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders Num. 11. be understood onely of the civill Sanhedrin which some doe not admit though for my part I doe not gainsay it yet we read of the con●itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1. 2. And if there had been no dis●inct Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin in Moses his time yet by the Law Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose Of which also before And whereas M r Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest 2. intimateth that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were onely ●oyntly and together with the temporall Judges to resolve hard civill cases or controversies this sence can neither agree with the dis●unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke that is between leprosie and leprosie the decision whereof is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civill Judge As for the Talmud that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the yeere of 〈◊〉 367 nor finished before the yeere of Christ 500. The Ierusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the yeere of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jewes No marvell therefore if these declining times did weare out the memory of some part of their former government 3. Object The King was by Gods appointment entrusted with the custody of the booke of the Law Deut. 17. 18. 2 King 11. 12. Answ. 1. The principall charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 9 24 25 26. Of the King it is onely said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a coppy of this law in a Booke out of that which is before the Priests and Levites 2. I heartily yeeld that a lawfull Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen ought to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables and as Gods V●cegerent hath authority to punish haynous sinnes against either Table by civill or corporall punishments which proves nothing against a 〈◊〉 Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ. 4. Object King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chr●… 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests Levites and Porters in the Temple Answ. David did not this thing as a King but as a Prophet 2 〈◊〉 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord 2 hro 29. 25. According to the commandement of David and of G●…d the Kings seer and Nathan the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets Which cleareth also Solomons part for beside that himselfe also was a Prophet he received from David the man of God a patterne of that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord and directions concerning the courses of the Levites 1 Chro. 28. 11 12 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14. 5 Object King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood and did put 〈◊〉 in his place Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assis●ing and ayding Adonijah against Solomon whom not onely his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne So that

by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil

bibit SIBI NON TIBI c. Of which last sentence if M r Prynne can make good Latine let him doe it for I can not and when he hath done so he may be pleased to looke over his Bookes better to seeke those words elsewhere if he can finde them for as yet he hath directed us to seeke them where they are not My next Animadversion shall be this The words of Augustine which M r Prynne alledgeth for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament are these Tract 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino Absit Medicus non daret venenum salutem medicus dedit sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit quia non pacatus accepit Thus the originall though not so recited by M r Prynne but that I passe so long as he retaines the substance Yet how will he conclude from these words that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper unlesse he make Augustine to contradict himselfe most grossely for Tract 62. in Joh. another place whether M r Prynne directeth us speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Iudas he saith Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ as some negligently reading doe thinke Which words Beda also in his Comment on Ioh. 13. hath out of Augustine It is Augustines opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time at which Iudas was present That which M r Prynne citeth out of Algerus a Monke who in that same booke writeth expresly for Transubstantiation maketh more against him then for him For Algerus takes the ●eason of Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas to be this because his perverse conscience though knowne to Christ was not then made manifest Iudas not being accused and condemned so that he was a secret not a scandalous sinner Thus farre we have a taste of M r Prynnes citations of the Ancients Peradventure it were not hard to finde as great flaws in some other of those citations But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it Among the re● he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud sacramentum sumere that is who being defiled with haynous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament but if he had thought it as Master Prynne doth the most effectuall ordinance and readiest meanes to worke conversion and repentance he could not have said so That which M r Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia doth not assert that for which he citeth them For neither of them saith that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Belgik confession saith an evill man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation As for example Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramentall signe I can subscribe to all this for it is true in respect of the baptisme both of Iudas and Simon Magus But I must here put M r Prynne in minde that the thing which he pleads for is extreamly different from that which the Belgick Churches hold For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper except he who hath first made a confession of his faith and hath subjected himselfe to the Church Discipline and hath proved himselfe by faithfull witnesses to be of an unblameable life The other confession of Bohemia saith that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himselfe did also execute the function of a Preacher and yet he ceased not to remaine a divell an hypocrite c. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper which if he had received how did he still remaine an hypocrite for that very night his wickednesse did breake forth and was put in execution but of the Passeover received by Iudas once and againe if not the third time That Chapter is of Sacraments in generall and that which is added is concerning Ananias and his wife their being baptised of the Apostles However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly looke to it and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs or cast Pearles before swine Which is there applied to the Sacraments and is not understood of preaching and admonishing onely as M r Prynne understands it Also the Booke entituled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Eccles●…astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not onely Church-discipline in generall but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders Finally whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Booke as it hath lost the authority which once it had so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that Iudas received the Sacrament as D. Kellet sheweth at some length in his Tricaenium The citation in which M. Prynne is most large is that of Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. membr 2. art 1. sect 4. though not so quoted by him But for a retribution I shall tell him three great points in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist is utterly against his principles First Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye Pearles before swine doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known prophane Christians for both in that Section which hath been cited and art 3. sect 1. answering objections from that Text he doth not say that it is meant of the word not of the Sacrament and of Infidels Hereticks Persecutors not of prophane ones but he ever supposeth that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text to consent to give the Sacrament to prophane scandalous sinners Secondly Alexander Alensis holds that Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to publique notorious scandalous sinners though they doe desire it And thus he resolveth Ib. art 3. sect 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortall sinne he ought to admonish him in secret that he approach not to the Table of the Lord and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ if he desire it in secret But if he desire it in publique then either his sinne is publique or secret I●… publique he ought to deny it unto him neither so doth he reveale sinne because it is publique If private he must give it lest

whole Diocesse consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in his name by vertue of authority and order from him and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pastorall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments to more Congregations then one and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches being lawfully called to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Presbyterie 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors so they utterly denyed the very offices of ruling Elders and Deacons for taking more especiall care of the poor in particular Congregations 6. They did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation and reclamante Ecclesiâ which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge which the Presbyterial Government doth not 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergie alone as they kept up the name to have decisive suffrage The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters Diocesan or Nationall Synods In Presbyteriall Government all in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall administration are called to an account in Presbyteries Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall they were Lords of Parliament they held Civil places in the State which the Presbyterial Government condemneth 12. The Prelats were not chosen by the Church Presbyters are 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes binding the Conscience even in things indifferent and did persecute imprison fine depose excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers This the Presbyteriall Government abhorreth 14. They did excommunicate for money matters for trifles Which the Presbyteriall Government condemneth 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion their Decrees and Canons so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences but admitteth yea commendeth the searching of the Scriptures whether these things which it holds forth be not so and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo sic jubeo but desireth they may doe in faith what they do 16. The Prelates held up pluralities non-residencies c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel so they kept up in diverse places a reading non-preaching Ministery Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suffereth not 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous Arminianized and popishly affected men and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs as theirs was to the right 19. Their Official Courts Commissaries c. did serve themselves H●ires to the sons of Eli Nay but thou shalt give it me now and if not I will take it by force The Presbyterial Government 〈◊〉 such proceedings 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume pot●…statem utriusque gladij the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall punishments I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side and the Presbyterial Government on the other side in this point of unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse These differences which I have given may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men to beware of such odiou● and unjust comparisons as have been used by some and among others by Mr. Sal●…marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie Which as it cannot strike against us nor any of the Reformed Churches who acknowledge no such Presbyterie as he describeth and in some particulars striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament as namely in point of the Directory so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination might with more truth lay diverse of those imputations upon those whom I beleeve he is most unwilling they should be laid upon In the third place The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination and from being accountable to and censurable by Classes or Synods must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power than the Presbyterial Churches do especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract See their Apologetical narration pag. 10 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity or bounded within certain particular rules I say not with others but even among themselves as the Presbyterian way will ad●it of Finally The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrarinesse as Civil or Military Government hath there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude 〈◊〉 to those who manage the same so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God But Presbyterial Government is tyed up to the rules of Scripture in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church Though in other particular occasional circumstances of times places accommodations and the like the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate And thus I have made good what I said That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government doth overthrow as to this Point Master Hussey's Observation pag. 9. of the irregularity and arbitrarinesse of Church-government And so much of my fourth Conc●ssion The fifth shall be this 'T is far from our meaning that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion or things and causes Ecclesiastical and that he is to take care of the Common-wealth but not of the Church Certainly there is much power and Authority which