Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	militant_a	part_n	triumphant_a	3,093	5	10.9054	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48309	A discovrse concerning Puritans tending to a vindication of those, who unjustly suffer by the mistake, abuse, and misapplication of that name.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.; Ley, John, 1583-1662.	1641 (1641)	Wing L1876; ESTC R212712	47,271	67

that either the Temporall or the Ecclesiasticall Magistrate must be in all Cases absolutely predominant and that since the Ecclesiasticall ought not by Christs owne command therefore the Temporall ought as hath been further proved by sundry arguments and Scripture proofes alledged out of this famous Politician So much of the temporall power and its necessary Supremacie my endevour shall be now to maintain that no Ecclesiasticall power is at all necessary in meere Ecclesiasticall persons Master Calvin according to the popish grounds maintains that spirituall jurisdiction differs from temporall and is not incompatible but assistant thereto because it proposes not the same ends but severall which by severall meanes may be the better compassed But the spirituall Magistrate as I conceive can propose no other end then what the Secular ought to ayme at for either the Prince ought to have no care at all of the Honour of God and the good of men and that which is the prime meane of both true Religion or else his ends must bee the same which the Prelate aymes at viz. to vindicate Religion by removing and correcting scandalous offenders Secondly to preserve the innocent from contagion by the separation of open offenders Thirdly to prevent further obduration or to procure the amendment of such as have transgressed by wholsome chastisement This is beyond all controversie as also that the person and power of a Prince are as sacred to effect these ends as the Prelates and certainly God did not so sanctifie their persons and offices for any lesse end And therefore in ancient times Holy Bishops did preach and recommend nothing more to Princes then the care of Religion though proud Prelates now arrogate this onely to themselves and though it be still apparant that no offence is so spirituall but that it is a civill evill as well as a blemish to Religion forsomuch as true Religion is the foundation of a State And this could not bee neither were Princes answerable to God for the corruption of Religion if God had not given them a supreme power and that effectuall to bring all offenders whatsoever to confession satisfaction and contrition or to expell them the congregation by themselves or their surrogates Master Calvin instances in adultery and drunkennesse c. and sayes That the temporall power punishes these by externall force and for publicke examples sake as it concernes the State but the Spirituall Iudge punishes them without force internally for the amendment of the delinquent Hee might as well have named swearing lying stealing murdering and all sinnes whatsoever and so have made all men twice punishable and the Ecclesiasticall Courts as full of businesse as the Temporall to the great vexation of the State and danger of division out of this false ground onely that Temporall power hath not a competence for the amendment of offenders or for the care of Religion but only for the satisfaction of wronged parties and the expedition of Civill Justice This is a way to erect regnum in regno and to maintaine such concurrent jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spirituall as temporal either the one or other must go unquestioned and this may produce division or else both and that will cause most certaine confusion Both sides here seem strangely puzled the rigidest of the Episcopall faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelats where they performe not what their duty is in their functions or jurisdictions and this power requires a higher power of summoning arraigning and legally trying them and yet the moderatest of the Presbyteriall faction would have Princes questionable tryable and punishable by the Spiritualty This is a grosse confusion which will appeare to be so more plainly in the sequel when it is more fully cleared that to Princes alone God has precisely committed utramque tubam and utramque tabulam too as our reverend Andrews says 'T is true as Calvin alleadges Princes are sons of the Church they are in it not above it the word intending the Church universall such as is both militant and triumphant past present and future for that hath no other head but Christ to that all Princes and Priests are equally sons but take Church for such or such a Nationall Locall Church and then the Prince is head thereof under Christ and the Clergy are part of his charge and under his protection The same man also may in diverse respects be both father and son to the same man without confusion of relations A King a Bishop may heare the Word and receive the Sacrament from an inferiour Minister a Subject may be naturall father to his Prince and in this respect a filiall subjection is due from the Superiour and so a King may referre his own case to his Chancellor yet this destroyes not the greater higher and more generall superiority in other things at other times And to me it seemes that even in the exercise of the Keys the Priest officiates under the Prince as the Chancellour does in matters of Law even when the Kings own case lyes in Iudgement before him and when perhaps hee makes a decree against his own Master and contrary to his owne Masters private advertisement and yet the King is not properly either Lawyer or Theologue though both are actuated and organized as it were by the soule like commanding over-seeing and over-ruling of his more sublime and divine power Herein the Priest also may learne a limitation from the Lawyer for though the Iudge bee bound to pronounce right Iudgement against his owne Master yet this holds not in all cases alike because of his limitted condition for in Criminall cases such as concerne the safety of the Kings own person or the Royall dignity of his calling therein Iudgement must be utterly mute And therefore it is a weake argument of Master Calvin though it be his best when he inferres a necessity of an Ecclesiasticall Iudicature from hence because else the Prince himselfe wanting punishment should escape free for the reason is the same in matters of Law the King is not questionable or responsible for personall crimes and yet this is held no politicall mischiefe Besides if the Prince shall not go unquestioned or undisciplined by the Spirituall yet the supreme Spirituall Magistrate must and this is an equall if not a greater mischiefe for both cannot be equally lyable to the judgement of each other Neither is it to much purpose that the example of Bishop Ambrose so harshly so unreverendly treating pious penitent Theodosius is so confidently cited always by either faction Episcopall and Presbyteriall for though the name of Ambrose be great yet I will crave leave to speake as an Advocate against him in the name of the Emperour Theodosius Reverend Sir you take upon you to be a Iudge over me and to condemne me of a bloudy Massacre committed unjustly at Thessalonica and being so condemned you proceed against mee with your