Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	ecclesiastical_a	emperor_n	1,585	5	7.0600	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

not of their own nation and religion then they performed by a confederate discipline what the magistrate was to enjoin and command them The confession of Basilartic 6. hath a notable saying speaking of the duty of magistrates to propagate the Gospell as they are magistrates This duty was enjoyned a magistrate of the gentils how much more ought it to be commended to the Christian magistrate being the Vicar of God If then the heathen magistrate fails of his duty in not propagating the Gospell those that live under him and are better minded ought to supply the part of the magistrate in that particular and yet in doing of that they do but perform their own duty and businesse like as a master leading his horse down the hill his man being out of the way doeth both his own businesse and that of his man and both employeth his own strength in guiding an unruly horse and supplieth that of his man or which expresseth more lively the thing in hand as the Duke of Somerset in training up Prince Edward in the true religion did both do his own duty and that of Henry the 8. his father who being wanting to his duty in shewing his power authority to have his son brought up in the true Protestant religion Somerset Cranmer and others were not to be wanting to theirs and yet were not to act by a power distinct from the power of the King for if so then when ever a power is exercised rightly and yet against an unlawfull command of a superiour we had need to give a new name to that power and there would be as many kinds of power as duties to be performed Having done with Origen I come to Ambrose whom I was to alledge upon the 1. of Timothy relating to the places of St. Paul and Origen and to the power of magistracy assumed by churches There he teacheth the custom both of the synagogues of Christian churches of having elders that composed in stead of the magistrate controversies arising amongst church-members saying that first synagogues and afterwards churches had elders without whose advice there was nothing done in the church and wondreth that in his time which was about the year 370 such men were out of use which he thinks came by the negligence or rather pride of some Doctors who thought it was beneath them to be esteemed the lesse in the church as S. Paul saith of them while they are to decide controversies not as judges invested with a coercive power but only as arbitrators and umpires But the true cause why these elders ceased which he wisheth had been still continued he mentioneth not but the true cause is when the magistrate that was for above 300. years heathenish became Christian these arbitrators and elders ceased in great part at least they were more out of churches then in churches and in stead of them the Emperours created judges which yet retained much of the nature of those whereof Origen and Ambrose speak and which were invested as most of the Lawyers affirm as Cujacius for one with them my Rev. Father in his book de Monarchia temporal and in his Hyperaspistes lib. 3. cap. 15. not with a coercive jurisdiction but as they term it audience hence comes the Bishops and Deanes and Chapters Audit However such arbitrators sate in a court and were chosen by the Christian Emperours and were not members as before ever since St. Pauls time chosen by the members of that church where the contention did arise betwixt brother and brother and at that time it was not thought a violation of the command of St. Paul if a wronged brother had gone to secular judges because they were not infidels but Christians faithfull and saints as the Apostle termeth them 1 Cor. 6. 2. therefore it was free for any lay-man or other either to repair to the Audit of the Bishop or to the secular judge Which custome Ambrose doth not like so well as when Jewes and Christians were obliged by the law of their discipline to have controversies decided by their own elders Certain it is that these elders though they were not as Ambrose wisht they had been in his time arbitrators in those churches whereof they were members kept that office a long time under Christian Emperours but with more authority and dignity because they were countenanced by the Emperours their masters We have them mentioned pretty late even in Theodosius Honorius and Arcadius time for in one law they enjoin that ordinary judges should decide the contentions between Jewes and Gentils not their own elders or arbitrators Thereupon it is worth considering that that title which in the Theodosian Code is de Episcopali audientia in the Justinian Code is de Episcopali judicio a main proof that these judgements in episcopall courts had much still of the nature of those references in churches under the heathen Emperours These episcopall courts were set up by the Emperours to favour the clergy that they might be judged in prima instantia by their own judges for if either party had not stood to the sentence of that court they might appeal to the secular court The words of the 28. Canon of the councell of Chalcedon are very expresse If a clerk hath a matter against a clerk let him not leave his Bishop and appeal to secular judgement but let the cause first be judged by his own Bishop Now this episcopall court being in substance the same power with that of the elders mentioned by Ambrose which were first in synagogues and then in Christian churches under the heathen Emperours one may plainly see how weak and sandy the grounds are upon which ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing in the hands of church-officers is built which government say they is the government of Christ and is to be managed by those church-officers by a warrant from Christ the mediatour For Constantine erecting an episcopall court and empowering the judges of the court to decide causes and controversies did not intend to give them a commission of binding and loosing or to put into their hands the keyes of Heaven so delegating a power which was none of his to give but only granted what was in his own power namely that some magistrates under him should set all things in order in the church and among the clergy Besides he intended to set up that magistracy which was through the necessity of the times assumed first by synagogues then by Christian churches under persecution for sure Constantine did not place the power of the keyes of binding and loosing in the exercise of that power managed either by the elders which Ambrose mentioneth or by the episcopall court erected by himself Neither Constantine nor any of his successours did ever conceive that churches were to be governed by any other power then their own as all other societies of men were In this episcopall court any cause between man and man

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

clergy-man or not was decided capitall only excepted For matters of faith I confesse there be many Emperours sanctions forbidding secular courts to meddle with them but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more then declarative not sancitive For 1. This very sanction that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith was a law of the Emperour and the episcopall courts or synods could not challenge any power therein but by a commission from the Emperour 2. The Emperours did not conceive themselves obliged to receive lawes concerning faith from the Bishops or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperours dominions except they were approved of and ratified by them 3. The Emperours did not think themselves much obliged to receive lawes of doctrine and faith from the Bishops in regard that most of the lawes and constitutio is concerning the fundamentall points of faith were composed reduced and inserted into the Code without so much as taking counsell or advice of the Bishops though we never read that they ever complained thereof Only a late famous Lawyer and a Papist in his book de Iustinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiasticall power seated in the clergy 4. And the power that the Emperours challenged to belong solely to them to call synods to chuse members to review their acts to approve ratifie disannull or give them the vigour and strength of lawes obliging all churches and men to obedience either active or passive is an argument that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperours did in calling of synods making lawes and decrees and requiring from all churches and church-members obedience to them the Emperours did not conceive otherwise of those acts of theirs but as of acts of magistracy taken up by consent for want of a Christian magistrate and which was to last no longer then till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperours and the Bishops at that time how came it that Constantine the Great the other Christian Emperours that came after him did not rather wish the Bishops clergy to call synods upon their own authority as they were wont to do and how came it that O●ius Spiridion Paphnutius did not disswade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods telling him that it was more then did belong to him and speak in the language of Mr. Gillespie that ministers by virtue of their office are to call and assemble synods that it is altogether unreasonable that they should be abridged of what they had enjoyed for 300. years and now loose a main branch of their ecclesiasticall power that hitherto it was not so much as thought on that magistracy which is not a thing essentiall to the church should so far entrench upon the government of Christ wherewith the ministers are solely entrusted But these notions came not into the minds either of the Emperours or of Osius Eustatius Paphnutius and others nor of Hierom who questioned the validity of a synod that was not convocated by the Emperour These good men did not quarrell either at the convocation of synods or at the making or giving of lawes to churches by the sole authority of the Emperours 5. A further proof that neither the Emperours nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces conceived that Bishops and clergy-men had any judiciall power distinct from theirs is that for many 100. years in most parts of the Roman Empire as it then was Emperours and Kings kept state-assemblies where both clergy and laity sate and voted without any such distinction of power ecclesiasticall and civil I should here shew as I promised in the beginning of the chapter that the very heathens never knew any such distinction of power for although the law of nature and nations taught them that there must be a sacred function distinct from others yet they never knew nor understood that the jurisdiction of that function was distinct from that of the others for many thousand years neither the people of God nor the heathens knew any such distinction Aristotle in the third of his politicks ch 10. speaking of heroick Kings the Kings saith he were judges and moderators in all divine matters So was the Roman Senat both before and after it was governed by Emperours for it was wont to consecrate Emperours and the name of Pontifex Maximus of which they were so jealous was taken by the Emperours even till Gratians time In short they alwayes conceived that a common magistracy and soveraign power was made up of these two main ingredients viz. ceremonies about religion and humane lawes both put in trust with the soveraign magistrate One thing I cannot but observe that the very heathens by the light of nature have gone here beyond Mr. Gillespie For to confirm a common errour that the church jurisdiction is wholly independent from the magistrate and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporall life having nothing to do with promoting the eternall good of the soul to confirm I say this errour he teacheth us that magistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediatour ex natura rei But this errour is refuted by the very heathen namely Aristotle in his 3. book of Politicks ch 16. where he saith that the scope of politicks is not simply to live but to live well I should ask Mr. Gillespie when a magistrate turneth from heathenism to Christianity whether his first duty is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven both for himself and all that are under his charge There is also a notable passage of Pareus among his Miscellanea Catechetica artic 11. aphoris 18. where he lamenteth that heathens should surpasse Christians in this particular in attributing more to the magistrate for ordering matters of religion and that they in this point should be more orthodox these be his words Ac sane dolendum est rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos qui unanimi consensu regi suo demandarunt curam religion●s cultus Deorum idque persuasi tam jure naturae quam gentium As pregnant a proof that the same persons amongst the heathens had the managing of religious as well as civil affairs is that of Cicero in his Oration pro domo sua ad Pontifices the words are these Praeclare à majoribus nostris constitutum est quod vos eosdem religionibus Deorum immortalium summae reipublicae praeesse voluerunt ut amplissimi clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo religiosissimi religiones sapienter interpretando rempublicam conservarent It was excellently well ordained by our ancestours that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion and the supreme government of state that so whilst the most