How Much Authority does "The Church" have?

Let's look back at some history:

The Act of Uniformity was an Act of the Parliament of England which prescribed the form of public prayers, administration of sacraments, and other rites of the Established Church of England, following all the rites and ceremonies and doctrines prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.

Adherence to this was required in order to hold any office in government or the church, although the edition of the Book of Common Prayer prescribed by the act (1662) was so new that most people had never even seen a copy. It also required episcopal ordination for all ministers.

The Act of Uniformity prescribed that any minister who refused to conform to the Book of Common Prayer by St. Bartholomew's Day 1662 should be ejected from the Church of England. This date became known as Black Bartholomew's Day, among dissenters, a reference to the fact that it occurred on the same day as the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572. Oliver Heywood estimated the number of ministers ejected at 2,500.

This group included Richard Baxter, Edmund Calamy the Elder, Simeon Ashe, Thomas Case, William Jenkyn, Thomas Manton, William Sclater, and Thomas Watson, to name just a few. Biographical details of ejected ministers and their fates were later collected by the historian Edmund Calamy, grandson of the elder Calamy.

Although there had already been ministers outside the established church, the Great Ejection created an abiding concept of non-conformity.

Iain Murray argues that the issue was deeper than "phrases in the Book of Common Prayer and forms of church order," but regarded the "nature of true Christianity." The Bishop of Liverpool, J. C. Ryle, referred to the Ejection as an "injury to the cause of true religion in England which will probably never be repaired.".

My comments: Why did these men not submit to Church Authority? Did they not believe that God had placed the Church of England over them? Did they believe that if they would not submit to what the Church leaders felt was biblical that God would not bless their ministries?

Which side would you have been on? Can you actually know beyond a doubt? If you believe that any man or any ministry that the “church” does not recognize or sanction will not be blessed of God and will not further the kingdom, you would have very well been on the Church of England's side, as that was their argument for ejecting these men.

Of course, all of this opens the door to who or what is the “Church” and to what “authority” should we submit. I guess that all depends on your denomination and/or which local church you are a member of.

If you have not studied this part of Church History; I suggest that you do. And study it in depth. It will not only open your eyes to some important errors; but will also convict you in realizing that, what happened then is happening today, it is simply happening on a smaller scale in each and every local church.

Bottom Line:

Being recognized by, and a member of, a local church does not necessarily make you a legitimate member of the universal church anymore than being recognized and ordained by the visible church makes one a legitimate pastor in God's eyes. There are legitimate "fakes" and illegitimate "fakes" in pulpits and pews across this world. My comfort comes from knowing that God knows who are His and who he has called and that we will all stand before Him as the Perfect Righteous Judge. It is not my call to make.