Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	allow_v	priest_n	13	3	6.4493	4	false

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

him Here one may see as the law of God and the law of the King may stand together so the power of the magistrate may very well consist with the power right and liberty of a private church And the like he doth by many passages of Scripture which he urgeth namely Isa 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers c. and Esa 60. 10. Revel 21. v. 24. the Kings of the earth shall bring their honour to the church and Rom. 13. 4. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. He addes since the Scripture speaks thus generally for thy good for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well we must not distinguish where the Scripture doth not Now let us go to New-England where none will deny but a power and right of churches is maintained sutably to the sense of the dissenting brethren in old England and yet they ascribe no lesse to the magistrate in matters of religion then Mr. Burroughs Witnesse the result of a synod at Cambridge in new England published an 1646. They say magistrates must and may command matters of religion that are commanded in the Word and forbid things therein forbidden by the Word meaning the whole Word both in the new and old Testament In short they hold for substance what I said before of the two kinds of acts performed in every private church one looking immediately at the externall act of the body and the duties and sins which appear in the carriage of the outward man and this they say the magistrate looketh at and commandeth or forbiddeth in church and out of church see pag. 15. and therefore they say pag. 40. every church considered as a civil society needeth a coercive power They say further that this power is needfull in churches to curb the obstinate and restrain the spreading of errours Pag. 49. they invalid the example of Uzziah often alledged by the Romanists and the presbyterians though Mr. Gillespie as I remember never maketh use of it in his great book and say that this act of Azariah thrusting out Uzziah was an act of coercion and so of magistracy and a civil act which priests and Levites were allowed to do and which they made subservient to that command of God that none should burn incense but the sons of Aaron For I believe any officer under the soveraign magistrate might do the like in case this later should go about to violate a command of such a high nature for being an under-magistrate and invested with power of coercion he obeyeth the greater master and maketh use of his power to hinder a notable breach of Gods expresse command Having thus made good that there is a fair correspondency and concurrence of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power over them I do not see but my principles and those of the dissenting brethren are very agreeable consonant in the main It may be a few of them will call that power in every particular church ecclesiasticall which I call a power of magistracy and they will call excommunication an act of the ecclesiasticall power which I conceive to be rather an effect of the power of magistracy settled in every particular church But the difference is not great since we both make that church-power call it what you will a power of jurisdiction and coercion which must needs be subordinace to the power of the magistrate since both are of the same kind and upon that account excommunication is a law of the power of coercion so of magistracy In short whereas some of them will say of all church-censures that they are the product of a positive divine power I say they are the result of a naturall civil power subservient to the divine power in the exercise of the first kind of acts of church-members as such sure Mr. Burroughs and the result of the synod in New-England come very near if not altogether to my sense For Mr. Burroughs pag. 27. maketh but two powers residing in a private church one of admonishing perswading desiring seeking to convince the other a power restraining This latter power I call a power of magistracy because by the first power men are not outwardly restrained nor rought to outward conformity and accordingly excommunication must needs be a product of that restraining power So that the difference is not at all reall but nominall I find in Musculus in his common-places concerning magistrates the same power of magistracy in churches The passage hath been alledged above there he saith that that power exercised in churches is notecclesiasticall but the power of the magistrate CHAPTER XXI That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judiciall power over them is not of the institution of Christ. VVE are brought insensibly to know the nature of a Christian church instituted by Christ which as I said is a particular visible one meeting in one place to celebrate the same ordinances whereof mention is made 1 Cor. 11. v. 18. and chap. 14. v. 23. and Act. 13. v. 42. and 44. In this church the Lord Jesus Christ hath properly instituted the ministry for Christ hath not instituted a catholick visible church much lesse a nationall church under one presbytery but this appellation of church is like the word man which denotes a nature common to many singulars and yet is properly said of John or Peter For as many fountains are not a fountain and many schools are not a school and many families are not a family so many private churches are not properly a church We shall find below Amyraldus saying most truly and very pertinently to our argument that the appellation of church doth not properly belong either to the catholick visible church or to a nationall church such as are the English French Helvetian churches which are rather a knot or collection of churches then a church That such a church made up of many private churches under one presbytery is not of the institution of Christ nor ex necessitate praecepti but of the free pleasure of each private church who without any violation of the command of Christ may either remain single or aggregate it self to other churches under such a presbytery may be proved by severall arguments 1. I begin with the testimony of the Rev. Assembly in their humble advice who lay no greater stresse of necessity upon it then that it is lawfull and agreeable to the word of God that such a thing be 2. If the Lord Jesus Christ had instituted such a presbyterian church it were fit it should be told us what is a competent number of churches requisite to be under a presbytery whether only three or four or more it may be two thousand If so many why may not a hundred thousand churches be under one presbytery If so many why not all private orthodox churches that are dispersed through the world If a presbytery may be over all the catholick

the sons of the prophets multiplying and their house temple or auditory being too little they enlarged it and chap. 22. v. 14. Huldah the prephetesse is said to dwell in Bamischnah in a colledge or school of learning So from 1 Samuel 19. v. 18. and 20. one may gather that Samuel being the chief Rabbi and Prophet having many disciples under him had his house of oration school or Colledge at Naioth in Ramah where he did not only teach publickly upon sabbath● ayes but also instructed upon other days his disciples or young prophets called his sons as appeareth by the 20. verse except by prophecying be meant uttering marvellous things of Gods greatnesse goodnesse providence for the ordinary gift and charge of the prophets was not so much to declare hidden and foretell future things as to expound the law and to exhort the people and pray with them in which sense John Baptist is called by Jesus Christ a propher who yet never wrote nor uttered any prophecies and Exod. 7. v. 4. Aaron is called the prophet of Moses because he was his interpreter to the people And the great number of those prophets sheweth manifestly that their ordinary employment was to do what the prophets of the new Testament do to exhort teach comfort-rebuke no lesse number being required for that work under the old then under the new In the 1 Kings ch 18. when Jezabel did seek to destroy the Prophets Obadiah hid 100. in a cave and in the 2. book chap. 2. v. 16 the sons of the Prophets sead of their own body 50. men to seek after El jah Sure there was no need of so many to foretell future things when one of a 1000. Prophets might undergo that charge well enough to satisfy all the people of the mind of God concerning future things wherewith but few of the people need to be acquainted but all the people had need of teachers and instructers in the law of Moses and that in a considerable number for 1000. had not been enough to instruct the fourth part of the people in the ordinary way of prophecying that is teaching and exhorting for the Rabbins say that there were 480. such houses of convocation or prayer otherwise called synagogues in Jerusalem There is mention made of two houses which were famous one at Bethel the other at Jericho whither the sons of the Prophets repaired to Elisha They were frequented not only every sabbath-day and new moon for praying with the people of the neighbourhood as appeareth by 2 Kings v. 22. but also for teaching their disciples and resolving any that should come to them upon any doubt whither it is likely David did go Psal 73. v. 16. when being inwardly perplexed with distractions he could find no settlement till he went to the sanctuary of God to be instructed better then he was where by the sanctuary doubtless is meant such a house of convocation or school And in the 27. Psalme that one thing that David desired of the Lord was no doubt to have communion with God and with the faithfull people in the Temple or house of prayer whereto he resorted every sabbath for it is not likely he understood this of being partaker of the legall rites sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem which was not yet built What was the form and matter of the exercises in those houses the Scripture mentioneth not only we gather by what the Prophets of Baal did 1 Kings 18. v. 26. that likewise the Prophets of God in those synagogues or houses of convocation did pray from morning untill noon and then till evening taught by catechising and expounding for in the 29. verse the word prophesving is equivalent to teaching and instructing And Samuel 1. book c. 12. v 23. maketh two parts of his propheticall office viz. to pray and teach God forbid that I should sin against God in ceasing to pray for you but I will teach you Now as those prophets had no dependence on the Priests and Levites no more then the houses of convocation where they taught so neither do we read that there was any consociation of all these convocations into one nationall church under some church-judicatory made up of Priests and Levites or that they had any dependence on the Sanedrim or state-court prescribing them any orders how to govern themselves only they were not to teach and expound ought but the law whereof the magistrate was the keeper and guardian nor to thwart the duties of the publick worship commanded such as were the killing of the passeover at set times the appearing of the males three times in the year at the place that God was to chuse and performing all the sacrifices oblations and rites enjoyned and so far were the convocations depending on the magistrate For in the first institution we do not read that these convocations or synagogues or those that were over them were or needed to be invested with any jurisdiction but were like schools of learning whose masters and teachers were also like Plato Zeno Aristotle over the schools in Greece who had scholars men of ripe years and discretion that with a withing fulmission embraced their sayings and precepts so that the Prince or Dr. of the school needed not any restraining or coercive discipline to order them And indeed it is very likely that those heathenish schools of Philosophans had their first rise and ouginall from those 〈◊〉 wish schools But that each of those convocations where Prophets taught and expounded were independent from other convocations saving only so far as they were all members of the same Commonwealth will appear anone when we enquire into the nature of these convocations when they went currently under the name of synagogues and all jointly were not one Commonwealth in one countrey but lived dispersed for then every lynagogue was sui Iuris and governed it self though some R●manists would perswade us that many synagogues were aggregated under one Archisynagogue or chief 〈◊〉 which is a great mistake for some synagogues had sometimes many Archisynagogues It is true we read in the Theodosian code of Patriarchs of the J●wes lib. 8. tit 18. de Iudae●s coelicolis or Samaritanis but those Patriarchs were not over any matter concerning law or religion but were only publick treasurers of mony levied for the poor for building of synagogues the like 'T is true also that the nature of those synagogues being changed as long as the Senat at Jerusalem had any repute other synagogues did defer very much to it requesting letters of advice from them but submitted not to any command as from a superiour to an inferiour as we gather by Act. 9. v. 2. and 3. and ch 28. v. 21. But to follow the history of these convocations a little farther their independency is clearly to be seen when the faithfull people lived under idolatious Kings as under Jeroboam and his successours for they could not depend on the Sanedum at Jerusalem since it was a capitall