Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	duty_n	inferior_n	superior_n	2,927	5	13.3188	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90523	A defence of church-government, exercised in presbyteriall, classicall, & synodall assemblies; according to the practise of the reformed churches: touching I. The power of a particular eldership, against those that plead for a meere popular government, specially Mr Ainsvvorth in his Animadversion to Mr Clyft. &c. II. The authority of classes and synods, against the patrons of independencie: answering in this poynt Mr Davenport his Apologeticall reply, &c. and Mr Canne his Churches plea, &c, sent forth first by W. Best, and afterwards for this part of it, under the title of Syons prerogative royall. By Iohn Paget, late able and faithfull pastour of the Reformed English Church in Amsterdam. Hereunto is prefixed an advertisement to the Parliament, wherein are inserted some animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance against Presbytery: by T.P.	Paget, John, d. 1640.; Paget, Thomas, d. 1660.	1641 (1641)	Wing P166; Thomason E117_1; ESTC R16734	348,418	298

helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell in this matter 3. In case of right and lawfull administration 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those who finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence appeale to the judgement of the Synod In which 3 last limitations other Churches to whose judgement or advice persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale doe concurr in way of counsail declaratiō of their judgement to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr Mr Fen. out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages which being so understood doeth not justifie any undue power of jurisdiction if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases manner complained of by the Subscribers how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section will appeare to the indifferent Reader whē he shall have compared both together ANSVV. The judgment of Mr P. is very partially corruptly described by Mr D. in this place for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds lest it should seem to be absolute by every one of these it is manifest that he acknowledged this authority power and jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell and admonition He sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. The first limitation is ad rem propriam unto their proper businesse for in a common matter the Synod is chief that is the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together is the chiefest Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod 2. Let any Scripture be alledged by Mr Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them for what reason is there why the counsell and admonition of a Synod may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches The second limitation is also in a proper businesse to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis in the case of sufficient ability for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority in Synods but if Synods were onely for counsell admonition what needed a supremacy of power seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours admonish them also of their duety Mr P. shewes well that in case of impotencie or weaknes the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem c. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his glosse when he saith they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy If counsell onely had bene sought why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise why did they also make a decree and this not onely by authority of the Apostles but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod Act. 15.23 16.4 The third limitation is in a proper busines and ability also to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration for vve are to think the same of the Church as of every Pastour of the Church now vve have shewed before out of Gerson touching the rectour that he in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration is subject so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes as to a Bishop but onely to many of his Church so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority then a bare counsell or admonition onely for 1. He often useth the word of subjection which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church that is to their jurisdiction and censure 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsell and admonition otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pastours and Churches subjection seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes and the Church erring offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one particular Church though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall but onely to many in a lawfull Synod The fourth limitation is in case of right administration when no evill administration is presumed or imagined for although the Church administer aright yet if any man thinking himself wronged do appeale from it the same is now become obnoxious or subject unto the censure of her fellowes and sisters so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration That Mr P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods it is evident while for the allowance of appeales he alledges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica of the University of Paris and of D. Whitaker who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges Againe in the same chapter he sayth (g) Pa. 31● Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him yet alwayes of the Church that is of a Synod of many Churches Againe in the same page We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church Thus we see 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies shewes that

Priest sayd to make him polluted or to make him cleane Lev. 13.3.6 c. in such (f) timme tibar phrases as in their full signification doe expresse unto us the judiciall sentence of their remoovall out of the host as well as a bare declaration of their opinion in the matter even as the like use of other phrases in the Scripture Deut. 25.1 Prov. 17.15 signifying to (g) hitsdik hirshiagn make just to make wicked doe also import the judiciall sentence of absolution condemnation not onely a declaration of the Iudges opinion thereabouts 2. It is noted of the Prieft that in doubtfull cases in the tryall of the leprosy he should shut up him that had the plague seven daves Levit. 13.4 5. now as he had the power of suspension in a doubtfull case to shut up for a time so by your owne doctrine it will follow that in a manifest case of leprosy he had the power of shutting out the leper untill the time that he was cleane 3. The Lord requires the like submission subjection unto the judgement sentence of the Priests in matters of controversy betweene plague plague as he doth unto the Iudge in his judgements Deut. 17 8-13 and therefore as the Iudges had the power of judgement giving sentence Civilly so had the Priefts power of judgement Ecclesiastically 4. Whereas you (h) Confes art 25. shew every member of the Church to be subject unto the censure of excommunication by alledging 2. Chron. 26.20 you may thereby discerne the weaknes of your proportion for the power of the people for in that storye you see how the King Vzziah so soone as his leprosy appeared was hastily remooved caused to depart out of the Temple and this by the authority of the Priests without waiting to ask the consent of the people And therefore if Ministers Elders have now as much power to excommunicate as the Priests had then to remoove that Leper then your proportion for the people vanisheth as a smoak 5. Though the children of Israel be commanded to put the Leper out of the campe Num. 5.2 yet is the practise thereof to be understood according to the diversity of mens callings namely so that the Priests did put out the Leper by giving sentence pronoucing him uncleane the people by complaining bringing the matter unto the Priest in the first place helping to execute it in the last place 6. Whereas you grant a proportion herein thus farre (i) Animadv p. 19.20 that as every Priest then might according to the Law declare what was leprosy so every Minister now may ought by the law to declare what is sinne heresy this though it be without or against the consent of the Church of all the world your grant herein is nothing worth while you grant as much both to the Prophets people under the Law as well as to the Priests and to the Prophets people now as well as to the Ministers Elders The declaration of sinne the triall conviction of sinne you doe now allow to one as well as to the other Lastly as the Lord commands the children of Israel to remoove the leper our of the campe so he gives them the like charge for those that were defiled by the dead or by uncleane issues Numb 5.2 And yet who will say that the judgement dayly administration of these actions did belong unto the multitude of the Congregation or that they were bound to come together in a solemne assembly upon such occasions of remooving these persons receyving them againe at their cleansing The law of their purification requires no such thing● ●um 19.18 19. Levit. 15.13 14 c. And therefore howsoever the act of remooving these uncleane persons in the time of the Law may be held as a generall type to shew the exclusion of wicked persons frō the holy things of God under the Gospel yet the persons by whom these Legall Ceremoniall separations were ordinarily administred performed cannot serve for a sufficient proofe that obstinate sinners are to be cenfured and remooved by the whole Congregation assembled for that purpose II. Another of your wrested proportions from the practise of Israel you may see in your Apology where you labour to prove that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church by this reason because (k) Apol. p. 62. the duety of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passeover unleavened bread was by the Lord himself layd upon all Israel and not committed or injoyned onely to the Officers 1. Cor. 5.7 12 13. compared with Exod. 12.3 15. Lev. 23.2 5 6. Deut. 16 1-4 Here unto I answer 1. If the power of Excommunication be in the members of the Church now as the power of putting away leaven was in the Israelites of old then as every particular Israelite under the Law had power of himself to remoove leaven out of his house yea was bound to doe the same whether the rest of the Congregation consented or not as appeares in the places of Scripture here alledged by yourself so now in like manner every particular member of the Church should have power in his hand to excommunicate remoove a wicked man out of the Congregation whether the rest of his brethren consented or not 2. If you further intend that as each Israelite for himself was to put away leaven so also he was to looke to others that they did the same this I grant so farre as the meanes of admonition exhortation and complaint might reach but that the Israelites had all of them judiciall authority and power to judge those that offended herein about which authority the question is the Scriptures by you alledged doe not prove the same 3. As for that place 1. Cor. 5.7 where the Apostle shewes that the incestuous person ought to be excommunicate by an allusion unto the ceremony of purging out the leaven he therein onely teacheth the duety that is to be done but as for the authority of the persons by whō the censure was to be executed though he teach them that also in other verses of that chapter yet doth he not derive the ground thereof from the ceremony of the leaven put away therein is your errour to stretch rack the proportion too farre The fourth Errour IN the fourth place your warrant ground for the peoples power is insufficient when as you derive the same from that separation which you say was appointed of God before the Law This you teach whē as you would confirme the same unto us from (l) Apol p. 62. pos 8. with p. 44. pos 3. the trueth proofes of the third Position in your Apology where among other testimonves of Scripture you would prove your Separation by these allegations Gen. 4.16 26. with 6.2 9.27 12.1 13.6 7 8. Exod. 5.3 But these Scriptures doe

lawfully proceed among themselves to the excommunicating of offenders whensoever there is necessary and just cause Neither doe they say a word that it is a Divine institution that the Ministers of one Congregation must first aske the leave and consent of other Ministers before they can lawfully administer this ordinance of God Hereunto I answer The more Reverend Godly and learned these Authors were the greater is his offence that shewes so little reverence unto them in perverting and abusing their testimonies If any Advocate should so farre wrong a Iurie of 24 men as to falsify their verdict contrary to their meaning might it not justly be counted a great forgery and worthy of exemplary punishment Now that this is the fault of Mr C. the Advocate and abettour of W. B. it may appeare in the first place by the generall consideration of their testimonies alledged For though it be generally affirmed by these Authors that matters of great weight as excommunication absolution choosing of Ministers and the like are not to be administred without the common consent of the Church yet this proves not that it is unlawfull to seek the counsell and help of a Classis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong or that it is unlawfull to appeale unto them in case of wrong done Though particular Congregations have power to judge it followes not that they themselves are therefore subject to no other Ecclesiasticall judgment out of themselves The errour absurdity of this consequence may better appeare by these examples Though fathers masters of particular families have immediate authority from God power to use it in a domesticall way to performe familie dueties judge of matters in the family yet this hinders not but that their familie exercises works may be judged of by other authority in the city where many families are cōbined together for their mutuall governmēt Though particular cities in and for themselves have power to execute judgement and to punish offences committed among them yet this hinders not but that if they judge unjustly or abuse their authority that they themselves may then be judged of others To come more particularly unto his Authors alledged and first for P. Martyr whom he makes the foreman of the Iurie though he writing against the errour of the Romish Church teaching that Councels cannot erre and preferring them above the Scriptures have just cause to shew the errours of sundry Councells and Synods especially about that time when so many wicked decrees were made by the Councell of Trent vet he addeth that (c) Loc. Cōm Class 4. c. 4. § 11 de Cōncill these things were not spoken that the Authority of Councels should be wholly cast away For saith he if they reprehend excommunicate or absolve according to the word of God praying together by the power of the Spirit these shall not be in vaine nor without fruit And afterwards againe he brings (d) Ibid. c. 6. § 18. divine warrant to shew the institution and order of Synods from the example of the Apostles Act. 15. By which it may appeare how he held that there was a superiour Ecclesiasticall power above particular Congregations and consequently that his testimony hath bene perverted by Mr Canne The second Author alledged against us is Iunius who notwithstanding is a most pregnant witnesse for us to shew the authority of Synods When Bellarmine objecteth against the Protestants that they reject Ecclesiasticall judgements and refuse the authority of Synods this he (e) Animadv in Bell. Controv. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1 2 11 12 13. shewes to be most false And further (f) Ibid. l. 1 c. 1. 3. 10. n. 1 2. 11. n. 1. he avoucheth both the just authority and necessity of Synods and likewise the divine institution of them alledging often to that end besides other Scriptures that sentence of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Though no sentence whether of a particular Congregation or of any other judge is to be yeelded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God yet according to that word he (g) Ibid. c. 18. n. 1.8 l 2. c. 1. n 1. c. 16. n 1. c. 18. n 1 2 6. maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make inquisition and to consult but that they also have under Christ a ministeriall judgement touching the controversies either about faith or manners Iunius therefore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary verdict against us The third man of the Iurie produced against us is Musculus And here it is to be observed I. That it is untruely affirmed by him in his words noted before touching the Iurie of more then 24 men that they are of mine owne choosing For though I have a multitude of witnesses agreeing with me yet as none in particular were named by me so Musculus in speciall should not have bene alledged considering his different judgement and practise from other Reformed Churches For although he confesse that the power of election and deposition of Ministers excommunication c. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time yet he saith and that (h) Loc. Cōm de Minist p. 199 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist p. 631. 632. 633. often that this order was to be kept while there were no Christian Magistrates and that the order which was then profitable to the Churches is not so at this time that it now belongs unto the Magistrate to appoynt Ministers either by choosing them himself or confirming such as were chosen by others at his commandement that the Rule of Telling the Church Matth. 18. was in force while they were destitute of Christian Magistrates II. Though Musculus differ from other Reformed Churches in this question of Church-government yet he also most evidently even more then I doe condemnes the opinion of the Brownists and of my opposites while he (i) Ibid. de elect Ministr p. 200. maintaines that particular Congregations are subject to another superiour power out of themselves in matters of Church-government while he justifieth the practise of the Churches in Berne where Ministers are chosen in the citie and by the Senate sent unto the Churches in the country subject unto their jurisdiction as they thought best If Musculus had bene of Mr Cannes W. Bests minde he should have forsaken those Churches and separated from them as not being a free people while they wanted excommunication power of choosing their owne Ministers Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Authors alledged by them Come we to the rest In the next place he nameth Viret but it seemes he is mistaken in his Allegation there being no such booke of Viret as he hath quoted in his margine he rather seemes to meane Virell in the grounds of Religion But whether he meane Viret or

Virell neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause For Viret he is (k) Beza in vita Calv. Calv. Epist 25 39.54 .c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord for the settling of that forme of Discipline by which the power of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations was established at Geneva That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as Mr Canne here (l) Ch. pl. p. 94. calles it was planted by the hand of Viret as well as of Calvine And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church seeing he joyned with him in that work For Virell he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the (m) Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7 708 edit 12. place alledged that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ that there be three things required thereunto first that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen c. Another is this that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts but that it be free so as they that have the power to chose should have onely the glory of God and the edification of his Church before their eyes Thirdly that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently carefully And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy And in all this what one word hath he against the authority of Synods Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required be accordingly performed in particular Churches and if any of these be omitted to correct and reforme the same Bullinger next alledged though he say that the Church hath power to elect ordaine fit Ministers yet he was not of Mr Cannes minde to thinke that the Church looseth her right and is bereaved of her due power when it is not exercised by herself alone or in that popular way which he requireth for even in the place (n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4. which Mr Canne hath cited he saith It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church or by the whole Church itself and that either by votes or by lots or in any other convenient and holy manner For godlinesse doth not contend about these things so that all be done holily and according to order And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church It appeares by these the following words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches concerning which we are to make further mention (o) Sect. 7. hereafter when we come to speak of their Confession Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same booke when (p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod which saith he the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles that the Apostles of the Lord have done c. Againe he (q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperour for the yearely celebrating of Synods where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed He urgeth this decree against the Bishops and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne that which the one holds to be the soveraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches of the ministery the other rejects as an unprofitable weed and that which tends to the undoing and (r) Ch. pl. p. 74. spoyling of Churches Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned of the point in controversy betwixt us viz. the authority of Classes Synods or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections Onely he doth there (ſ) In. 1. Tim. 5.22 reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Canne seemes most to plead for doe bring as he saith a very great confusion into the Church by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office whereby he understands the first taking notice of him the examining of his life doctrine and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church that this belongs unto the Presbytery and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people they also having a convenient time allowed unto them that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus and the same with that which is practised in our Church And thus the Witnesses produced against us doe still declare their consent with us As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them Danaeus gives his verdict when in the exposition of the fourth commandement having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church he saith (r) Ethic. Christ Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds their authority is ordained by this Commandement Gualter in the (v) Homil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections to prevent such a construction as Mr Canne seemes to make of his words addes presently This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse And againe he saith there that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis by proceeding with their advise and consent In the other (x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23 place for Mr Cannes marginall quotation 13.22 seemes to be misprinted he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not onely the gathering of voices but also imposition of hands and in his opinion the latter acception