Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	authority_n	church_n	person_n	1,479	5	5.0691	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26859	Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denyeth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendred, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.; Answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation. 1680	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1680 (1680)	Wing B1183; ESTC R10441	92,845	104

that the Gospel is not preached by Vs or whether it be or not that you are bound to preach it still and so much seems to be implied in your 7 th Question viz. That it is a sacriledge culpably to alienate an Ordained Minister vowed to the sacred Office And because this comes nearest to the matter in hand and seems very much to stick with you I shall desire you to resolve these Queries 1. Whether it be not in the power of those who give Orders in a Christian Church to limit and suspend the Exercise of the Ministerial Function without Sacriledge If not how could the Christian Church in its best and purest times pretend to reduce Bishops and Presbyters to a Lay-Communion of which you may read so often in St. Cyprian's Epistles Nay what Church is there to be named that doth not assume this power to it self without the least suspition of Sacriledge And it would be very strange that this Notion of Sacriledge should never be understood before 2. Whether Christian Magistrates may not justly restrain those Ministers from Preaching who after the experience of former Troubles do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve 〈◊〉 again in the like Troubles 3. To what purpose any such Authority is either in Church or State if those who are legally silenced may go on to preach publickly in opposition to the established Laws only in supposition that they were wrongfully ejected This I am certain is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband A. D. 1644. p. 41. besides what you may find in my Sermon p. 51. only the Testimony of Dr. Gouge ought to be corrected th● p. 513 514. Their words are if a guiltless Person put out of his charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it what proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are always guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they also will be always ready to object against the Churches judgment that they are called of God and may not therefore give over the execution of their Ministry at the will of Man 4. Whether there be the same obligation now lying upon Ministers to preach the Gospel in a Nation where the Gospel is confessed to be truly preached when they are forbidden to do it by the Laws of the Land as there was upon the Apostles to preach it first to the World notwithstanding ●he prohibitions of men The disparity seems so obvious to me that I could hardly believe men of understanding would alledge the Apostles words to justifie their present practises had I not so often seen it done But that the old Non-conformists did truly understand the disparity of the case you may see it in 3 instances in the former Book which I shall refer you to But you ask one matterial Question in behalf of the People viz. Are none of our hearers more competent judges than their Accusers what profiteth their own souls And is this in your judgment a tolerable Plea for Separation then there can be no such thing as an unjustifiable or sinful separation since the people are left to be their own judges For where was any separation made but upon such a pretence And upon this ground the people may leave you to morrow and go to Doctor O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers and still plead that they are more competent judges than their Accusers what profiteth their own souls No one would think by such Questions as these that ever you had written so much against Separation and spoken so freely of the mischief of it Thus I have pickt out those Queries which come nearest to the matter of Separation and given a suffieient Answer to them But as to the other remaining concerning the constituent regent part of a National Church the One Rule mentioned by the Apostle and whether you or I have studied longer or to better purpose I have in civility passed them over as no more relating to our business than determining the Principle of Individuation is to the keeping of the sixth Commandment And I am resolved in debate of this nature not to be drawn off by any by-Queries from the main thing in Controversie I do not press you to any speedy Answer but I desire you rather to weigh and consider things impartially than to give too hasty a Reply I am neither fond of Controversie nor can I desert so just and clear a Cause as I take this against Separation to be from which I shall not be moved by the noise and censures of weak and injudicious people who I find as you formerly observed can least endure to be touched in this matter If you please at your leisure to return an Answer to this paper it shall be thankfully received by SIR Your faithful Friend and Servant EDWARD STILLINGFLEET My sudden removal into the Country upon the receipt of yours must excuse my sending this no sooner A Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet's Letter being the sum of our Controversie § 1. I Confess I was so well assured of the Divine obligations which lay on me to do these things which you judg my sin that my expectations from your return were very low But yet I thought it my duty to try whether you had more than I knew of to say for my Conviction before I ventured on a Defence But your refusal to convince and satisfie me increaseth my confidence that it is my great duty which you account my sin § 2. Did you not write to be understood Or must I only not understand you must I trouble the Reader by gathering all the passages where you expresly speak to me viz. As One of them and as going beyond the Independants and preaching unlawfully to them that unlawfully hear and as deeling more disingeniously and less fairly than the old Separatists and so almost from end to end § 3. Seeing you should have been very glad to have found an answer to your Sermon an Answer you shall have § 4. Seeing you will no further explain your great word separation I will answer it where I find it in your Sermon And if the Case must be no more intelligibly stated I must take it as you will do it § 5. To sum up all as far as I am able to understand you your Sermon containeth 1. The grounds supposed on which you build 2. Your Accusation of us on those grounds 3. The penalties which you justifie 4. And the cure which you desire I. As far as you are intelligible to me your supposed grounds are that God hath authorized the Magistrate 1. To choose what persons every man in his dominions shall entrust his soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey 2. And also to choose