Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n bishop_n king_n parliament_n 5,693 5 6.5815 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

them The synod of the Apostles was extraordinary not exemplary The exception of the brethren of Scotland against the 2. article of the 31. chapter of the confession examined The uses abuses of synods that they are not the way to compose differences in matters of religion if their canons are beyond counsells and advices HAving examined what plea the Rever Assembly can have in the 30. chapter of their confession for a government distinct from that of the magistrate the 31. chapter which is of synods and councells is more superficially to be handled for what we have said before of the jurisdiction of churches plainly sheweth that the jurisdiction of synods is no otherwise distinct from that of the magistrate for since synods must be made up of church-officers it is not possible they should impart to synods what they have not in churches and that those that have not a jurisdiction in churches distinct from that of the magistrate should delegate to themselves a power which they never had I admit willingly the necessity of synods as the first section doth synods being necessary whether magistrates be orthodox or not 1. for preserving and restoring truth 2. for uniting churches in one judgement 3. for keeping an externall communion of Saints And it were to be wished as the magistrate of England hath set up again the Lords house so they would re-establish a house of convocation or an assembly of ministers meeting at the same time that the Parliament sits treating such questions in matters of religion as should be propounded to them by the Parliament or they themselves should petition the Parliament to be handled not being invested with more judiciall power then a company of merchants or sea-men called by the Parliament to give their advice about trade and navigation in which convocation the major part of votes should not be so much regarded by the Parliament as the weight of their opinions and reasons and therefore as it was in the last assembly where 20. did not prevail against one dissenting brother so this convocation should return to the Parliament not the result of the whole assembly because carried by the major part of the members but the names of parties assenting and dissenting This convocation I humbly conceive ought to be made up only of ministers of the Gospell that have wholly set apart themselves for the work of the ministery and study of Divinity For as the supreme magistrate usually calls men of that calling and profession about which he is to make lawes as being the most fit to give counsell in the thing they are called for so doubtlesse none are so fit to be advised with in matters concerning religion as those that are most learned and versed in it for I hold them not only the fitter members in an assembly convened to treat of matters concerning religion but also not unfit yea as fit as any other men to sit and vote in Parliaments For this opinion of a double jurisdiction ecclesiasticall and civil that lay-men must be judges in civil courts and ministers in ecclesiasticall assemblies as it hath barred lay-men from sitting at least from voting in synods and councels so hath it removed clergy-men from sitting and being judges in civil courts and Parliaments which opinion hath out-gone the Papists in some things for though they do not permit lay-men to have votes yea hardly to sit in synods yet do the popish magistrates admit ecclesiasticall men in their courts and judicatories thus lately Bishops in England sate in Parliament I confesse that Popes to advance the building of their empire within the empires of magistrates Kings and Emperours would be sure to have an oare in every boat yea more for though they have members of their own in civil courts yet they permit no members of civil courts to sit and vote in synods and councels But some Protestant magistrates in reforming popery as they have not so much relinquisht and parted with their own right as popish magistrates to loose their right in calling and voting in synods so have they more wronged the clergy debarring them from sitting and voting in their courts which I humbly conceive to be a losse to the magistrate and a wrong and injury done to the ministers and thereupon I propound these considerations 1. Debarting of the ministers from sitting and voting in Parliament hath occasioned and confirmed mens minds specially of ministers in that opinion that there is such a thing in Scripture and reason as a government in the hands of church-officers distinct from that of the magistrate and that there is a double jurisdiction two judicatories one civil whereof the magistrates and laity are members and judges and another ecclesiasticall in which ministers only must sit and vote for ministers think it but reasonable that since they are kept off by the laity from being members in Parliament and in all civil judicatories so likewise the magistrate and the laity should not be admitted to sit and vote in synods whereas it being certain that there is no ground in Scripture or reason for a double jurisdiction a government distinct from that of the magistrate and all judiciall proceedings in whatsoever court assembly Parliament synods presbyteries being acts of the magistrates jurisdiction the minister now considered as as member of a Christian common-wealth ought to enjoy the same priviledge as the other members of it All which make me conceive that it was more heat then reason that made so many write against the Bishops voting in Parliament besides it was no good work to divide jurisdictions which by the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament like other ranks of men were re-united 2. There being in a Parliament men of all sorts and ranks gentlemen lawyers physitians apothecaries merchants and they all having an equall interest to maintain religion lands liberty lawes wife and children of their own it is altogether unreasonable that ministers that are alike concerned in all these and are as well members of the Commonwealth as the best of them should notwithstanding as it were be culled out from having that priviledge that others of their fellow-citizens enjoy 3. It is known that men do not sit and vote in Parliament as merchants physitians silk-men or drapers and that if there be new lawes to make or old to alter suppose about some manufacture as cloth-working a member of Parliament being professour of that craft which is in agitation is the most able to discourse upon that subject and to state how the thing may be regulated and this he doth as a professour of the craft about which the law is to be made but when the thing debated is to be carried by vote receive the stamp of law of publick authority then I say none of the members give their votes as professours of the art and science which they exercise in the Commonwealth and which is debated in Parliament no not if a member were a chief justice of England
but all sit and vote as men invested with power of legislation and at that time a physitian voteth not in the quality and capacity of a physitian no not when lawes are made for physitians and apothecaries although when they are in debate a physitian may discourse pertinently of physick as a physitian and skilfull in his art This is the very case of ministers of the Gospell who for that reason that men do not sit and vote in Parliament considered as men of such a calling or profession in the Commonwealth ought likewise to vote sit in Parliament for as the profession of physick or manufacture doth not devest a man from being a good and understanding Commonwealths-man so neither doth the pastorall calling 4. It seems to me very unreasonable yea unconscionable that any mans profession or habit how high or low soever should lay an incapacity upon the person of one though never so much capable and sufficient to contribute his wit and counsell towards the common-weal as if the magistrate would not take a loan of money of 100000 l. of one that had a long cloak but would be willing to take it of one that had a short cloak or a man in danger of drowning would not take his neighbour by the cloak or by his hair for fear of spoiling or disordering of them for thus do those which will not admit the advice of a minister in publick deliberations were he never so able to serve the Common-wealth by his wit wisedome and industrie and the need never so great meerly because of his habit and his profession of the ministery Which calling I am so far from thinking that it doth disinable him from sitting and voting in Parliament that not only it renders him the fitter but also that he is not thereby hindred from attempting any noble action which might turn to some great publick benefit A minister having the valour of Caesar ability to subdue Rome or a secret to burn all the ships of the King of Spain in his ports I conceive that his ministery ought not to keep him off from being employed to use all his industry to serve the Church of God or his countrey in such a way But why is not a physitian disinabled by his profession to sit in Parliament and a Divine is whenas there is a great deal more affinity betwixt the profession of a Divine and the debates in Parliament then betwixt them and the profession of physick 5. Although men do not usually fit and vote in Parliament by the right of the calling and profession they are of in the Commonwealth except they sit by their birth yet it were to be wisht that men that are generally more skilled in most professions and best able to judge what is right or wrong and are not ignorant of affairs of the world should be called such as I conceive are university-men and ministers of the Gospell 6. Since the greatest end of magistracy is to advance the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus and that for obtaining of that end it is needfull to make lawes and constitutions subservient to it why should ministers of all men be left out whose education and profession renders them more capable to advise for the obtaining of that great end 7. Since also there is such a complication betwixt the church state as they cannot so much as be imagined asunder and that most lawes and constitutions made by men are grounded upon and have some warrant from Divine writ and that those that appoint by law oaths to be taken should at least be well advised about the nature of the oath I do conceive that since all ranks are promiscuously called to advise about these of all men ministers best furnished and stored with knowledge and acquainted with the right and plea of conscience upon which equity right and law is grounded should not be forgot Why should not men who make it their whole employment to study the judgements of God be as fit judges in Parliaments and high courts of judicature as Physitians or merchants 8. There is the same reason for ministers to sit in Parliament as there was for priests and Levites to sit in synagogues and judiciall assemblies of the Jewes and in all consultations of state it being certain that the great Sanedrim was a mixture of Priests and Levites with the Princes and heads of the people 9. There is equall reason that if the supreme magistrate calls say-men to sit and vote in synods he should call the clergy to sit and vote in Parliament 10. There was no such thing so much as heard for many hundred years after the fourth age that ministers and Bishops should be thought incapable to sit and vote in the supreme courts of the nation I could prove it by the practise of Italy Germanie France Spain and England for above 7 or 8 hundred years even far within popery that though the Pope had much advanced the hatching of his two egges ecclesiasticall civil jurisdiction yet all state-assemblies were not distinguisht either from synods or from civil courts but promiscuously men of all ranks and professions Senators Bishops Lords Priests Gentlemen did sit and vote in one assembly and place about any matter whatsoever rite law discipline or ceremony Neither is it to be conceived that the causes debated in these assemblies were divided into two classes and that when ecclesiasticall matters were handled clergy-men did then vote and lay-men sate mute and when civil were in agitation then the clergy were silent and lay-men did only appear as judges which is indeed a pretty conceit but will not serve for a double jurisdiction He that will see that further proved at large needs but only read Blondellus de jure plebis c. and Mr. Prinne in his book of Truth triumphing over falshood A thing very considerable it is that during all these ages clergy-men because they were most skill'd in controversies of d●vinity exercised to speak in publick were also thought the fitter to judge right from wrong and to meddle with secular matters and therefore in courts of law or chancery clergy-men dispatched more businesses then the laity handled all cases except it may be criminall matters and wills not being permitted to be executors of Testaments otherwise they filled the courts so far that there were no knowing men yea none that could read or write but they hence to this day no court Justice of peace or lawyer but hath his clerk and they say still legit ut clericus he reads like a clerk This I find much urged by a famous lawyer a Romanist John du Tillet in his memoires who speaking of the encroachments of the Popes of Rome saith that they have alwayes endeavoured to sever what from the times of the Apostles was united and to make of one jurisdiction two which yet they could not so distinctly separate but that still to our dayes one may see it was not so in the beginning and