Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	aaron_n	great_a	jerusalem_n	44	3	7.1193	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85746	Of the authority of the highest powers about sacred things. Or, The right of the state in the Church. Wherein are contained many judicious discourses, pertinent to our times, and of speciall use for the order and peace of all Christian churches. / Put into English by C.B. M.A. The method of every chapter is added in the margent, and collected at the end.; De imperio summarum potestarum circa sacra. English.	Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645.; Barksdale, Clement, 1609-1687, translator.	1651 (1651)	Wing G2117; Thomason E1244_1; ESTC R202244	156,216	365

Election inferrs thus Yet I will not thence conclude that the right of electing Bishops is to be reduced to the promiscuous Votes of the common people for whether it be better that the Bishop be design'd at the meeting of the whole Church or by the suffrages of a few no right Constitution can be prescribed to all Churches for severall Countries have severall Laws Customes and Institutes If any in whom the right is abuse it by Tyranny they are compelled into order by the Holy Magistrate or the right of designing Ministers may be transferr'd from them to others for it is sufficient that some Elders performe that office of Electing upon command of the King or Magistrate by the advise and Counsell of men who understand what the function of a Bishop is what is the condition of that Church or People over which a Pastor is to be appointed who also can judge of the endowments the learning and manners of every one By this right Justinian as we have said Constituted a manner of Electing somewhat receding from the former usage and the antient Canons by this right after the Nicene Canon were many Bishops elected by the Clergy and the People The Lawes of Charles the Great and other Kings are extant containing divers wayes of Electing so that Bucer said most truly The form of Election is prescribed by pious Princes Let us now consider whether the Highest Power it self may make Election the question is not whether it ought to make it nor whether it be alwayes expedient to doe so but whether if it doe make Election it commit any offence against the Law Divine We say with the excellent Marsilius Patavinus The Law-giver or Prince is not by any Law of God prohibited from the Institution Collation or Distribution of Ecclesiasticall offices Whosoever affirm the contrary doe accuse of impiety innumerable pious Princes of antient and of this age which truly is a point of great temerity when no Divine Law can be produced to prohibit it as hath been abundantly by others and by us in some part demonstrated Although this might suffice for whatever is not circumscrib'd by Divine Law is within the sphere of the Highest Power yet for the desending of our sentence both reasons and examples are in readinesse The first reason is taken hence that all actions even those that naturally belong to others not having causes determined by nature we see are rightly exercised by the H. Power Naturally men choose teachers for their children and give them Guardians sick persons make use of what Physician they please Merchants elect the Curators of their Company Yet in many places Guardianship is appointed by Law alone or the will of the Magistrates Physicians are constituted by publick Order and Informers of Youth too with interdiction of others from the practice of those faculties and to the Commanies of Merchants are fit Curators also appointed by the Highest Power without blame of any any But if this right be competent to the Highest Power over those things which did belong to every one much more over those things that belong unto the People because the power of the people is devolved upon it as all men know that have any knowledge of the Lawes That sometimes there may be just causes why the H. Power should challenge to it self the Election of Pastors no wise man will deny For often errours introduced into the Church against the word of God cannot be rooted out by other means often there is no other way to avoid Schism often the suffrages of the Clergy are disturb'd with factions popular election with seditions whereof are extant many examples even of the purer times Adde in the last place that the times are now and then so boisterous that the King will hardly keep the Crown upon his head except hee have a care the Pastors may be most obedient and faithfull to him Verily all Histories doe witnesse how dearly the German Emperours paid for their abdication of this Imperiall Right That we may come to Examples it hath been shewed afore that before the Mosaicall Law and afterward among the Nations without Judaea Kings themselves enjoyed the Priesthood the Divine Law not then forbidding it at which time there can be no doubt the Priesthood might also have been committed by them to others as we read the Pontifs and Flamens were created by the Kings of Rome But among the Hebrew people after Moses Law no man except of Aarons family could be admitted to the office of a Priest nor to the service of the Temple unlesse he were a Levit. Hence is Jeroboam justly blam'd for choosing Priests who were not Levits for the Law did not allow it nor was it in the King to command Sacrifices to be offered in any place but the accustomed which after David was Jerusalem Other Functions or the places for them the King might assigne to the Priests and Levits So were some Levits appointed by David for preaching others for singing And that there should be Singers with Harps and other Instruments was God's precept by the Prophets as the application of persons to the severall offices is every where attributed to David under the name of King and after David to Solomon and Jehoshaphat the King not the Prophet by name electeth Priests and Levits whom he might send forth to the Cities of Juda to instruct them The very same thing that is here debated For as some Fathers were of opinion the right of blood in the Moisaicall Law is correspondent to the Imposition of hands in the Christian Law As then the Hebrew King may apply certain persons to a certain office and place but only such as were of Aarons family and Levits so the Christian King rightly makes a Presbyter or Bishop of a certain City but of them which are ordain'd or to be ordain'd And so did Nehemia's Lieutenant to the Persian King leave some Levits in the particular Cities others hee called forth unto Jerusalem Yea the High Priest attained not that dignity by Succession but Election of the great Synedry yet confined unto certain families which Election seemeth to have been the regall right when the Kings reigned the most learned of the Hebrews Maimonides hath observed But let us proceed with the Christians Before Constantine no man will wonder that no Christian Pastors were elected by the Emperours when the Emperours either were enemies to the Church or had it in contempt and accounted it not worthy of their care Constantine gave the force of a Law to the Nicene Canon of Election to be made by Bishops other Emperours after him did the like either by renewing the Canon or not abrogating of it And 't is manifest this manner of Election was long in use the Empire being of greater extent than that the Emperours diligence could provide for all the Churches Notwithstanding this it was lawfull for the Emperours if they pleased to Elect by themselves For seeing it

himself Hence also Austin said The Emperour is not subject to his own Laws for 't is in his power to make new and Justinian In all things before spoken the Emperour is excepted to whom God hath made the Laws themselves to be subject If then the Question be proposed whether it be lawfull for the Highest Power in common accidents to exceed the bounds of Law the Answer may be given in the words of Paul the Apostle It is lawfull but not expedient or in the words of Paul the Lawyer It is lawfull but 't is not for his honour It becomes your wisdome saith Cicero to consider not how much you may doe but what you ought to doe and every where in good Authors to that which is lawfull is opposed that which is a duty that which is expedient that which is honest that which is best to be done Lastly that which is said above hath place here also Though the action hath not full rectitude if Right be not wanting the Act is firme for suppose an unwise command suppose a disorderly command come from the Highest Power it must be fulfill'd if it may be without sin for the Apostles word is still of force We must needs be subject To him hath God allotted Supreme Authority to us is left the glory of Obedience CHAP. VII Of Synods THis place requires that we treat of Synods By Synods we mean Assemblies consisting of Church-Pastors alone or chiefly of them for the acting of somewhat by common consent for if Pastors be call'd together to hear commands that Assembly I suppose is not call'd a Synod The utility of these Synods being evident it is enquired what Original they have and what necessity I find no Precept in the Law Divine for having of a Synod and they are much deceiv'd that make Examples of equall force with Precepts Yet are Examples of great use that it may appear what hath been usuall and what in the like cases may be prudently imitated We have no Examples of these Synods out of the Old Testament for a Synedry is one thing and a Synod another In the New Testament we have a Law for Believers to meet for prayer and hearing the Word and breaking of bread The offended brother is bid to tell it to the Church that is to the Assembly of the faithfull and it is added Where two or three doe joyn in prayer and where two or three are met together in the name of Christ Christ will be present with them And Paul saith The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets speaking of one Church or Congregation Here is no Synod yet The Originall whereof is wont to be taken from that History Acts 15. but whether that Assembly be properly call'd a Synod as we now take the word may be made a Question There arose a Controversie between Paul and Barnabas and certain Jewes at Antioch concerning the force and efficacy of the Mosaicall Law Paul and Barnabas and some of Antioch are sent to know the judgement of the Pastors of all Asia or of Syria Cilicia and Judoea gathered into one place no certainly but of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem The company of the Apostles was a College not a Synod and the Presbytery or Eldership of one City was not a Synod neither Only one Church is consulted with or rather the Apostles only whose Answer is approved by the Elders and Brethren of Jerusalem Wherefore we derive the originall of Synods from the Law of Nature Man being a sociable creature his nature permits association especially with them to whom either any contemplation or action is common So Merchants for Traffick Physicians and Lawyers to examine the controversies in their Art hold their meetings by the Law of Nature But to avoid mistake we distinguish between that which is naturall absolutely and cannot be altered as to worship God to honour our Parents not to hurt the innocent and naturall after a sort that is permitted or allowed by Nature untill some Law of man interpose thus all things are by Nature common all persons free the next of kin is heir untill by humane Constitutions propriety and servitude be introduced and the Inheritance given away by Will In this second acception it is naturall to hold Synods for if it were so in the former sense Bishops would never have asked the Empeperours leave before they met and Jerom's argument to prove a Synod unlawfull were not good Shew me saith he what Emperour commanded the celebration of that Council The convention therefore of a Synod is in the number of those things which being permitted by the Law of Nature are wont to be commanded by humane Law or permitted or prohibited So in the Council of Agatha the Bishops summoned to the Synod are desir'd to come unlesse they be hindred by sicknesse or the royall Precept It may be objected that leave to gather a Synod was never asked of the Pagan Emperours But we say there was no need to ask leave when there were no Imperiall Edicts against it As for the antient Decrees of Senate against meetings religious meetings were excepted in them and particularly the Jewes as Philo relates it had leave of Augustus to assemble In whose privileges the Christians might justly claim a share believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets And Suetonius under the name of Jewes designes the Christians too Besides in the places where most of the Synods were held though subject to the Roman Empire they had the benefit of their own Lawes Wherefore if at any time the Churches enjoyed Peace which often happened under Pagan Emperours the Bishops had no hindrance but they might meet in Synods But in the heat of Persecution as the Christians could not intermit Church-meetings although forbidden by humane Lawes because they were commanded by Divine So the Bishops were carefull not to incurre the suspition and hatred of the Rulers by Synodicall Assemblies so long as the Church could subsist without them Cyprian shewes in severall places when under persecution there arose a great Question about receiving the lapsed into Communion and to the deciding of it there was need of Common-Counsell neverthelesse the Bishops deferred their meeting till the storme was past neither durst the Bishop of Rome Liberius without the consent of Constantius call a Synod The orthodox Bishop of Spain assembled not into the City of Agatha without the permission of King Alaric although an Arian What the Pagan Emperours had no regard of that the Christian Emperours justly assumed to their care and government well considering the corruption of anything to be so much the worse by how much better it is in the regular use After that Synods were not left in medio but as they gave hope of good or fear of evill so they were either commanded or forbidden Therefore Socrates the Historian saith The greatest Synods were holden

and then the Pastors which Office and name remains in the Christian Church and the Elemosynaries which are like unto our Deacons Wherefore in that one place the Pastors joyned to the chiefe of the Synagogue are call'd the Rulers So in the new Testament often the High Priest with those next unto him are called the chief Priests and in Jeremy the antients of the Priests These Rulers of the Synagogues had others over them which were called Primates in either Palestine one and others in other Provinces And thus much be spoken by the way to illustrate the originall of Bishops Our fifth Assertion is Episcopacy hath been the spring-head whence many commodities have flowed into the Church The History of all times proclaims it but I will againe use him for my witnesse who in all Antiquity was the least friend of Bishops that is Jerom In the whole world saith he it was decreed that for the taking away of Schisms and divisions one being elected from among the Presbyters should be set above the rest In another place The Churches safety consisteth in the dignity of the chiefest Priest that is the Bishop to whom if there be not given a Superiour power over all the rest there will be made so many Schisms in the Church as there be Priests Nor is it any thing else which Cyprian doth so frequently inculcate Whence have Schisms and Heresies arisen and doe still arise in the Church but while the Bishop which is one and the Governour of the Church by the proud presumption of some men is contemned And elsewhere Heresies have no other Rise and Schisms no other beginning but hence that obedience is not given to Gods Priest nor is one Priest and Judge for the time in the steed of Christ elected Not only single Assemblies by the presidence of one were guarded against Schisms but as the same Cyprian saith The Universall Church was coupled together by the chaine of Priests linked to one another and united For the whole Christian world was preserv'd in concord by commerce of those Letters which were call'd formate And so much for Episcopall eminence To proceed On behalf of the equality of Pastors we have these things to say not repugnant to those afore First The Episcopall eminence is not of Divine precept This is prov'd enough because the contrary is not prov'd For Christ is no where read to have commanded it Indeed he approv'd it in the Apocalyps but it follows not Because he did approve it Therefore he did command it Episcopacy is of Apostolicall institution because it appears in some Churches Bishops were ordained or approved by the Apostles but the Apostles never commanded that such Bishops should be in every Church By which distinction we separate Jeroms case from the case of Aerius Jerom saith The Bishops became greater than the Presbyters by custome rather than by the Lords dispose As also Austin Episcopacy is greater than Presbytery according to the titles of honour which the Church hath used When the Fathers speak of Custome they exclude not Apostolicall institution yea as Austin saith What is observ'd in the Universall Church nor is instituted by Councils but hath bin alwaies kept is most rightly believ'd to have been deliver'd by no lesse Authority than Apostolicall But as we have elsewhere said it is not presently of Divine precept whatsoever is instituted by the Apostles for many things are instituted with reservation of a Liberty to make a change That the people should with a clear voice say Amen at the end of prayers That the Preacher should be uncover'd was a Constitution in the Apostolicall Church Which in many places now we see is not observed Moreover the Apostles so appointed Bishops that they left certaine Churches without Bishops as Epiphanius acknowledges There was need of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two the Ecclesiasticall Offices may be compleat but where none was found worthy of the Episcopacy the place remain'd without a Bishop but where was need and they were worthy of the Episcopacy Bishops were ordained Those Churches therefore as Jerom speaks were govern'd by the common Counsell of the Presbyters This we shall adde in the second place It was not universally observ'd that one Bishop should be over every City Of the Apostles time we suppose it is already prov'd And afterward more Bishops than one were in the same City in imitation of the Jews who had as many chief Rulers as they had Synagogues but in one City often times were many Synagogues or as Philo cals them Proseuche places of prayer So at Jerusalem was one Synagogue of Libertines another of the Cyrenians a third of the Alexandrians And at Corinth about the same time were named two chief Rulers of Synagogues Crispus and Sosthenes Epiphanius declares it was instituted first at Alexandria that in the whole City should be but one Bishop At last in the VIII Nicene Canon we see it was defin'd That there should not be two Bishops in any City yet so that withall it appears the Canon was sometimes dispenc'd with For the Canon permits that Bishops returning from the Sect of the Cathari to the Catholick Church should retein Episcopall honour next to the Catholick Bishop So the Ephesin Synod after the Election of Theodorus grants that honour to Eustachius as appears by an Epistle to the Synod of Pamphilia and in the conference before Marcellinus the Catholicks offer the same unto the Donatists if they would returne unto Communion Every one of us receiving an associate of his honour may sit with greater eminence the peregrine Bishops sitting by as a Collenge Valerius also in the Church of Hippo assumed Austin to himselfe Which although Austin saith 't was done through ignorance of the Canons appears yet to have been a thing not unheard of afore much lesse believ'd repugnant to the Law Divine Moreover the Episcopall Chairs in many Cities were often void not for some months only but many years together all which time The Churches that I may againe speak with Jerom were govern'd by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters or as Ignatius saith The Presbyters fed the flock untill God should shew them one to governe them To the Roman Clergy we see Cyprian wrote many Letters and the Clergy answer'd him concerning all things pertaining to the State of the Church Furthermore all the antients doe confesse there is no act except Ordination so proper to the Bishop but it may be exercis'd by the Presbyter Chrysostome and Jerom are very clear in this point And although in the judgement of these Fathers the right of Ordination is denyed Presbyters which may be seen in the constitutions of many Synods partly Universall partly topicall yet why may not this be understood that the Presbyters could ordaine none in contempt of the Bishop That they did in some sort concurre to Ordinations with the Bishop seems to appeare by the IV. Synod of Carthage When