Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	worship_n	worship_v	worthy_a	18	3	6.9776	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42757	Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G744; ESTC R177416	512,720	654

moved to prevent my Antagonists Christ is called the Head of all Principality and Power Col. 2. 10. To this I answered out of Bullinger Gualther and Tossanus the scope and meaning of the Apostle is to shew that Christ is true God and therefore we must not understand the Apostle to speak of Christs headship as he is Mediator but as he is the natural and eternal Sonne of God Mr. Hussey pag. 34. thinks it is no good consequence the Apostle speaks not of Christ as Mediator because he speaks of him as true God Is not Christ saith he true God as Mediator I answer As Mediator he is God-man But he must remember the Argument is urged to prove the subordination of all Principality and power to Jesus Christ as Mediator Now let him prove that the Apostle speaketh there of Christ as Mediator I say he speaketh of Christ as God He cannot conclude against what I said except he argue thus that which Christ is as God he is as Mediator which is false as I have made it appear else-where Well but Mr. Hussey proves from the Text that Christ is there spoken of as Mediator vers 9 10. For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the God-head bodily and ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and power But he draweth no argument from the words Neither is there any thing in them which maketh against me The Apostle shews them that the man Jesus Christ is also true God equal and consubstantial with the Father for the very fulnesse of the God-head is in him that is he is fully and compleatly God so that saith Calvin they who desire something more then Christ must desire something more then God Wherefore our Writers make the right use of this place when they bring it against the Socinians to prove the God-head of Christ. See Christian. Becman exercit 9. This fulnesse of the God-head is in Christ bodily that is either personally to distinguish him from the holy men of God who were inspired by the holy Ghost or substantially as others take the Word in opposition to the Tabernacle and Temple in which the God-head was typically Ye are compleat in him saith the Apostle meaning because he is compleatly God so that we need not invocate or worship Angels as if we were not compleat in Christ. Mr. Hussey admitteth what I said concerning the scope of the place to teach the Colossians not to worship Angels because servants But saith he may they not worship Christ as Mediator yes doubtlesse they may No doubt he that is Mediator must be worshipped because he is God Christ God-man is the object of divine adoration and his God-head is the cause of that adoration but whether he is to be worshipped because he is Mediator or under this formall consideration as Mediator and whether the Mediator ought to be therefore adored with divine adoration because he is Mediator is res altioris indaginis If Mr. Hussey please to read and consider what divers School men have said upon that point as Aquinas tertia part quaest 25. art 1. 2. Alex. Alensis Sum. Theol. part 3. quaest 30. membr 2. Suarez in tertiam part Thomae Disp. 53. sect 1. Valentia Comment in Tho. Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest 24. punct 1. Tannerus Theol. Scholast Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest 7. Dub. 7. But much more if he please to read Disputatio de adoratione Christi habita inter Faustum Socinum Christianum Francken and above all Dr. Voetius select disput ex poster part Theol. Disp. 14. An Christus qua Mediator sit adorandus Then I beleeve he will be more wary and cautious what he holds concerning that Question But I must not be ledd out of my way to multiply Questions unnecessarily All that I said was that the Apostle teacheth the Colossians not to worship Angels because they are servants but Christ the Son of the living God who is the Head and Lord of Angels and in that place the Apostle speaketh of the honour which is due to Christ as God and if we would know in what sence the Apostle calls Christ the Head of all Principality and Power see how he expounds himsel Coloss. 1. 15 16 17. speaking of the God-head of Jesus Christ. Finally If Mr. Hussey will prove any thing from Coloss. 2. 10. against us he must prove that those words which is the head of all Principality and power are meant in reference not onely to the Angels but to Civil Magistrates and next that they are meant of Christ not onely as God but as Mediator Both which he hath to prove for they are not yet proved CHAP. VII Arguments for the Negative of that Question formerly propounded MY Arguments against the derivation of Magistracy from Jesus Christ as Mediator and against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under Christ as Mediator are these First This Doctrine doth evacuate and nullifie the civil Authority and Government of all Heathen or Pagan Magistrat● for which way was the authority of Government derived from Christ and from him as Mediator to a Pagan Magistrate or Emperour If he hath not his power from Christ as Mediator then he is but an usurper and hath no just title to reign according to their Principles which hold that all government even civil is given to C rist and to him as Mediator Mr. Hussey forsooth doth learnedly yeeld the argument and answereth pag. 20. that not onely it is a sin to be a Heathen but the government of a Heathen is sinfull and unlawfull for which he gives this reason Whatsoever is not of faith is sin He might as well conclude in that sence that the best vertues of the Heathen were sin because not of faith that is accidentally sin in respect of the end or manner of doing not materially or in their own nature Vpon the same reason he must conclude that the government of a Christian Magistrate is unlawfull if it be not of faith as oftimes it is not through the blindnesse and corruption of mens hearts who govern But whether is the government of a Heathen Magistrate per se simpliciter ex natura sua unlawful and sinful Whether hath he any just right or title to Government and Magistracy If his title to civil Magistracie be just and if his government be in it self materially and substantially lawful then he must have a Commission from Christ and from him as Mediator This I suppose cannot be Mr. Husseys sence for he hath not answered one syllable to the argument tending that way But if the Government of an Heathen Magistrate be in it self materially substantially and in the nature of the tenure sinfull and unlawfull so that as long as he remains an Heathen he hath no reall right nor true title to Government but onely a pretended and usurped title which must needs be Mr. Husseys sence if he hath answered any thing at all to my Argument then he goeth crosse not onely

allowed not onely to worship God apart by themselves but also to come into the Church and Congregation of Israel and to be called by the name of Jewes neverthelesse they were res●rained and secluded from Dignities Magistracies and preferments in the Jewish Republique and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites Even as strangers initiated and associated into the Church of Rome have not therefore the priviledge of Roman Citizens Thus M. Selden who hath thereby made it manifest that there was a dis●iuction of the Jewish Church and Jewish State because those Proselytes being imbodied into the Jewish Church as Church members and having a right to communicate in the holy Ordinances among the rest of the people of God yet were not properly members of the Jewish State nor admitted to Civill priviledges Whence it is also that the names of Jewes and Proselytes were used distinctly Acts 2. 10. CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill I Come to the second point that there was an Ecclesiasticall government and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jews This distinction of the two Sanhedrins the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall is maintained by Zepperus de polit eccles l. 3. cap. 7. Iunius in Deut. 17. Piscator ibid. Wolphius in 2. Reg. 23. Gerhard Harm de pass cap. 8. G●…dwin Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 1. Bucerus de gubern eccl pag. 61 62. Walaeus Tom. 2. pag. 9. Pelargus in Deut. 17. Sopingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. et seq The Dutch Annotations on Deut. 17. 2 Chron. 19. Bertramus de polit Jud. cap. 11. Ap●…llonii jus Majest part 1. p. 374. Strigelius in 2. Paralip cap. 19. The professours of Groning Vide Judicium facult Theol. academiae Groninganae apud Cabeljav def potest Eccl. pag. 54. I remember Raynolds in the Conference with Hart is of the same opinion Also M. Paget in his defence of Church government pag. 41. Besides divers others I shall onely adde the Testimony of Constantinus L'Empereur a man singularly well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities who hath expressed himselfe concerning this point both in his Annotations upon Bertram pag. 389. and Annot. in Cod. Middoth pag. 187 188. The latter of these two passages you have here in the Margin expressing not only his opinion but the ground of it And it is no obscure footstep of the Ecclefiasticall Sanhedrin which is cited out of Elias by D. Buxtorf in his Lexicon Chald. Talmud Rabbin p. 1514. The first institution of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin appeareth to me to be held forth Exod. 24. 1. where God saith to Moses Come up unto the Lord thou and Aaron Nad●… and Abihu and seventy of the Elders of Israel It is a controversie among Interpreters who those seventy Elders were Tostatus maketh it cleare that they were not the seventy Elders chosen for the government of the Common-wealth Num 11. Nor yet the Judges chosen by the advice of Iethro Exod. 18. Nor yet any other Judges which had before time Judged the people These three negatives Willet upon the place holdeth with Tostatus Not the first for this was done at Mount Sinai shortly after their comming out of Egypt But on the twenty day of the second moneth in the second yeere they tooke their journey from Sinai to the Wildernesse of Paran Num. 10. 11 12. and there pitched at Hibroth-hattaavath Num. 33. 16. where the seventy Elders were chosen to relieve Moses of the burthen of Government So that this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of seventy Num 11. Not the second for this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of Judges by Iethros advice Exod. 18. Iethro himselfe not having come to Moses till the end of the first yeere or the beginning of the second yeere after the comming out of Egypt and not before the giving of the Law which Tostatus proves by this argunent The Law was given the third day after they came to Sinai but it was impossible that Iethro should in the space of three daies heare that Moses and the people of Israel were in the wildernesse of Sinai and come there unto them that Moses should goe forth and meet him and receive him and entertaine him that Iethro should observe the manner of Moses his government in litigious judgement from morning till evening and give counsell to rectifie it that Moses should take course to helpe it how could all this be done in those three daies which were also appointed for sanctifying the people against the receiving of the Law Therefore he concludeth that the story of Iethro Exod. 18. is an anticipation Lastly he saith the seventy Elders mentioned Exod. 24. could not be Judges who did judge the people before Iethro came because Iethro did observe the whole burthen of government did lie upon Moses alone and there were no other Judges Now it is to be observed that the seventy Elders chosen and called Exod. 24. were also invested with authority in judging controversies wherein Aaron or Hur were to preside vers 14. They are joyned with Aaron Nadad and Abihu and are called up as a Representative of the whole Church when God was making a Covenant with his people T is after the Judiciall lawes Exod. 21. 22. 23. and that 24 Chapter is a transition to the ceremoniall lawes concerning the worship of God and structure of the Tabernacle which are to follow Neither had the seventy Elders of which now I speake any share of the Supreme civill Government to judge hard Civill causes and to receive appeals concerning those things from the inferiour Judges for all this did still lie upon Moses alone Num. 11. 14. Furthermore they saw the glory of the Lord and were admitted to a sacred banquet and to eat of the Sacrifices in his presence Exod. 24. 5 10 11. and were thereby confirmed in their calling All which laid together may seem to amount to no lesse then a solemne interesting and investing of them into an Ecclesiasticall authority The next proofe for the Ecclesiasticall Sanhed●in shall be taken from Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11 12. where observe 1. T is agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors that this place holds forth a supreme civill Court of Judges and the authority of the civill Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civill Jurisdiction as is universally acknowledged it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction distinct from the Civill For the Text carrieth the authority and sentence of the Priests as high as the authority and sentence of the Judges and that in a disjunctive way as two powers not one and each of them binding respectively and in its proper sphere 2. The Hebrew Doctors tell us of three kinds of causes which being found difficult were transmitted from the inferiour Courts to those at Ierusalem 1.

Judgement-hall I perceive would he say that this man is accused of such things as concerne your Law and your Religion therefore take him and judge him according to your Law They reply in reference to that which Pilate did drive at It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death If they had meant for causes which concerned Caesars Crown it had been not onely an impertinent reply but a yeelding to Pilates intention for he might have said I doe not meane that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar but for that which concerneth your owne Law and Religion Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes made to Pilate did reply that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion yet they had no power to put any man to death no not for that which concerned their Law 4. There are severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law yet they were accusers not Judges in civill or capitall punishments I meane when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death though it were for a matter of their Law they had no liberty to judge but onely to accuse The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio even for a matter of their law This fellow say they to Gallio perswadeth men to worship God contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onely an Ecclesiasticall censure their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin or at least to the Synagogue but because they intended a corporall temporall punishment which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio whose answer was to this purpose that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked leudnesse it had been proper for him to have judged it but that since it was no such thing he would not meddle in it knowing also that the Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves Againe Acts 23. 28 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him I brought him forth into their Councell Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds That which made Lysias interpose in the businesse and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes was the Jewes designe to put Paul to death under colour of judging him according to their Law which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6. Now in that which was to be punished either by death or so much as by bonds Lysias conceives the Jewes to be no competent Judges therefore he brings Paul into the councell of the Jewes not to be judged by them but to know what accusation they had against him For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem to be judged there no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes that accusation being so far driven on as to make him worthy of death His accusers saith Festus to King Agrippa brought none accusation of such things as I supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And because I doubted of such manner of questions I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem and there be judged of these matters Acts 25. 18 19 20. This Paul had declined vers 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat said he where I ought to be judged And why but because his accusation was capitall even in that which concerned the Law of the Jewes and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul was a Ecclesiasticall not a civill Court 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ had no power of punishing with death for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin which had in former times exercised capitall judgements did remove from Hierusalem quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall judgements they said let us remove out of this place lest we be guilty it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee whence they collected that if they were not in that place they were not obliged to capitall judgements and so they removed And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua thence to Ousa thence to Sc●…aphrea c. He that desires to have further proofes for that which hath been said may read Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talmud rabbin pag. 514 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia criminall judgements did cease and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple This he saith is plaine in Talmud Hierosol in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda z●…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab fol. 15. 1. in Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majen●…on in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death but when one said that he ought to die it was answered that they had no power to put any man to death And this saith D r. Bux●…orf is the very same which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City which was in the 71 yeere of Christ his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple for which see also Tzemach David edit Hen. Vorst pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in and before Christs passion was not a civill Magistracy nor the civill Sanhedrin but an Ecclesiasticall San●edrin Whence also it follows that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their complaints was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes as M r Prynne takes it for that

in genus but the civil and Ecclesiasticall Courts stand not in one line neither are they of one kind and nature they are disparata non subordinata 3. They who receive appeals have also power to 〈◊〉 the sentence else the appeal is in vain But the Magistrate hath no power to execute the Church ce●sure nor to shut out of the Church our opposites themselves being Judges It was not therefore without just cause that Augustine did v●ry ●uch ●lame the Donatists for their appealing from the Ecclesi●stical Assemblies to the Emperors and civil C●urts Epist. 48. and Epist. 162. There are two examples alledged from Scripture for appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civil Courts One is the example of Ieremiah I●…r 26. The other is the example of Paul Act. 25. But neither of the two prove the point For 1. Ieremiah was not censured by the Priests with any Spirituall or Ecclesiastical censure of which alone our controversie is but the Priests took him and said to him Thou shalt surely die Jer. 26. 8. 2. Would God that every Christian Magistrate may protect the servants of God from such unjust sentences and persecuting decrees When Ecclesiasticall Courts are made up of bloody persecuters that is an extraordinary evil which must have an extraordinary remedy 3. Neither yet is there any syllable of Ieremiahs appealing from the Priests to the Princes but the Text saith When the Princes of Judah heard these things then they came up c. verse 10. that is The Princes so soon as they understood that the Priests had taken Ieremiah and had said to him Thou shalt surely die verse 8. And being also informed that all the people were gathered together tumultuously and disorderly against the Prophet verse 9. They thought it their duty to rescue the Prophet from the Priests and people that he might be examined and judged by the civil Court he being challenged and accused as one worthy to die As for Pauls Appellation to Caesar. First It is supposed by our opposites that he appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews which is a great mistake For he appealed from the Judgement-seat of Festus to Caesar that is from an in●eriour civil Court to a superiour civil Court which he had just cause to do for though Festus had not yet given forth any sentence against Paul yet he appeals à gravamine and it was a great grievance indeed while as Festus shew'd himself to be a most corrupt Judge who though the Jews could prove none of those things whereof they accused Paul Act. 25. 7. which should have made Festus to acquit and dismisse him yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure he would have Paul to go to Ierusalem there to be judged before himself verse 9. Now this was all the favour that the Jews had desired of Festus that he would send Paul to Ierusalem they laying wait in the way to kill him vers 3. No appellation here from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem where he had not as yet compeered to be examined far lesse could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin The most which can be with any colour alleadged from the Text is that Paul declined to be judged by the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause I stand at Caesars Iudgement-seat saith he where I ought to be judged meaning that he was accused as worthy of death for sedition and offending against Caesar whereof he ought to be judged onely at Caesars Tribunall not by the Jews who were no Judges of such matters A declinator of a Judge is one thing and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing But put the case that Paul had indeed appeal●d from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem either it was the civil Sanhedrin or the Ecclesiasticall If the civil it is no President for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts If the Ecclesiastical yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiasticall Courts in Ecclesiasticall causes for it was a capital crime whereof Paul was accused Nay put the case that Paul had at that time appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in an Ecclesiastical cause yet neither could that help our opposites for the government of the Christian Church and the government of the Jewish Church were at that time separate and distinct so that the Ecclesiastical Court which should have judged of any scandall given by Paul if at all he ought to have been censured had been a Christian Synod not a Jewish Sanhedrin And so much of Appeals Of which Question Triglandius Revius and Cabeljavius have peculiarly and fully written Three famous Academies also of Leyden Groening and Utrecht did give their publike testimonies against appeals from Ecclesiastical to civil Courts And the three Professors of Utrecht in their testimony do obtest all Christians that love truth and peace to be cautious and wary of the Arminian poyson lurking in the contrary Tenent See Cabeljav defensio potestatis Ecclesiasticae pag. 60. It is further objected That thus fixing a spirituall jurisdiction in Church-officers we erect two collateral Powers in the Kingdom the Civil and the Ecclesiastical unlesse all Ecclesiastical Courts be subordinate to Magistracy as to a certain head-ship Answ. There is a subordination of Persons here but a co-ordination of powers A subordination of Persons because as the Ministers of the Church are subject to the civil Magistrate they being members of the Common-wealth or Kingdom So the Magistrate is subject to the Ministers of the Church he being a Church-member The former we assert against Papists who say that the Clergy is not subject to the Magistrate The latter we hold against those who make the Magistrate to be the head of the Church Again a co-ordination of powers because as the subjection of the person of the Christian Magistrate to the Pastors and Elders of the Church in things pertaining to God doth not inferre the subordination of the power and office of the Magistrate to the Church-officers So the subjection of Pastors and Elders to the Magistrate in all civil things as other members of the Common-wealth are subject may well consist with the co-ordination of the Ecclesiastical power with the civil And as it is an error in Papists to make the secular power dependant upon and derived from the Ecclesiasticall power So it is an error in others to make the Ecclesiastical power derived from and dependant upon the civil power for the Ecclesiastical power is derived from Christ Ephes. 4. 11. And now while I am expressing my thoughts I am the more confirmed in the same by falling upon the concession of one who is of a different Judgement For he who wrote Ius Regum in opposition to all spiritual authority exercised under any forme of Ecclesiastical Government doth not withstanding acknowledge pag. 16. Both of them the Magistrate and the Minister have their Commission immediatly from God and each of them are subject to the other without any subordination of offices