naturall power right liberty and prudence in ordering all kinds of affairs societies and families are no otherwise distinct in kind or species then a yard that measured cloth differs from that which measured searge as a yard is alike appliable to silk and thred and the same hammer will knock in an iron naile and a wooden pin so the same power and prudence governeth the church and a colledge It is also observable that a man being at once a member of a family hall city Parliament church doth not act alwaies according to the quality of his relation function and place publick or private not acting as a physitian father or husband but as a judge and not as a church-member but as a free member of a society Thus a member of a colledge of physitians joyneth in consultation with his brethren in a case of physick as a physitian but in making lawes regulating the practise of physick and the apothecaries entrenching upon the physitians he doth not act as a physitian but as a judge and as a person invested with judiciall power from the state The same physitian in a Parliament upon the matter and question of physick and of physitians to be regulated may speak pertinently of his art as a physitian but doth not vote give his consent to the making of a law about physick as a physitian but as a judge of the land Likewise to be sure by what right pastors and people act in the church the acts and actions of a pastor or church-church-member are to be considered either as acts of pastors and of church-church-members or as they are acts of rulers and members of a society The act of a pastor as pastor is to discharge all ministeriall function commanded in the revealed word and not declared by any dictate of nature In those acts I see no right of jurisdiction but over the inward man when by the power of the word the sinner is brought to the obedience of the crosse of Christ The acts of church-members as such are either in relation to the pastor or of one member to another In relation to the pastor the acts are to submit to the minister ruling them and dispensing unto them the word They may have that liberty to try his doctrine and to do as they of Beroea who searched the Scriptures to know whether it was so as St. Paul preached unto them this is also an act of every faithfull member of the church not to assent to any doctrine because it hath been assented unto by the major part of suffrages but in things that concern order and discipline to yield to the constitutions agreed on by the major part of the assembly so that by them the bond of charity and the truth of the doctrine be not violated and perverted The acts of church-church-members relating one to another are to bear one anothers burthens to forgive and edifie one another to preferre another before himself The acts of pastors and church-church-members as they are endowed with a power common to all other societies are 1. to do all things orderly 2. to make a discipline sutable to time and place since there is not in the Scripture a positive precept concerning the same 3. to oblige every member to the lawes of the discipline voted by the major part of the members 4. to admit and expell the members which by the major part are thought fit so to be Many other acts are performed by the same members not as church-members as to appeal to a superiour tribunall as magistracy or synod in case of wrong sustained for they do not oppose a just defence to wrong by any other right then a member of any society should do Thus an assembly of Christians meeting in a church way being persecuted or assaulted in their temple by rude and wicked men doth not oppose a just defence by weapons or otherwise as church-church-members but as men invested with naturall power against an unjust violence In short ministers and people have many actâ—ngs within the sphear of Christian duties which are not proper to them as Christians and members of churches being like in that to a physitian who doth not build as a physitian or to a counsellor of State carrying a letter to a friend who acts then the part of a letter-bearer thus a father hath a power over his son by a naturall paternall right but he doth instruct him in a Gospell way by a paternall Christian right and duty grounded upon a positive precept of the Scripture thus Queen Mary of England established a religion by a naturall right power and duty annexed to all soveraignty to order sacred things with a soveraign authority but Queen Elizabeth did overthrow the false worship and did set up Protestant religion not only by the same right that Queen Mary had but also by a positive right as principall church-member as Ezechiah Iosiah c. appointed by God to be heads and nursing fathers and mothers of the churches The same things lawes and constitutions that are of divine right are also of humane right and likewise the things that are of humane right in a good sense may be said to be of divine right Things are said to be of divine or humane right either because the matter of right is concerning Gods worship or humane policie or because God or man is the author of them Thus the lawes of the Iewes regulating their Commonwealth are said both to be of divine and humane right divine because God is the authour of them humane because they order all affairs about mine and thine right and wrong and betwixt man and man Likewise many things have been instituted with great wisedome by magistrates and councils which may well be said to be both of divine and humane right Divine because they further the purity of worship and power of godlinesse humane because they were instituted by men and may suffer alteration and reformation So things that are every way of divine right both for the matter and institution as the eating of the passeover and the observation of the Sabbath may be said to be of humane right because commanded and enjoyned by humane authority The very calling of synods which they say is of divine institution both for their institution which is Apostolick and for the matter that is handled in them none but a papist did yet deny to be the Emperours and magistrates right Thus fasting prayer publick humiliation though duties to be performed by divine right and precept are also of humane right as commanded and ordered by the magistrate in a publick way Thus it was the good Kings of Iuda's right and none can blame them for it to command fasting and prayers Lastly things that are every way of humane right and made by man and have for their object the regulating of humane affairs as are the lawes concerning conduit-pipes buildings forests chases c. may conveniently be said to be of divine right because by divine right they
where the words kahal or gnedah are taken sometimes for the whole congregation as Deuter. 31. v. 30. where Moses pronounced a canticle in the hearing of the whole church or congregation and yet the 28. verse sheweth that by the whole congregation the magistrates and elders are meant thus Levit. 4. v. 13 14 15 and 21. where if the people had trespassed ignorantly the church that is the assembly of magistrates and elders are commanded to offer atonement for the sin and Deut. 23. v. 1. the eunuch the bastard the Moabite and the Ammonite are barred from the congregation or the church that is from publick employment for a converted Moabite was not forbidden from the Jewish church Sometimes for a senat of judges and magistrates called Synedrium as Proverb 26. v. 26. and so it is interpreted by the LXX and there you have a plain exposition of the word church Matth. 18. for the like cause of wrong and injury is spoken of in both places and the like judicatory so Ecclesiasticus 23. v. 24. the adulteresse is convented before the church that is before the judicatory of judges and elders Which places manifestly declare that Christ meant such a judicatory amongst the Jewes whereof the words heathen and publican make further proof and that Jesus Christ spoke of the same kind of judicatory and men as ordinarily were found when he spoke the words but it is evident that neither in Christs time nor ever since his time the word church was taken for an assembly or senat of ecclesiasticalls or an assembly of pastors So that was there any such sentence of excommunication or censure inflicted by the church upon the party that did the wrong this judgement or sentence must needs be pronounced by such a Synedrium or senat of judges and elders endowed with judiciall authority as the word church was usually taken for among the Jews But suppose the word church was not used by Christ in that sense our brethren should shew us that Jesus Christ did speak it in a Scripture sense and as it was taken in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles namely as they would have it for an assembly of Christian church-officers invested with judiciall authority Here one controverted place of Scripture must be expounded by another and while there is very great likelyhood that Jesus Christ meant a senat ordinarily sitting amongst the Jewes to decide controversies of wrong betwixt brother and brother and which was not made up of officers distinct from the magistrate or men delegated by him if they will weaken our plea and exposition which is very rationall and naturall and make it as probable and likely that he spoke of a company of church-officers distinct from the magistrate they must look out some parallel place either in the old or new Testament where the word church is so understood which I am confident they will never find But to yield as much as I can though I find no where in the old Testament the words kahal and gnedah church signifying such an assembly of church-officers yet I find 1 Sam. 19. v. 20. the word lahakath mentioned where it is spoken of a company of Prophets which word our brethren might as well interpret a church but neither would this serve their turn for in that place of Samuel quoted those prophets were not sitting in a senat church or colledge nor were they about any church act but were travelling in the high-way and however our Lord Jesus Christ had no reference to such a church or assembly of prophets who as prophets were never endowed with a judiciall power Samuel indeed was over them as an Arch-prophet but as such he had no jurisdiction in Israel but as a Prince and Judge of the people CHAPTER XIX That a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place about the worship of God is the only true visible church mentioned in Scripture That that church considered as an assembly of Christians bringeth forth other kinds of acts then it doth considered as a society of men by which the nature and extent of the power of a private church is made clear and evident HAving mentioned the acceptions of the word Church in the new Testament there being not any visible assembly either according to the first or second acception it remaineth that a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place with one accord about the worship of God enjoying the same ordinances hath the true denomination of a church This church presbyterian particular church or congregationall is the true adequate subject of all church-right discipline and power which it enjoyes partly by a divine positive right as it is a congregation of Christians partly by a divine naturall civil politick right as it is a society of men endowed with wisedome prudence and liberty to govern themselves by such lawes as they find most convenient for their subsistence The first is a divine positive right for however men are so or otherwise commanded by some externall power yet the pastor is to look for a flock and people and the people for a pastor and both are to meet in as convenient a place and competent a number as they can to enjoy the ordinances of Christ by hearing the word praying and partaking of the Sacraments by a warrant and command from Christ By the same right warrant and command the pastor or pastors of the church are to perform all the pastorall acts as to preach to those that will hear not by constraint but willingly to command in the name of Christ to exhort to dehort to beseech men to be reconciled to God to lay out Christ in the promises of the Gospell to denounce the judgements of God to the impenitent and unbelievers to admit to the Eucharist all baptized persons and visibly professing Christianity who are not ignorant or publick infamous offenders ' or profane refusing none by any judiciall act of theirs denouncing sentence of excommunication or any other censure but by their generall duty as Christians by which they are bound not to have communion with such unfruitfull workers of darknesse Otherwise they are to impose nothing no injunction no censure or punishment but on such as without constraint and willingly undergo it and are contented so to do The other acts of a pastor out of the congregation are to offer himself sent or unsent to visit and comfort the sick the prisoner the widow the fatherlesse to see all persons and families that are of his flock to be the same at home as at church of the same Gospell-conversation and that all ranks be filled with the knowledge of the Lord to respect no mans degree or person in delivering his message from Christ saying even as John Baptist to Herod it is not for thee to keep thy brothers wife briefly to do the office of a faithfull minister in season and out of season The acts of the people in a society of church-members are double some do
respect the pastor others the fellow-members Those that respect the pastor or pastors are to maintain observe respect and honour them first for their callings sake looking upon them as Ambassadours from Christ and then for their work and the word that they bear to receive their commands as commands of Christ and yet not with a blind obedience but first being perswaded and convinced yea judging them by the judgement of spirituall men and by a judgement of discretion and approbation proving the pastors doctrine though it came out of another St. Pauls mouth The acts and duties of church-members as such one towards another are to love edifie forbear and submit one to another But a main act of a church-member as such is not to submit his own reason to the number of his fellow-members in assenting to or dissenting from such a doctrine act or law made by them but to the weight and to what he by his reason inlightened by the word conceiveth to be most good true just and reasonable yet for conformity sake and mutuall edification yielding as far as he may The acts of the power of the church by a naturall divine politick civil right not as they are Christians or church-members but as they are a society of men endowed with humane prudence freedom of body and mind and have discretion as to govern themselves and their private families so to contribute their advice and help towards the government of any society of men whereof they are members these acts I say are common to all other societies as to a company a hall a corporation a colledge or school these acts are to do all things orderly to chuse their own church-officers that orders made by the major part of the society shall oblige the minor dissenting part to chuse time and place of meeting to admit or reject such officers or members as the major part of the members shall think fit that each member shall stand to any order of the discipline once consented unto by him till the order be reversed by the consent of the major part All these acts are to be guided not only by the light of reason and common prudence but chiefly by that measure of light of grace or faith that God hath imparted to every church-member which light being not known but to him that hath received it and the springs and motives which induce each member of a church-society rather to be of this then of that judgement in ordering and governing the society being unknown to the universality of the society therefore church-members are to be governed as the members of any other society by the dictate of men as men and not as Christians submitting either actively or passively to an order and law because it is an order and law not because it is good and reasonable It is better in such things as they say that a mischief should happen then an inconvenience for if one member though alone in the right should dissent from the rest of his fellow-members no man but will judge that it is much better that this one dissenting member should submit to that which is wrong either by acting or suffering then that all proceedings for order and discipline should be stayed Were no law valid but to him that thinketh it so the world would be in a strange confusion So then an assembly of Christians being a society of men and a Christian having the face like a lawyer a physitian or a merchant and nothing being seen but the out-side they must be all governed by the same dictate which appeareth prima fronte to be reason to a man considered as a man and not as he is a Christian lawyer or physitian And as Dionysius governed his Kingdom and school by the same dictates of reason so must a society of merchants a colledge of physitians a family and so a society of Christians Of these two kinds of acts as every society hath one proper to it self as it is a society of merchants physitians lawyers Christians so one kind of these acts is common to all as they are equally a society of men that must have a government and magistracy set up within themselves and so must a society of Christians meeting about the worship of God have But to make it evident that all church-acts are not acts of men as church-members but as members of a society and not as Christians but as invested with magistracy either assumed by a confederate discipline or delegated I might instance the like necessity of two kinds of acts in all societies of men that can be imagined not considered as Christians For example these two kinds of acts will be found in a colledge of physitians who as physitians joyn in consultation upon a case propounded to them send bills to their apothecaries examine and judge of the worth of those that are candidates or have license to practise physick discourse of their art either asunder or in a body as in a consultation but as a society of men invested with jurisdiction and magistracy they chuse a president censors and officers they make choise of time and place to sit they do all things orderly they admit or expell members they give authority and license to practise physick they bind themselves to stand to those orders that are made by the major part of their fellows which act is no act of physitians as physitians but a dictate of any other society who usually take that for a law of the society that hath passed by the major part of their members By this by the way we see what plea synods except they be infallible as the synod of the Apostles was can have for making decrees and canons by an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction it being in truth no other then what is assumed by all societies whose orders do passe for lawes as to themselves if made by the major part of their members But some of our brethren will interpose and say that if the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed a set rule for governing of particular churches as some of them are of opinion and this rule be not arbitrary nor left to the dictate of mens common reason prudence then it followeth that those acts for taking care that those set rules of Christ for government be according to the mind of Christ are duties of church-church-members as such and not as members of a society To this I answer were it so that the Lord Jesus Christ had appointed an exact and expresse rule for government in particular churches I confess that those acts to see the mind of Christ fulfilled are acts of church-church-members as such so far as both pastor and members do act in obedience to God and not unto men not by constraint but willingly for so the preaching and hearing of the word are to be performed by church-church-members as such but these same acts specially about government as far as they are commanded and imposed and require externall obedience and that the
constitutions that are made about them are acts of the major part of the members are valid not because they are lawes of Christ and approved to every ones conscience but because like lawes and orders of other societies they do oblige as such and as consented unto in the making of them by the major part of the members though it may be the minor part were in the right for as the acts of a magistrate commanding things directly commanded by God are the magistrates acts so those acts performed in a particular church though commanded expressely by God in as much as they require externall obedience either actively or passively are acts of that magistracy set up in that church I find in a result of a synod in New-England printed at the end of the book of Mr. Cotton of the Covenant of Grace some conclusions wholly consonant to what I now write in this chapter of the two kinds of acts that are performed in every particular church the one done by them as church-church-members the other being an effect of magistracy set up in every particular church considered not as a church but as a society The first kind of acts is proper to those church-church-members who by any power of magistacy are not put upon stronger engagements of oredience then if there had never been any The second is exercised by magistracy either in the church or out of the church against the obstinate and unruly and such as need to be compelled I find the synod speak much to that purpose namely p. 40. the collectour saith from them that for remedying disorders and taking away or preventing grosse errors there must be a power of restraint and coercion used and in regard that every particular church is to be as well considered in the quality of a civil society as a society of church-members CHAPTER XX. That the power attributed to private churches by the reverend dissenting brethren doth very well accord with the power of magistracy in matters of religion as it is held by Erastus Bullingerus Musculus Grotius Mr. Selden and Mr. Coleman This same is proved by reason and by the testimony of Mr. Burroughs writing the sense of all his brethren as also by the practise of the churches in New-England WHen at first I undertook to write of this subject I had no other designe but to assert the nullity of a double externall jurisdiction and to prove that there being no such thing neither in Scripture nor reason as an ecclesiasticall power all jurisdiction that was not united under and appertained not to the magistrate was not a power of coercion was no jurisdiction Neither was I then lesse dissenting from the church-way and power retained by the rever brethren of the congregation then from the presbyterian brethren and the rather because I saw both parties carried with as much eagernesse of opposition against Erastus and Mr. Coleman as they were among themselves besides not fancying to my self otherwise but that all jurisdiction called ecclesiasticall and assumed by whatsoever society of men either single or made up by the aggregation of many societies which was not subordinate to the magistrates power was alike against reason and Scripture But being not able to study my main matter intended without enquiring into the nature of the power that both parties assumed to themselves I found that the tenets of the brethren of the congregationall way could very well accord with mine and which was not yet by any considered that the right of particular churches as the dissenting brethren hold might very well consist with that measure of power that Erastus Bullingerus Musculus Gualterus Grotius Mr. Selden Mr. Coleman allowed to the magistrate in matters of religion and over churches and that independency of private churches I mean independency from presbyterian classicall and synodicall judicatories doth no way hinder their right and liberty nor their dependency on the magistrate nor cutteth short the magistrate of the soveraign power he ought to have overall societies and persons and in all causes and matters Lastly I found that this way of reconciliation was most agreeable with Scripture reason the practise of the Jewes and of the primitive church of Christians besides was confessed so by many learned men who though seemingly otherwise affected and carried by more heat then knowledge of what was passed or held in this Island have notwithstanding in their tracts about the power of churches and discipline laid the same grounds that the dissenting brethren have delivered I need not be very long in proving by reason that this reconciliation betwixt the advocates of the magistrates power in matters of religion and those that plead for the right of churches is already made to our hands by what I have already handled I adde further these following considerations 1. Since every private church hath within it self a power of magistracy and that all magistracy in whatever society it be seated is subordinate to the magistrate of those societies it doth consequently follow that that magistracy wherewith every private church is invested is also subordinate to the magistrate for as I have demonstrated since no society of church-members no more then of citizens merchants physicians and the like can be imagined without lawes discipline and power of restraint and coercion so neither can it be imagined that such a power is not dependent on the magistrate for if a member of a society be obstinate and refractory and will not be ruled but by coercion and compulsion it be more then church-members as such can do to reduce him by exhortation and good advice then church-members must act also by a power of magistracy either assumed or delegated however it be that power of magistracy is subordinate to the soveraign magistrate 2. It is a maxime in Scripture Philosophie and common reason that theorems or propositions that are true asunder are no way contradictory one to another Now these two following propositions are of an undeniable truth viz. The magistrate is a soveraign governour over all persons and societies and in all matters and causes whether they pertain to religion or no and this Every particular church hath a right and power to govern it self without any dependence either on other churches or church-judicatories Each of these propositions being considered as true asunder must also be very consistent and no way clashing one with the other 3. That the right of churches may well stand with the power of the magistrate may appear by example of many societies as families corporations halls whose intrinsecall power of magistracy agreeth exceeding well with that of the magistrate over them for none doubteth but every father of a family hath a power to govern his children houshold and servants as he listeth being in his own as it were house a magistrate and a Priest yet none hitherto questioned but that paternall and oeconomicall powers are subordinate to the power of the magistrate for even the civil law and so
many constitutions about regulating the power of fathers masters and husbands and yet allowing them their authority at home are an argument that their fatherly power is consistent with their subordination to the magistrate 4. There be as I shewed above two kinds of acts to be performed in a church one as they are church-church-members the other as they are a society that for their government must assume some part of jurisdiction of the same nature with the magistrates power In the managing of the acts of the first kind there is no subordination of the church to the magistrate but only in the second for preaching hearing the word of God administring the sacraments walking holily submitting one to another are no acts of power subordinate to the magistrate and under that consideration I will grant the right of churches not to depend on the magistrate but as these acts in a church-way cannot be exercised without a power of magistracy assumed in this regard a church may be said to be subordinate to the fountain of magistracy For it is with these two kinds of acts in subordination to God and the magistrate as with the body and the soul For none doubts but the faculty and gifts of reasoning apprehending truth loving God and our neighbour believing in Christ are no acts subordinate to the power of the magistrate but as reasoning faith love must be supposed resident in the body of man and that the man in doing acts subordinate to the magistrates power as going ordering commanding and obeying doth carry along his reason faith and love in like manner as it is not possible to consider a man performing the acts of reason faith and love and not being the while subordinate to the power of the magistrate so a church even performing those acts of church-church-members as such in as much as the second kind of acts that are subordinate to the magistrate must be joyned with the first cannot be considered without it be subordinate to the magistrate 5. If the power of churches were not subordinate to the magistrate many inconveniences would follow 1. That some churches gathered by the magistrate and his acts of appointing time place and stipends should not be subordinate to him 2. Or if he should gather none and besides appoint no publick worship to take place in all parts of his dominions but leave that wholly to the will of those that congregate of their own accord this I say would in a very short time breed irreligion or heathenisme in most places and most tanks of men for then it must be conceived that not one of 20. would congregate of themselves that the 19. parts not being called upon nor any way invited by publick ordinances set up in all places of mens abode atheisme or neglect of all religion would soon ensue in most parts And a persecuting magistrate as in the primitive church were ten times rather to be wished then one carelesse and neglecting to set up ordinances for by one of these two wayes either by persecution or by countenancing and commanding the worship of God the magistrate causeth religion to flourish by doing neither one nor the other he takes the way to abolish it as Julian the apostate was about to do if God had not the sooner cut him off 6. But suppose it be granted on all sides that the magistrate is bound to do what King Edward did or Queen Elizabeth to banish popery to set up protestantisme and an orthodox ministery in all parishes throughout England which acts cannot be performed by a few particular churches with all their church power sure it must be also granted that all those acts of a magistrate in ordering affairs of religion are in his disposall and depending on him 7. Since then the magistrate must have the ordering of those affairs of religion which he himself hath constituted if he should not likewise be the supreme governour of those churches which he hath not erected but were gathered by the members of churches of their own accord there could not but a great confusion arise in mens minds as well as in the state it being no small businesse to distinguish the power of the churches that are subordinate to the magistrate and the power of those churches that are not From reason I descend to the authority of the rever brethren both in old and new England dissenting from the presbyterians In old England the reverend pious Jeremie Burroughs will be in stead of all the rest of his brethren for in the eleventh chapter of his Irenicum he professeth to deliver not only his own judgement but also that of his brethren with whom he had occasion to converse Whoever shall peruse his book throughout specially the fifth chapter will find that he attributeth as much power to the magistrate over churches as any of the opposites to the presbyterian brethren Which power of the magistrate while he asserteth he never conceives it should overthrow his other positions namely in the seventh chapter concerning the right and power of churches or that his stating the right liberty and power of churches could not consist with the power of the magistrate over them Now he is very expresse in the said chapter for the power of the magistrate in sacred things Pag. 21. he saith that magistrates in their magistracy are specially to ayme at the promoting of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the mediatour and there and throughout that long chapter you have these conclusions 1. That the church and Commonwealth of Israel were mixed in one that there is no reason it should be now otherwise 2. That the power of the magistrate is alike in the times of the old and new Testament and were it so that nothing were set down of it in the new Testament that it is enough it is a law not only granted to the Israelites but also of the light given to the very heathens whose power of magistracy was to govern religion as well as other things 3. That it is most unreasonable that a magistrate turning either from the heathenish or Jewish religion should enjoy lesse power in matters of religion then he had when he was a Jew or heathen An infidel magistrate saith he converted to Christian religion is thereby better inabled to perform the duty of his place then before but he had the same authority before 4. He holds that the magistrate hath a soveraign judgement of his commands though unskilfull in the things commanded A magistrate that is not skilfull in physick or in navigation yet he may judge physitians and mariners if they wrong others in their way 5. He asserts largely the power of the magistrate in matters of religion by the example of the Kings of Judah and Israel yea of the Kings of Niniveh and of Artaxerxes interposing his power in matters of religion for which Ezra blesseth God whosoever will not do the law of thy God and the law of the King let judgement be executed upon
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-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 Oâ—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 religionâ—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
magistrate Since then an irreconcilable brother ought to be esteemed as an heathen is it any whit against Christian charity for the party offended to sue him before an heathen magistrate This exposition is very naturall having nothing strained but most like to be the sense of Jesus Christ As for the 18. verse concerning binding and loosing we have examined what strength can be in it for excommunication not discussing whether it may not be as well applyed as Chrysostome Austin Theophy lact thought to every private man as to the operation of the word in the ministry or whether this verse hath any coherence with the precedent discourse of Christ Neither will I enter into the controversy whether Iudas was partaker of the Eucharist for it is not much materiall to know it all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or casting out and that he did eat of the passeover which eating was equivalent to that of the Lords Supper Now lest more heads of objection of this Hydra of excommunication should arise if all should not be cut off we must examine what strength the example of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. hath for excommunication But this extract being already too much lengthened and the drift of it all along being to prove that the casting out of any member of a church being the same with the putting out of the synagogue is no act of ministry or of church members as such but an act of magistracy I need not to speak of it at all besides that these 3. or 4. observations will take off all hold for excommunication 1. It is granted by Calvin Beza Walaeus Apollonius Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie that St. Paul mentioneth but one censure inflicted upon the incestuous person viz. excommunication and that the delivering of him to Satan was the casting him out of the congregation 2. Now it being evident that this delivering to Satan was no excommunication but a judgement quite of another nature it is likewise equally evident that the putting away of the incestuous person being the same with delivering him to Satan was no excommunication 3. This casting out of the incestuous person makes nothing for that excommunication which is only a putting a man by from partaking of the Eucharist for though examples may be brought out of the Scriptures of men cast out or kept from the temple or synagogues yet there is no one example nor any reason for it that a man admitted to enter either into the temple or the synagogue should not be partaker of the same mystery or ordinances celebrated with the rest 4. Calvin thinks that St. Paul by these words put away the wicked from among you did not point particularly at the incestuous person but rather at the devil or the wicked one indefinitely as the plotter and contriver of all evil which St. Paul saith was put away from them by that delivery of the incestuous person to Satan 5. Wendelinus in his common places of excommunication saith that the putting away of the incestuous person from among the Cormthians was not only an exclusion from godly converse as praying hearing and receiving the â—ucharist with him but also from civil commerce in eating trading and talking with him Which exposition is the most naturall I know and proveth that this putting away was no act of ecclesiasticall power distinct from the civil for alwayes every court punisheth according to its kind a court of Exchequer doth not summon men for causes that are of the cognizance of a court-Martiall so neither should an ecclesiasticall court impose penalties that are to be inflicted by a civil court such as is the depriving of a man of civil liberty 6. Learned Mr. Lightfoot saith that all the power of the church of Corinth in delivering the incestuous person to Satan was by the strength of Paul's spirit that went along with them so that the people of Corinth acting by no power of their own no church ought to do as that church then did except they be sure of the assistance of the same spirit Next in order followeth the necessity of self-examination 1 Cor. 11. made an argument to prove that ministers must examine every communicant and judge of mens worthinesse For Beza Walaeus Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie thus argue If it be the duty of every man to examine himself much more is it the duty of a minister to examine him Never was an argument more inconsequent and lesse concludent by which the Papists may as well prove auricular confession If men must confesse their sins to God much more must ministers require every man to confesse their sins to them For quite on the contrary from this Text these or the like inferences should be drawn If all men must examine themselves much more ought ministers to examine themselves or this If every church-member ought to examine himself then ought the ministers to exhort them to that self-examination or this If every church-member ought to prepare himself for the word and Sacraments then ministers are not to prepare them otherwise then by shewing them and giving them directions for their due preparation leaving every one to do the work himself CHAPTER XXIX That excommunication is contrary to common sexse and reason THere being no Scripture for excommunication in the next place we shall see that there is no reason for it I do not deny but that a private church as well as any other society by vertue of a power of magistracy seated in them may expell a member out of their society but that this is done in obedience to a pâ—sitive command of Christ by a jurisdiction independent from the magistrate and by warrant from those words whatsoever ye shall bind on carth c. I conceive to be absurd impertinent a yoke laid upon Christians necks which is none of Christs as if whomsoever pastors do bind or excommunicate on earth Christ also doth bind or excommunicate in Heaven and whomsoever they absolve or loose on earth Christ also doth absolve and loose in Heaven 1. Since the words Matth. 16. and 18. be the very same words it is absurd to understand them in the 16. chapter absolutely but in the 18. conditionally Now they would have the words Matth. 16. whatsoever ye shall bind c. spoken to Peter to be without condition and absolute that God should approve of and ratify whatever opening loosing and binding should ensue upon Peters preaching and converting of souls for Calvin Pareus and most Divines will not have in that place any thing understood of church-censures but only of the operation of the word by the preaching of Peter But though it were granted that in the 18. chapter Christ spake of church censures by excommunication what reason is there why they should not be understood as absolute and without condition in one chapter as well as in the other For in the 18. chapter they put a condition to the absolute words of Christ saying that
I humbly conceive that Gods work which is also your work in settling religion is half done to your hands For all jurisdiction now streaming from one jurisdiction even from that of the Soveraign Magistrate that religion cannot chuse but be well settled which retaining soundnesse in doctrine and holinesse in life is harboured under such a church-government as hath no clashing with that of the Magistrate Such as I humbly conceive may be established by setting up Overseers and Bishops over Ministers and Churches with whom if the right of private Churches can but stand be kept inviolable as no doubt but it may no government can be imagined more preserving conformity in doctrine and discipline besides banishing all jurisdiction which steps between magistracy the inward jurisdiction of the spirit of God in the word over mens minds hearts and thereby making all the church-judicatory power more naturally flowing from and depending upon the Magistrate and easing him by this compendious way of inspection by a few good mens eyes who may have a particular oversight of the affairs of the Church And thus by such a tempered government the four parties namely the Episcopall the Erastian the brethren of the Presbytery and of the Congregationall way will have a ground for reconciliation obtain with some condescension what every one of them desireth The Lord make you his instruments to make up all breaches among brethren and to bring to passe what hitherto hath been rather desired then effected 〈◊〉 settling the reformed Protestant religion in the purest way of reformation and commending your modell and labours therein to other Churches abroad that as the English Nation for purity of doctrine power of godliness hospitality and bowels of mercy toward strangers the persecuted members of Christ hath hitherto gone beyond all the world so you may be instruments to preserve those blessed priviledges by further promoting the interest of Iesus Christ particularly by clearing and removing the mistakes and misunderstandings from many of our brethren beyond the seas who by the suggestions and false informations of some enemies to the people of God in this Island or of friends to Popery superstition and formality are as ready to misapprehend the wayes of God amongst us as these are to slaunder them and to join with them in giving credit that with the English hierarchy and liturgy all religion and fear of God is banished out of this Nation where there is neither Episcopall nor Presbyteriall ordination no uniformity of discipline yea no discipline at all no catechizing enjoined or performed no Creed no Decalogue no Lords prayer rehearsed in Churches nor any Scripture publickly read to the people nor the Sacrament of the Eucharist constantly administred thus cloathing what truth there may be in all these with the cloak of rash and uncharitable construction as others do cloth it with the cloak of malice and lying I doubt not but that by your piety and wisdom as you will stop the mouth of slaunder so you will give no occasion to the Reformed and Godly to conceive amiss of your godly proceedings A TABLE Of the CONTENTS Chap. I. OF the nature of power authority That there are but two ways to bring men to yield obedience either by a coactive power or by perswading them by advice and counsell That there is no medium betwixt command and counsell which sheweth that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is a name without a thing not being exercised by either of them The division of power and of the subordination and coordination of powers Many errours and mistakes are discovered about subordination and coordination of powers That the power called Ecclesiasticall doth signifie nothing and such as it is is subordinate to that of the Magistrate Fol. 1 Chap. II. Of the nature and division of right divine and humane In vain do they call things of divine positive right which are acted by a naturall right such are many church acts Things that are of divine right may be said to be of humane right and on the contrary those things that are of humane right may be said to be of divine right which is an argument that by right power cannot be divided betwixt clergy and laity 25 Chap. III. The nature matter form and author of law The canons and sentences of Church-judicatories have no force of law except they receive it from the sanction of the magistrate The defects in the division of laws into Divine and humane into morall ceremoniall and politick and into Ecclesiasticall and civil 34 Chap. IV. Of the nature of judgement what judgement every private man hath what the magistrate and what ministers synods and church-judicatories They have no definitive judgement as Mr. Rutherfurd asserts but the magistrate hath the greatest share in definitive judgements which is proved by some passages of Mr. Rutherfurd and of Pareus and Rivetus Who is the judge of controversies 44 Chap. V. An examination of the 30. chapter of the confession of faith made by the Rever Assembly of Divines That in their Assembly they assumed no jurisdiction nor had any delegâ—…d to them from the magistrate and therefore were not to attribute it to their brethren That the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is the same with the magistrates jurisdiction Mr. Gillespies reasons examined 53 Chap. VI. Whether Iesus Christ hath appointed a jurisdiction called ecclesiasticall as King and head of his Church Of the nature of the Kingdom of God In what sense the magistrate is head of the Church 65 Chap. VII The strength of Mr. Gillespies reasons to disprove that the magistrate is not chief governour of the church under Christ examined 76 Chap. VIII Mr. Gillespies manifest contradictions in stating the magistrates power in matters of Religion 83 Chap. IX The concessions of Mr. Gillespie which come to nothing by the multitude of his evasions and distinctions The vanity and nullity of his and other mens divisions and distinctions of power Martyr Musculus Gualterus alledged against the naming of a power ecclesiasticall when it is in truth the magistrates power The positions of Maccovius about the power of the magistrate in sacred things not hitherto answered by any 91 Chap. X. Whether the Lord Iesus Christ hath appointed as the Rever Assembly saith officers in government distinct from the magistrate The strength of the place 2 Chron. 19. by them alledged examined That the elders in that place are not church-officers An answer to Mr. Gillespies arguments endeavouring to prove that Iosaphat appointed two courts one ecclesiasticall another civil 108 Chap. XI A case propounded by Mr. Cesar Calandrin which he conceiveth to assert a double jurisdiction examined Of the two courts one of magistracy or externall the other of conscience or internall That ecclesiasticall jurisdiction must belong to one of them or to none 119 Chap. XII Of the nature of calling to the ministery Ministers are not called by men but by God by a succession not of ordination but providence The plea
for succession is Romanish Ministers are no successours in their ministery to the Iudaicall Priests but to the Prophets 133 Chap. XIII The nature of the ministers power and of that of binding and loosing the power of the keyes Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and loosing The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiasticall contended for Mr. Gillespies arguments answered 142 Chap. XIV That the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are not committed to all church-officers but to the ministers of the Gospell only 155 Chap. XV. That God hath not given to the church-officers of the Gospell a certain platform of government and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution and therefore not to be administred by a power distinct from the humane 161 Chap. XVI The 31. chapter of the confession made by the Rever Assembly examined The use of synods Two things are humbly represented first that for a re-union of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes a convocation made up of ministers only be re-established during the sitting of Parliament the second is that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of free-born people to sit and vote in Parliaments Of the power of synods and that of the magistrate in calling of them The synod of the Apostles was extraordinary not exemplary The exception of the brethren of Scotland against the 2. article of the 31. chapter of the confession examined The uses and abuses of synods that they are not the way to compose differences in matters of religion if their canons are beyond counsells and advices 166 Chap. XVII That the Iewish Church-officers had not a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate Mr. Gillespies distinction that they were not materially but formally distinct examined The argument of Amyraldus that though they had a distinct jurisdiction yet the example of the church of the Iewes is no pattern to the Christian church discussed and proved to be of no validity 192 Chap. XVIII The cause of mistakes in stating the nature of the church and calling that the true church which is not Three acceptions of the word Church in holy writ The meaning of the word Church Matth. 18. v. 17. 206 Chap. XIX That a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place about the worship of God is the only true visible church mentioned in Scripture That that church considered as an assembly of Christians bringeth forth other kinds of acts then it doth considered as a society of men by which the nature and extent of the power of a private church is made clear and evident 213 Chap. XX. That the power attributed to private churches by the reverend dissenting brethren doth very well accord with the power of magistracy in matters of religion as it is held by Erastus Bullingerus Musculus Grotius Mr. Selden and Mr. Coleman This same is proved by reason and by the testimony of Mr. Burroughs writing the sense of all his brethren as also by the practise of the churches in New-England 222 Chap. XXI That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judiciall power over them is not of the institution of Christ 234 Chap. XXII That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren namely Salmasius Amyraldus and others have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches and so confuted rather their own fancies then invalidated the tenets of the brethren The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved That Amesius and Iohn Mestrezat late minister of Paris in their writings have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory 242 Chap. XXIII The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power in ordering publick worship proved by the example of the Iewes that they had through all the land particular convocations synagogues or churches called also colledges or schools where the Prophets and sons of the Prophets taught especially on the sabbath-day that they were independent from any church-judicatory How synagogues were altered from their first institution and that being converted into Christian churches they retained the same right power and way of government 251 Chap. XXIV That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline or a power of magistracy as the synagogues were appointing men which Ambrose calls elders to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance This practise is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1 2 c. and confirmed by Origen Iustin Martyr Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperours with some alteration they erecting in lieu of them Episcopall courts That all church-power was the Emperours power That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them 267 Chap. XXV That ecclesiasticall jurisdiction as it is held by the Romish church better agreeth with reason and the letter of the Scripture then that of the presbyterian brethren That some Romanists have ascribed more power to the magistrate in sacred things then the presbyterian brethren 287 Chap. XXVI The description of excommunication in terms received by most of our opposites though otherwise variously defined by them That for four thousand years no such excommunication was in use either among the heathens or the Iewes An answer to some objections That the legall uncleannesse was no type of the morall That the Priests judging of the leprosy is no plea for excommunication nor for ecclesiasticall jurisdiction 298 Chap. XXVII That neither in the time of Ezra such an excommunication began That the casting out of the synagogue did not answer that excommunication That there is no ground for it nor practise of it in the new Testament 307 Chap. XXVIII That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15 16 17 and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication neither Iudas non-admission if granted to the Eucharist nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11. 316 Chap. XXIX That excommunication is contrary to common sense and reason 326 Chap. XXX That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication 337 Chap. XXXI The History of excommunication from the first reformation from Popery how it was received in Geneva but not settled without disputes and clashings betwixt the consistory and the magistrate 342 Chap. XXXII A continuation of the History of excommunication in France the Low-Countreys Scotland the Palatinate How it came to pass that amongst reformed states the Scottish ecclesiasticall jurisdiction ascended to such a height What plea the reformed churches in France have for excommunication That it is more justifiable among them then in churches under an orthodox magistrate 353 Chap. XXXIII The judgement of some
Divines yet living both of the argument in hand and of the writings of the Author Of some mens strong prejudices against and harsh censures of him 369 The PREFACE I Intend here by way of Preface to give a brief account how I came to write of this subject Having a little before the beginning of the long Parliament in the year 1639. written a piece in Latin against the corrupted party of the English Hierarchy who made as near approaches as they could towards Popery and being a little while after engaged in that quarrell it so fell out that this corrupt party being soon foiled by the great torrent of opposition they met withall their opposers themselves who were very numerous did soon divide into parts and factions dissenting from one another particularly about church-way and discipline which afforded me new matter to study on which I did being indifferently affected towards the four kinds of opinions held in the reverend assembly of Divines viz. of Episcopacy moderated Presbytery Independency and Erastianisme and for many years together not giving my approbation more to one of them then to the rest before such time as I should be well resolved in the controversy I pittyed for a long time the preposterous endeavours of each party tending to make the rent wider while they sought rather the victory then the truth brother became eager against brother branding each other with schisme and heresy their principles so far dividing them asunder that partners in the same martyrdome and who had lost their ears together were soon together by the ears and Mr. Edwards by name in shewing rather his spleen then his zeal and Dr. Bastwick who stiled himself the Captain of the presbyterian army did but powre oyle upon the fire of dissention in stead of quenching it as likewise did our brethren the Scots when they wound up their string of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to such an height that it was ready to break and ranked the Erastians in the list of abominable hereticks pointing therein particularly at poor and mild Mr. Coleman walking almost alone in a melancholy posture and who would not give rayling for rayling but mildly intreated all the brethren that dissented from him specially the presbyterians to give a satisfactory answer to the queries of the Parliament touching a jurisdiction and government of the church distinct from that of the magistrate and to shew in Scripture a place parallel to Matth. 18. v. 17. where by the word Church is meant either the ministers or a presbyterian consistory besides to find out in Scripture the name and thing of excommunication or that it is as well though not as much a soul-saving ordinance as preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments as the reverend presbyterian ministers would fain have perswaded him in their reasons against the dissenting brethren p. 63. At length being well satisfied that truth seldome lyes on the multitudes side as I did much pitty Mr. Coleman so did I fall to study him and thought it but reasonable ere I should join with the generall clamour against him to hear what he could say for himself And indeed his still voice did more work upon me then all the thundring voices of his opposites So then being convinced by him about eight years since I put forth in print a tract in English the drift whereof was only to assert the power of the magistrate in matters of religion which subject being but an answer to a letter I handled cursorily and superficially And while I was upon that work I was much in charity as I expresse in some passages of that tract with the churches of the congregationall-way no lesse cried out upon then Mr. Coleman both here and beyond seas specially in France where namely at Charenton near Paris a nationall synod condemned them by an authentick act yet then I had no such thought as to conceive or imagine that the power and right of private churches or congregations could agree well with the power of the magistrate in matters of religion But soon after the publishing of this English tract my uncle Dr. Andrew Rivet whose memory is very precious to me and to all the Churches of God sent me a Latin manuscript made by a Divine in France wherein he endeavoured the confuting of my English book and besides did much taxe me for favouring the congregationall way so much spoken-against amongst the reformed churches in France and expressely condemned by a nationall synod of theirs About the same time came Amyraldus forth in print as full of bitternesse and invectives against them as Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena Both which books I mean Amyraldus and that which Dr. Rivet sent me were the cause occasion and subject of writing my Paraenesis in Latin In writing of which I was insensibly carried to conceive and propound wayes of accommodation betwixt the brethren of the congregationall way and the assertors of that measure of power in sacred things allotted to the magistrate by Musculus Bullinger Gualterus and Erastus nothing doubting but that by these propositions of reconciliation and accommodation I have given with a very little yielding on both sides the true way and notion of settling in such a nation as this where the soveraign magistrate is orthodox might be made out and the Christian reformed religion worship established with more peace truth and holinesse of life then they were ever hitherto since the times of the Apostles These notions suting more to the purpose and interest of the English climat nation ought to have been then rather put in English then Latin but that I mistrusted my own abilities to appear in publick in any other tongue then Latin or French and that I had a great mind first to disabuse other nations particularly my own countreymen who were possessed with strange prejudices against the godly party of this nation as well presbyterians as others by the false suggestions and informations of Amyraldus so far that some have expressed to me by letters how much they bewailed the lamentable condition of England where all religion and fear of God was well-near quite extinct where there was no church-discipline no excommunication no synods no ordination no lay-elders no Lords prayer or ten commandements rehersed and no Sacrament of the Lords supper administred Now this present tract coming after the other and being otherwise digested and framed and those controversies that concern England being chiefly handled therein and all brought within a narrower compasse I do not despair but that my present designe will be excused though I come short of giving satisfaction to all parties I honour equally the persons learning and piety of those that I assent to and dissent from no lesse respecting the memory of Mr. Gillespie an eminent man for wit piety learning and soundnesse of faith but very erroneous in what he stiffely maintaineth in his Aarons Rod then that of Mr. Coleman or of any of Gods Ministers now with the
power which like wooden legs to a lame man must be more in number and worse for substance and unfitter to walk upon then good legs of flesh and bones to another for whereas this must have but two the other must have as good as four and yet very bad ones According to our principles these two only things well considered and retained namely the power of the word in the ministery and the externall power of magistracy will clear and decide the whole controversy and assert the right of churches and the power of magistracy in them and over them whereas all the limbs of the ecclesiasticall power which are more in number then the pillars of Salisbury church are not capable to prop up the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction independent from that of the magistrate But it would be now too long and tedious a task having handled that subject very largely in the second chapter of my Paraenesis and hoping to speak further of the same when I meet with M. Gillespie who being a great schoolman hath devised a number of cases and boxes to lodge his ecclesiasticall power in CHAPTER II. Of the nature and division of right divine and humane In vain do they call things of divine positive right which are acted by a naturall right such are many church acts Things that are of divine right may be said to be of humane right and on the contrary those things that are of humane right may be said to be of divine right which is an argument that by right power cannot be divided betwixt clergie and laity RIght in Latine jus differs from law as rule from justice for law is the rule it self but right is the justice of the rule Sometimes it signifieth that vertue called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equity which abates of the rigour of the law But right in generall that comprehendeth all rights is that which is due to every one by either equity that is by the law of nature and of nations or by an instituted law Sometimes right is so stiled by those that will call it so because they have the better sword thus Ariovistus answered Caesar that right of war was that the victor should give law to the vanquished By naturall right we understand that which is consonant to right reason Commonly right is divided into private and publick Private right is the same with personall right which is had either independently from masters parents husbands those that have it are called sui juris or dependently upon masters and parents The publick right is either naturall as when St. Paul saith that the Gentils do naturally the things of the law or instituted and is called positive right having a positive rule which is given either by God or by men God giveth it 1. to certain persons as to Abraham Isaac Iacob Moses c. 2. to a certain people as to Israel 3. to all men either for a time as the law of not eating bloud or for ever as the Sacraments and the preaching of the Gospell It is not possible to give an exact division of right Many things that are of naturall right are also of divine and instituted right so many divine precepts as is the decalogue are of humane institution but custome hath prevailed that these precepts should be of positive right that have no footstep in nature as is the observation of a seventh day the forbidding of eating the tree of death and life We say things to be of naturall right in which we are rather born then brought up and which are naturally imprinted in us as is the law defined by Tullius 1. leg law is a soveraign way imbred in nature commanding things to be done and forbidding things contrary By that law we know many things instituted and delivered in Scripture as that obedience is due by children to parents by servants to masters by wives to husbands that theft murder is to be avoided and to come nearer to our purpose that there is one God that he must be worshipped that he cannot be worshipped except it be in meetings and assemblies in one place that in those assemblies all must be done in order that the whole assembly if it be numerous must be governed by some choice men chosen out of the whole body and deputed from them likewise the law of nature and of nations teacheth us that what is agreed on by the major part of those deputies must stand for a law that that law must be obeyed under penalties albeit if we be ruled by the positive law of God we are not so much to follow the number of suffrages and votes in carrying of a law as the soundnesse and goodnesse of the law This also is a law of nature practised even by all nations that soveraign command about sacred things yea the chief sacerdotall function belongeth to the soveraign power of which law a part hath been abrogated by the revealed law of the Scripture which did so sever the sacerdotall function from the regall that the regall still kept the soveraign jurisdiction about sacred things This is also a law of nature and nations that every assembly and convention of men should have power to chuse admit and exclude members of their own society and to perform all acts conducing to their subsistence Those rights of nature God by a superiour dictate or command in the Scripture hath not abrogated for grace doth not take away but perfects nature So that no member of a society is to recede from its naturall right liberty and priviledge except by a positive law of God or man he is restrained and commanded otherwise Those rights of the naturall law being well understood it will easily be stated by what right or power naturall civil politicall I had almost said ecclesiasticall despoticall paternall maritall not only every society family but also each member acteth for the greatest mistake about ecclesiasticall power is that many acts of ministers and people are said to be of ecclesiasticall ministeriall divine positive right which indeed are acts grounded upon the law of nature and nations and are derived from a liberty and common prudence that every rationall and free man maketh use of in ordering all kinds of societies fraternities corporations whereof he is a member without needing to flie to a power taking its right and name as if it were of another classis nature and kind and independent from any other For as a man being at once master of a great family fellow of a colledge of physitians a citizen and member both of the Commonwealth and of the Parliâ—ment besides of a church is not said to act by so many kinds of rights and powers as his stations are in the Commonwealth as if in his colledge he acted by a medicall or academicall power in city or hall by a civicall power in a church by an ecclesiasticall or church power all being supposed to be alike coordinate and not being subordinate to the supreme power so
division of lawes into civil and ecclesiasticall and tells us how far lawes are to be called ecclesiasticall though they be in truth the magistrates lawes only because they are made by him for the good of the church for as properly saith he lawes may be called scholasticall and Academicall because they were made for the good and benefit of schools or Universities and so far and no further can it be allowed that lawes should be ecclesiasticall CHAPTER IV. Of the nature of judgement what judgement every private man hath what the magistrate and what ministers synods and church-judicatories They have no definitive judgement as Mr. Rutherfurd asserts but the magistrate hath the greatest share in de finitive judgements which is proved by some passages of Mr. Rutherfurd and of Pareus and Rivetus Who is the judge of controversies NOt to run over all the acceptions of judgement which I have handled in my Paraenesis I will mention but one that serveth to decide the whole controversie which lieth in a narrow room whether the magistrate or pastors assembled in a presbytery and synod or even private men be judges of controversies about faith and discipline Iudgement is an act by which every man endowed with reason or pretending to have any upon debating within himself and weighing things to be done or to be believed at length resolveth peremptorily what either he will do himself or will have others to do about things he conceiveth to be true just and usefull For to the nature of judgement it is not required that the thing that a man will do himself or will have others to do be true just and good it being enough that he apprehendeth them to be so I make two judgements one private the other publick The private I call judgement of discretion by which every one having weighed and debated within himself the truth equity goodnesse or â—sefulnesse of counsels advices commands doctrine and persons at length choseth and pitcheth rather upon this then that this judgement may be called judgement of knowledge and apprehension The publick judgement is the delivery of ones private judgement so far as concerneth others by which a man uttereth what he conceiveth fitting for others to do or believe This judgement in ministers presbyteries synods wise men counsellors physitians and others not invested with any jurisdiction and who have more authority then power is called advice counsell declaration when they deliver their sense meaning and opinion upon any debated subject concluding something which they conceive others are to embrace believe or practise In magistrates and men invested with jurisdiction both this publick judgement and the private have the same operation as in ministers synods counsellors and the like but over and above it causeth them to command what they conceived fitting to be received and practised By the publick judgement Pastors do what St. Austin saith Epist 48. to Vincentius pastoris est persuadere ad veritatem persuadendo pastors are to bring to truth by persuasion sed magistratus est cogendo but magistrates are to bring to it by constraint and by commanding From these publick judgements every private man is to appeal to his private judgement of discretion not yielding and giving his assent to the declarations canons sentences of ministers any further then by his judgement of discretion he conceiveth them to be true just and usefull not obeying actively the commands of the magistrate in case he conceiveth them by the same judgement of discretion to be against faith and good manners The staring thus and dividing of judgement decideth as I conceive all the questions and doubts arising about this subject and answereth all Mr. Râ—therfurds and Gillespies definitions and objections concerning judgement They make a fourfold judgement apprehensive discretive definitive and infallible which belongeth only to Jesus Christ The definitive they say is proper to ministers and church-judicatories But they forget the main judgement which giveth life and force to all the rest and is the magistrates when he bringeth to execution things well debated by the judgement of declaration and approved of by the judgement of discretion In that division of theirs they also commit two great errors 1. That they make of one judgement two for to the judgement of discretion they adde a judgement of apprehension which differs only in degrees from the other and were these judgements distinct yet they go alwaies together and are alwaies in the same person and do belong to the private judgement 2. They ascribe a definitive judgement to pastors and church-judicatories which they themselves had need to explain what they mean by for 1. must every private man stand to it and not appeal from it to his judgement of discretion 2. if they do not stand to it what inconvenience harm or danger or worse consequence can befall him then any one that despiseth good counsell or advice which put no obligation except they be reduced into lawes and commands by the magistrate 3. must the magistrate adhere to that definitive judgement and command them without debating within himself whether those definitions be agreable with his own publick or private judgement which indeed is to make of him an executioner If he must not stand to the definitions of pastors and synods but rather they must stand to what he conceiveth most fitting then it is evident that that judgement of pastors called by them definitive is of no validity and hath need to take another name since neither magistrate nor private men are obliged to stand to it except they be convinced that it is reasonable and that its definitions are true just and usefull The evidence of this truth about judgement is so clear that Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are unwares carried sometimes to deliver the substance of what we said before I will alledge but two passages out of Mr. Rutherfurds book of the divine right of church-government for there he overthroweth his definitive judgement of pastors or church-judicatories and setteth above it not only the judgement of the magistrate but also that of every private man for sure that definitive judgement that may be reversed and rejected without any redresse by the ministers cannot be of any weight or validity The first passage is ch 25. quest 21. p. 668. The magistrate is not more tyed to the judgement of a synod or church then any private man is tyed to his practise The tye in discipline and in all synodicall acts and determinations is here as it is in preaching the word the tye is secondary conditionall with limitation so far forth as it agreeth with the word not absolutely obliging not Papal qua nor because commanded or because determined by the church and such as magistrates and all Christians may reject when contrary to or not warranted by the word of God If such words had faln from Grotius or Mr. Coleman they would have been branded for rank Erastianisme If all the presbyterians will but put their names with
the magistrate is not head of the church more then of other societies for as the callings of a physitian merchant smith sea-man so of a Christian as Christian and church-member are not subordinate to magistracy but only under the notion of and as they are members of families societies corporations and commonwealths in all which magistracy is virtually and eminently resident in regard that no society of men can be imagined to be governed either without a power delegate from the magistrate or without assuming magistracy within it self In that sense the magistrate may be said for these three or four reasons to be head of a visible nationall church 1. Because the matter manner and extent of the power exercised by that church being wholly the same with that of the magistrate it is needlesse to make of one power two and therefore the magistrate being the supreme governour in the managing of that power exercised alike in all kinds of societies within his dominion he may very properly be the supreme governour as well of churches as of all other societies 2. The magistrate may be said to be head of the visible church because there is no man of what place function calling dignity so ever he be that in an externall visible way can so much promote the interest of Jesus Christ and the building up of his Kingdom as the supreme magistrate not so much considered as Christian but as magistrate and by vertue of his magistracy None doth doubt but that one single woman namely Queen Elizabeth being a magistrate did contribute more for establishing and spreading the Gospell of Christ in England then all the godly ministers put together in the dayes of Queen Mary Let but one single magistrate countenance religion this will avail more then thousands of Greenhams or Bradfords under a magistrate of a contrary religion Sure where God hath given more ability and power to do good he also hath placed there more right duty to promote that good I think there was more stresse of duty laid upon Queen Elizabeth to advance Christs Kingdom in England then on 100. Bradfords Latimers and Ridleys in Queen Maries dayes A 3. ground may be added why the sovereign magistrate may be called the head of the church and which is much pressed by Reynolds Martyr Musculus Bullingerus Gualterus Zanchius Pareus is because all the decisions of ministers about matters of faith or discipline are but mere counsels advices and directions not binding externally that is actively or passively any church society or corporation except they receive a sanction from the magistrate and besides that these sanctions are not to be made by him caeco judicio with a blind judgement standing to their determination without examination and doing as much as those of Beroea who ere they believed St. Paul searched the Scriptures to know whether it was so as he preached As no obedience is to be rendred by any person society or corporation without they duly weigh in their judgement of discretion whether the command be just or no so a command is not to be made by the person whose duty and part it is to command untill he first understandeth and apprehendeth by his judgement of discretion the thing to be a good and a fitting rule of obedience So that since presbyteries and â—ynods cannot enforce obligation of obedience to their declarations and decisions without the injunction and command of the magistrate since also he is not to enjoin or command any thing repugnant to his own judgement it doth consequently follow that good reason it is that he who last is to judge and command any thing propounded and debated in whatever assembly of men should be stiled the sovereign judge head ruler and governour of those things that are solely in his own power Fourthly he may be said to be head of the church because of three main duties which are annexed to his office of magistracy which comprehend what is requisite for life godlinesse and happinesse The 1. is provisio mediorum conducentium ad finem optimum provision of the means conducing to the best end 2. remotio impedientium the removing of hinderances 3. actualis directio in illum finem an actuall direction ordering things to that end These 3. conditions Javellus a Romish Bishop layes down to assert the soveraign power of the magistrate in judging providing ordering and removing in order to obtaining the best end which he saith is the main felicity of man Lastly he may be well called head of the church that receiveth appeals from all church-judicatories and disannuls or ratifies their judgements and sentences But Mr. Rutherfurd denieth those acts to be appeals being not in eadem serie from a lower ecclesiasticall court to a superiour ecclesiasticall court and saith that from an ecclesiasticall court to a civil as to the magistrate there is no appeal but a removall by a declinator a complaint a refuge But we having proved that synods presbyteries c. have no jurisdiction but what they have from the magistrate therefore all appeals from a church-judicatorie to the magistrate are but from an inseriour court of the magistrate to a superiour of the same magistrate Rivet on the decalogue had not learned such squibs of distinctions betwixt appeals and refuges complaints and declinators for by any means he would have men to appeal to the magistrate from church-sentences Ministers as ministers are the subjects of the soveraign magistrate and why may it not be lawfull for subjects to appeal from the judgements of subjects to the supreme magistrate and why may it not be lawfull to the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects to ratifie them if they be good and abolish them if they be bad For call those removals what you will so that the thing be still the same for he that from an unjust sentence of a church-judicatorie hath his recourse to the magistrate both declines the sentence of that court appeals to a higher court and makes his complaint to him that can redresse him help him and disannull the first sentence I confesse if a man be condemned in England he may have his refuge to some neighbour Prince but this Prince can but protect him from the execution of the sentence against him but cannot disannull the sentence against him nor restore him in statu quo prius Such are the examples of Chrysostomus Flavianus and Athanasius which are to no purpose for they repaired to the Bishop of Rome desiring indeed to be judged by him but they did not look upon him as their superiour that could relieve them and quash the sentence against them they repaired to him only as to a mediatour and intercessour Authorities should now make good what I have proved to be consonant to reason such as might be brought out of the best reformers as Martyr Reynolds Pareus Chamier who make no other supreme visible governour of the church then the soveraign magistrate but I will
not trouble the reader with many quotations Yet to shew that this is no new doctrine I might produce some famous Romish authors who thought no lesse in the darkest times of ignorance for so Claude Fauchet hath left written a famous Historian and a Papist in his book of the liberties of the Gallicane church who out of Gregorie of Tours and the practise of his time proveth that the Kings of France were reputed heads of the church a title which many 100. years after was much found fault with in the Kings of England by the Romanists yea by some reformers He concludes his discourse thus which sheweth that the Bishops of that time did hold the King assisted by his counsell of State to be under God head on earth of the church in his Kingdom and not the Pope whom if they had looked on as the head they would have sent unto him the conclusion of the councill of Orleans and not to King Clovis So speaketh the author of the Review of the councill of Trent lib. 6. cap. 5. The ecclesiasticks in France do not hold their ecclesiastick jurisdiction from the Pope but from the King though the Iesuits teach otherwise CHAPTER VII The strength of Mr. Gillespies reasons to disprove that the magistrate is not chief governour of the church under Christ examined ALl that I have said doth sufficiently overthrow what Mr. Gillespie alledgeth for a double jurisdiction and against the magistrates being the chief governour of the church under Christ To make good that in a hundred places he doth much under value the magistrates power in sacred things namely p. 187. that the magistrate though Christian and godly doth not exnatura rei and in regard of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as mediator and King of the church In the next page The glory of Iesus Christ as mediatour and King of the church is not the end of magistracy And in the same page he saith that the end of magistracy is not godlinesse honesty but peace and quietnesse Pag. 235. he saith the magistrate is not to rule in the name of Christ Pag. 250. he saith the magistrate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate but as a Christian In the 294. page the civil magistrate is Gods viceregent not Christs and ibid. If the magistrate be supreme head and governour of the church under Christ then the ministers of the church are the magistrates ministers as well as Christs and must act in the magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the magistrate shall be Christs minister and act in Christs name By all this he declareth his opinion more then he proveth it But to elude whatever strength this carries I further adde that God maketh use of two main instruments to promote and advance the Kingdom of Christ as mediatour 1. The first is the sacred function wholly set a part by God to preach the glad tidings of God reconciled to the world which function was first laid on Christ and then on the Apostles and the ministers of the Gospell who are embassadors and messengers of from Christ In this function there is no jurisdiction annexed but what the spirit in the word hath upon mens hearts for their conviction and conversion In the exercise of this function there is no law made by him that bears it but the law of the spirit no censure inflicted but on such as either willingly and not by constraint undergo it and chose whether they will or no or when it pleaseth God in judgement to afflict the despisers of Gods ministers ordinances This function I grant is not exercised in the magistrates name but Christs nor is it subordinate to him 2. The second thing servient if I may so speak and subservient to the promoting of the Kingdom of Christ is the magistrate and magistracy in as much as which I said before it cannot be that ministers and people assemble synods be called an outward government settled lawes published good men rewarded bad men punished heresies and hereticks rejected ministers maintained union preserved except ministers people synods be invested with a power of magistrate and magistracy These two as I suppose being undeniably true all Mr. Gillespies assertions above-mentioned will be found built upon the sand The magistrate having not the sacred function on him is no minister nor ambassadour of and from Christ neither doth the inward operative jurisdiction annexed to the sacred function arise from magistracy ex natura rei In that regard the minister preaching the Gospell and exercising his pastorall function is not the magistrates minister but Christs But as magistracy is the second necessary instrument which God employeth to promote the Kingdom of his Son in the world and for as much as it cannot be so much as imagined that magistracy is inherent in all pastors and assemblies of churches and synods no doubt but the ministers in that consideration may be called the magistrates ministers as both in the same respect are Christs ministers If Christs Kingdom cannot be nor ever was promoted without magistracy actually present and acting then the magistrate is a main minister of Christ in those acts Reverend and learned Mr. Lightfoot in his Harmony of the New Testament upon the 1 Cor. 5. clearly evinceth that church-officers cannot be so much as conceived to govern the churches without magistracy either assumed or delegated for having told us that every synagogue of the Jewes had magistracy within their own body judging betwixt party and party in matters of money Health damage yea inflicting corporall punishments he addeth all things well considered it may not be so monstrons as it seems to some to say it might very well be so in those times of Christian congregations for since as it might be shewed Christ and his Apostles in platforming the modell of Christian churches in those times did keep very close to the platform of synagogues and since the Romans in those times made no difference betwixt Iewes Iudaizing and Iewes that were turned Christians for as yet there was no persecution raised against Christianity why might not Christian congregations have and exercise their double function of ministry and magistracy in them as well as the Iewish synagogues and if that much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. should be interpreted according to such a rule it were neither irrationall nor improbable Here by the way one may see that in synagogues there were severall functions but one Imperium and jurisdiction which was that of magistracy 2. that the churches of Christians were modelled according to Iewish synagogues 3. that every church had both ministery and magistracy By this likewise down goeth what he saith that the magistrate though Christian and godly doth not in regard of his particular vocation intend the glory of Jesus Christ as mediatour and King of the church The main end as well as duty of magistracy is the care of religion and so of
handled in a forinsecall court as well as buying and selling which are no forinsecall acts as excommunicating is Thus Mr. Calandrin sees 1. that it is very consistent that a thing or action be done in the forum externum and yet not be an act or action of that forum 2. that preaching need not to be an action of that forum for that it is performed outwardly as well as excommunication It may be for I have not now my Paraenesis by me I referred the preaching of the Gospell to the forum internum or the court of conscience which I did not in regard of the outward act but of the preaching to the heart and of the operation of outward preaching as believing loving trusting all which are performed in the court of conscience This serves for answer to what he saith next If the key of the word for all it hath externall acts may neverthelesse belong to the forum internum why may not the key of censure as well since both are alike in relation to the soul and the inward man The handling of the key of the word as it is outwardly pronounced is an act not of jurisdiction but of function performed in the forum externum but as it is a preaching to the heart it is an act performed in the forum internum or the court of conscience but the handling of the key of censure is an act of jurisdiction over the outward man however the inward man be affected and compelling to an outward obedience and therefore belongeth not to the forum internum in which such acts as preaching to the heart loving believing denying ones self are performed What he saith that both the key of the word and of censure have relation to the soul and the inward man proveth not that excommunication is not an externall act of an externall jurisdiction For an act of outward jurisdiction in the forum externum may produce a good effect in the forum internum even in the soul of a man such effect may excommunicationbring forth though it be an act of magistracy and outward jurisdiction so may the laying hold of a malefactour and the sentence of the magistrate pass't upon him be a soveraign remedy for the salvation of his soul and be neverthelesse an act of magistracy of the forum externum In short there being but two courts conceivable one externall the other internall this of the conscience the other of magistracy I know no medium between them two no more then betwixt command and counsell and betwixt the power of the word and the power of the sword CHAPTER XII Of the nature of calling to the ministery Ministers are not called by men but by God by a succession not of ordination but providence The plea for succession is Romanish Ministers are no successours in their ministery to the Iudaicall Priests but to the Prophets SInce no religion can stand without a church and meetings of Christians about Divine worship and no church without government and no government without governours which the Rever Assembly calls church-officers and no governours without a commanding power and a rule to govern others by it will be requisite to enquire into four things 1. the calling of the church-officers 2. the extent of their power and of the obedience due to them 3. whether all church-officers are invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing as the Rever Assembly seemeth to say 4. by what rule and discipline they are to govern For the calling of ministers I have handled that subject at large in my Paraenesis I make the calling to be as much of divine authority as the reverend Ministers of London do in their jus Divinum of the ministery yea more holding that they have no call from men but from God immediatly that their mission is from Christ and the Apostles that all the acts of church-ministers people and magistrate about receiving a minister are not to send him but to acknowledge Gods call and mission and publickly to declare their willingnesse and readinesse to accept of his ministery among them for all these following acts are necessarily to be supposed before a man be acknowledged a Minister of the Gospell and set apart by God for the great work of saving souls 1. The acts of his internall calling or rather his disposition which are a strong desire and resolution to consecrate his life time and studies that he may be a minister of the Gospell and a persuasion that he is by God thereunto called 2. The acts which doe make up his externall calling and by which men acknowledge Gods call are 1. an examen by a competent number of grave pious and learned ministers of him that intends to take the ministery upon himself of his parts abilities learning doctrine also of his life and conversation which they must testifie publickly whereby it may appear to all that they hold him every way fit to labour in the word and doctrine 2. The election of a particular church requiring his pains amongst them and desiring him to be their ordinary pastor and teacher to administer unto them the ordinances of the word and sacraments This act though it hath much of humane right and seemeth to depend on mans will and choice yet in a right-constituted church and in an assembly of good men met in the name of Christ there is much of Gods call concurring with the choice made by men Thus Ezech. 33. at the beginning God declareth by his Prophet that whatever watchman the people should chuse he would repute that choice to be his act in that he would punish those that should slight the admonitions of the watchman and did not take them for Gods warnings and would take an account of the watchman for his failing in the care of mens souls Which place of Ezechiel doth much confirm what I have said chapt 2. of the nature of right where I shewed that things that are of Divine right may be said also to be of humane right and things that are of humane right to be also of Divine right This observation I have from my precious and learned friend Mr. Sadler and much might a man say upon it to shew that as in the administration of the church of the Jewes so in that of the Christians Divine and humane right government lawes injunctions commands go along together without needing to be parted into two coordinate distinct classes of jurisdiction the one ecclesiasticall distinct and independent from the other which they call civil One may also thereby see that much labour is lost in asserting the jus Divinum of the ministery as if it had nothing of humane right or as if a call from men were not also a Divine call For if magistrate and people should chuse themselves a watchman over their own souls to divide the word unto them why should not this act be reputed a Divine choice and a Divine installing in the call as well as the choice of the
church-officers of the Gospell a certain platform of government and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution and therefore not to be administred by a power distinct from the humane THe fourth and the last thing to enquire into in this 30. chapter of the Confession of the Rever Assembly is the rule and modell that church-officers are to govern by which were it granted to be expressely set down in the Scripture would be no stronger an argument for a government placed in church-officers distinct from the magistrate under the new Testament then it was under the old when there was a very exact form of church-government and yet no way distinct from that of the magistrate Which makes me much wonder that in that church loaden with such an infinite multitude of rites ceremonies constitutions lawes whereof the Christian church is wholly freed there was no distinction of government and jurisdiction from that of the magistrate and yet that there should be such a distinction of jurisdiction in the Christian church which hath no modell nor scheme of discipline as the Jewish church had but such as in prudence is assumed by the joint consent of pastor and people That there was no platform of government given to church-officers by Jesus Christ or the Apostles may be proved by a cloud of witnesses I will content my self with a few Camero in his book of the church p. 369. saith that the Christian church hath no need of certain lawes seeing it is made up of men of ripe years not of children under pedagogy and a little lower non est ecclesia certis circumstantiis alligata the church is not tyed to certain circumstances The like saith his scholar and great admirer Amyraldus namely in his Synopsis Salmuriensis cap. 30. of the ecclesiasticall power § 4 5 6. So speaketh Capellus in his Thes Theol. parte priore de potestate regimine ecclesiae thes 40. where we have these words in tantum valet ecclesia constitutio definitio quantum est ratione subnixa The constitution and definition of the church is so far valid as it is grounded upon reason therefore not upon the Scripture Much more large and as expresse he is in the third part of Thes Salmurienses de vario ecclesiae regimine thes 16. and 17. So is Mestrezat no lesse expresse in his book of the church lib. 3. cap. 12. God hath defined nothing in the externall order and polity about the worship of God but only hath prescribed that all things should be done decently and orderly But were there any platform of government judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot the most able and unpartiall judge in this matter will tell us Harmon on the 1 Cor. 5. that it was according to that of the Jewish synagogues which yet was assumed by a voluntary and prudentiall choice not upon any speciall command from Christ or his Apostles Which notion of his which was also mine before we could or had conferred one anothers notes doth lead us into many considerations 1. It doth decide the argument of the precedent chapter proving that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is committed not to all church-officers indifferently but to the ministers of the Gospell only For if it be reasonable as the Rever Assembly saith in their humble advice to the Parliament and as we have examined before that the Christian church should have their elders as well as that of the Iews it is alike reasonable as Mr. Lightfoot saith that the nature and extent of both jurisdictions and powers should be the same and that if the elders among the Jewes did not act in synagogues as men invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing but with the power of magistracy the like should be conceived of the elders of the new Testament That the elders of the church of the Jewes had power of magistracy it is evident by their acts as fining imprisoning casting out whipping and the like and in that the elders of the new Testament are most unlike those of the old and therefore the Jewish elders could be no president to the Christian elders not de facto because these never exercise that power nor de jure for the Rever Assembly will acknowledge that the elders of the old Testament had a right to those acts of magistracy which they performed in their synagogues but will deny that now the Christian elders have such a right although for my part I know no inconvenience to assert that the elders in both times had alike right to all mentioned acts of magistracy though for some reasons it is not found so expedient under the Gospell by the presbyterian churches 2. We may well conceive that if the act of putting out of the church was an act of magistracy under the old Testament there is no reason it should be now otherwise 3. That likewise if the church of the Jewes never knew nor exercised in their synagogues a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate neither now are the Christian synagogues or churches to know or exercise such a distinct power 4. But strange it is that since God giving such very exact lawes as he did to the church of the Jewes yet he gave not to that church a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate it should now be quite otherwise and that God that gave no expresse lawes discipline or rule for the government of the Christian church yet should invest them with a power distinct from that of the magistrate 5. It seems altogether incongruous that that power and jurisdiction as is the ecclesiasticall which mainly is conversant about lawes constitutions and rules which are instituted and ratified by men and do not oblige either actively or passively but as they are commanded by men I say it is altogether unreasonable that such a jurisdiction should not be placed in the magistrate he being the fountain and spring from whom all humane jurisdictions lawes and constitutions do flow And it is so much the more absurd and unreasonable that constitutions decrees canons discipline meerly of humane institution should be ordered and commanded by a power and jurisdiction meerly Divine and distinct from that of the magistrate when as all constitutions lawes and ordinances given to the Jewes and all being of Divine institution were notwithstanding ordered and commanded by the magistrate not by the keepers of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civil CHAPTER XVI The 31. chapter of the confession made by the Rever Assembly examined The use of synods Two things are humbly represented first that for a re-union of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes a convocation made up of ministers only be re-established during the sitting of Parliament the second is that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of free-born people to sit and vote in Parliaments Of the power of synods and that of the magistrate in calling of
Testament when nothing hinders but that Kings may be ministers and ministers Kings CHAPTER XVIII The cause of mistakes in stating the nature of the church and calling that the true church which is not Three acceptions of the word church in holy writ The meaning of the word church Math. 18. v. 17. IN treating of the church I conceive a world of writers both Papists and Protestants might have spared themselves much labour about the nature power truenesse fallibility antiquity succession of it if both parties had not walked in the dark and if they had agreed upon some few and very easie common principles consonant to holy Scripture and reason How many volumes on our side are written to state how far the Romish church is a true church to vindicate us from schisme to prove that we have a right succession of churches power and ministry that the English church is a true Catholick church that the reformed in France have likewise a right to that title One party yields more then needs must and fearing to want for themselves a right of church-succession and Baptisme they will acknowledge the Romish church to be a true church and yet with such metaphysicall reservations and modifications that from a metaphysicall goodnesse they insensibly descend to a morall making of a magistrates power an ecclesiast call of a cadaver and carkasse a living body of an aggregation of churches under one presbytery of the same extent with the jurisdiction of the magistrate the only true church of Christ This made the late English hierarchy conceive that their best course was to approach as near as they could to the Romish yea to be one church with them that otherwise they could not make their power calling and succession good nor clear themselves from the guilt of schisme So that as all parties have been equally mistaken in their grounds so have they hardly understood one another raising doubts where there were none some by that weakning their own cause and strengthening that of their adversaries who took all concessions for truths putting their opposites to very great straights For not knowing well how to deny the church of Rome to be a true church and that salvation is to be had in it and not being able to shew an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles time as the Romanists can do nor vindicate themselves from schisme each party is very eager to call his neighbour schismatick rending the seamlesse coat of Jesus Christ that name being liberally bestowed by the Romanists upon the Protestants and by some of these upon those that adhere to the dissenting brethren each of them Papists and Presbyterians challenging that seamlesse coat of Christ even right of church and ecclesiasticall power and therefore for fear of schism rendings they will be sure to cast lots upon it that they may have it whole and entire Whereas had both been well informed of the nature of church and of schisme and that suceession is a needlesse plea neither availing the Romanists a whit nor prejudicing any way the reformers Baronius Bellarmin Stapleton as well as Whitaker Chamier and the like might have saved the world so much labour in reading them the first in putting the reformers upon the task of proving themselves a true church and the latter in taking off the aspersion of schismaticks for then no doubt all the hard task had been on the Romanists side who being not able to make invalid our grounds about the nature of the church the power of the church the calling of pastors their succession and of schisme had been wholly put upon vindicating themselves and not weakning our title for it had been to little purpose so long as we had retained the same grounds which do put us into a firm and unmoveable possession About the nature of schisme Dr. Owen whose grounds which is very strange though we never conferred our notes together are those that I stand upon in treating of the nature of the church hath so well resolved the world that it is but in vain for any one either to write after him or against him And having in my Paraenesis handled the nature of the church intending here only an extract of it I will say only so much of it as will make way to what I mainly intend to prove viz. that the parity and independency of churches each from the other in power of exercising all church acts best agreeth not only with Scripture antiquity and the opinion of Zuinglius Musculus Bullingerus and Erastus but also with the sense of the seven dissenting brethren sitting twelve years agone in Westminster together with the other members of the assembly of Divines yea that many forrain divines and other learned men Salmasius for one no way intending to favour the cause we have in hand have been strong patrons of it in severall of their writings and treating of the right of churches and of the power of the magistrate over them have laid the same foundations as we I find in holy writ specially in the new Testament that the word Church is taken properly three wayes I. for the mysticall body of Jesus Christ the elect justifyed and redeemed whereof the Gospell is full thus Hebr. 12. v. 23. and Ephes 5. v. 26 27. c. II. for the universality of men through the world outwardly called by the preaching of the word yielding an externall obedience to the Gospell and professing visibly Christianity of this mention is made 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. and 2 Tim. 2. v. 20. III. for a particular visible congregation with one accord meeting in one place for the worship of God according to his institution which is spoken of Rom. 16. v. 4. Gal. 1. v. 2. 1 Cor. 16. v. 1. 2 Cor. 8. v. 1. 1 Thess 2. v. 14. Act. 9. v. 31. Act. 15. v. 41. 1 Cor. 16. v. 19. yea such a church as is confined within a private family as Rom. 16. v. 5. St. Hierome upon the 1. of the Galatians takes the word church properly either for a particular church or for that church called the Body of Christ which hath neither spot nor wrinkle dupliciter ecclesia potest dici ea quae non habet maculam rugam vere est Christi corpus ea quae in Christi nomine congregatur relating to the words of Christ Matth. 18. v. 19. where two or three c. which cannot be understood of a nationall church There be two places in the new Testament where the word church is taken otherwise namely Act. 19. v. 41. for a concourse of people Matth. 18. v. 17. a place so much controverted and which when we speak of excommunication requireth we should insist upon it It sufficeth here to say that if by it were meant an ecclesiasticall assembly of pastors and elders some other parallel to it might be found in the old or new Testament I am sure as there is none in the new so neither in the old
him Here one may see as the law of God and the law of the King may stand together so the power of the magistrate may very well consist with the power right and liberty of a private church And the like he doth by many passages of Scripture which he urgeth namely Isa 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers c. and Esa 60. 10. Revel 21. v. 24. the Kings of the earth shall bring their honour to the church and Rom. 13. 4. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. He addes since the Scripture speaks thus generally for thy good for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well we must not distinguish where the Scripture doth not Now let us go to New-England where none will deny but a power and right of churches is maintained sutably to the sense of the dissenting brethren in old England and yet they ascribe no lesse to the magistrate in matters of religion then Mr. Burroughs Witnesse the result of a synod at Cambridge in new England published an 1646. They say magistrates must and may command matters of religion that are commanded in the Word and forbid things therein forbidden by the Word meaning the whole Word both in the new and old Testament In short they hold for substance what I said before of the two kinds of acts performed in every private church one looking immediately at the externall act of the body and the duties and sins which appear in the carriage of the outward man and this they say the magistrate looketh at and commandeth or forbiddeth in church and out of church see pag. 15. and therefore they say pag. 40. every church considered as a civil society needeth a coercive power They say further that this power is needfull in churches to curb the obstinate and restrain the spreading of errours Pag. 49. they invalid the example of Uzziah often alledged by the Romanists and the presbyterians though Mr. Gillespie as I remember never maketh use of it in his great book and say that this act of Azariah thrusting out Uzziah was an act of coercion and so of magistracy and a civil act which priests and Levites were allowed to do and which they made subservient to that command of God that none should burn incense but the sons of Aaron For I believe any officer under the soveraign magistrate might do the like in case this later should go about to violate a command of such a high nature for being an under-magistrate and invested with power of coercion he obeyeth the greater master and maketh use of his power to hinder a notable breach of Gods expresse command Having thus made good that there is a fair correspondency and concurrence of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power over them I do not see but my principles and those of the dissenting brethren are very agreeable consonant in the main It may be a few of them will call that power in every particular church ecclesiasticall which I call a power of magistracy and they will call excommunication an act of the ecclesiasticall power which I conceive to be rather an effect of the power of magistracy settled in every particular church But the difference is not great since we both make that church-power call it what you will a power of jurisdiction and coercion which must needs be subordinace to the power of the magistrate since both are of the same kind and upon that account excommunication is a law of the power of coercion so of magistracy In short whereas some of them will say of all church-censures that they are the product of a positive divine power I say they are the result of a naturall civil power subservient to the divine power in the exercise of the first kind of acts of church-members as such sure Mr. Burroughs and the result of the synod in New-England come very near if not altogether to my sense For Mr. Burroughs pag. 27. maketh but two powers residing in a private church one of admonishing perswading desiring seeking to convince the other a power restraining This latter power I call a power of magistracy because by the first power men are not outwardly restrained nor rought to outward conformity and accordingly excommunication must needs be a product of that restraining power So that the difference is not at all reall but nominall I find in Musculus in his common-places concerning magistrates the same power of magistracy in churches The passage hath been alledged above there he saith that that power exercised in churches is notecclesiasticall but the power of the magistrate CHAPTER XXI That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judiciall power over them is not of the institution of Christ. VVE are brought insensibly to know the nature of a Christian church instituted by Christ which as I said is a particular visible one meeting in one place to celebrate the same ordinances whereof mention is made 1 Cor. 11. v. 18. and chap. 14. v. 23. and Act. 13. v. 42. and 44. In this church the Lord Jesus Christ hath properly instituted the ministry for Christ hath not instituted a catholick visible church much lesse a nationall church under one presbytery but this appellation of church is like the word man which denotes a nature common to many singulars and yet is properly said of John or Peter For as many fountains are not a fountain and many schools are not a school and many families are not a family so many private churches are not properly a church We shall find below Amyraldus saying most truly and very pertinently to our argument that the appellation of church doth not properly belong either to the catholick visible church or to a nationall church such as are the English French Helvetian churches which are rather a knot or collection of churches then a church That such a church made up of many private churches under one presbytery is not of the institution of Christ nor ex necessitate praecepti but of the free pleasure of each private church who without any violation of the command of Christ may either remain single or aggregate it self to other churches under such a presbytery may be proved by severall arguments 1. I begin with the testimony of the Rev. Assembly in their humble advice who lay no greater stresse of necessity upon it then that it is lawfull and agreeable to the word of God that such a thing be 2. If the Lord Jesus Christ had instituted such a presbyterian church it were fit it should be told us what is a competent number of churches requisite to be under a presbytery whether only three or four or more it may be two thousand If so many why may not a hundred thousand churches be under one presbytery If so many why not all private orthodox churches that are dispersed through the world If a presbytery may be over all the catholick
churches would there be even 33. for so many were overcome but should all these 33. Kings be subdued these 33. Churches would cease to be independent on each other and in stead of 33. churches depending each on their magistrate one nationall church should be moulded of the same extent of power as the magistrate that ruleth over them CHAPTER XXII That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren namely Salmasius Amyraldus and others have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches and so confuted rather their own fancies then invalidated the tenets of the brethren The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved That Amesius and Iohn Mestrezat late minister of Paris in their writings have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory THe spirits of men are now a little more calm and not so eager either at home or abroad and the quarrell not so fierce with the independents as it bath been these 15. years I having my self been a poor instrument to disabuse some of my country-men who partly by their misunderstanding paitly by the false reports and ill will of the common enemy to all goodness good men were possessed of very harsh opinions and conceits of them passed a strange censure upon them as enemies to all order and discipline and men of dangerous and pernicious tenets to all humane societies The very children amongst them did question whether they were shaped like other men Amyraldus made a great book of Invectives against them and turned them into Sodomites franticks and enemies of all order and discipline Salmasiâ—s and Maiesius were no lesse bitter against them A nationall synod net at Charenton where Amyraldus had a standing but no vote condemned them But as this synod condemned them as the councill of Trent did the Lutherans before they heard them so did all these authouâ—s I have named fall upon them without mercy before they had any particular knowledge of them or any certain information of their supposed pernicious manners Yet for all that those very men that wrote so much against them as they refuted rather their own fancies then any thing those they call independents believed so they did handle this matter of the nature and power of the church and that of the magistrate over it much to the advantage of those that they made as black as they could namely Amyraldus in declaring both his own sense and that of the ancient church next to the Apostles hath laid the same ground-work for the parity and independency of churches as the reverend brethren dissenting from the assembly of Divines have done He alledgeth Vignier a French authour writing above 70. years agone highly valued as the truest historiographer that ever put pen to paper by the most learned and pious Prelat Dr. Usher in his ecclesiasticall history relating the opinion of Irenaeus Eusebius and Nicephorus concerning the state of the government of the church soon after the Apostles The form of the government in this age was almost democraticall for every church had equall power to teach the word of God to administer the sacraments to absolve and excommunicate hereticks and those that led a d'ssolute life to elect to call and to ordain ministers to depose them when occasion required to erect schools to call synods to ask the opinion of others upon doubts and controver sies I find the centuriators of Magdeburg cent â— cap 7. to have these or equivalent words with little difference but that they wrote in Latin and Vignier in French Here then we may see our brethrens sense 1. that every particular church is independent free to govern it self and to exercise all church acts not rejecting a consociation with other churches but such as equals have among themselves 2. for the power of synods they acknowledge none nor judiciall authority only a liberty to admonish advise and counsell In the 8. chapter he hath a long passage whereof the drift is 1. that particular churches are no lesse free asunder then provinces and towns before they join in a confederation 2. that all aggregation and consociation is as free for churches as for free towns or cities 3. that a particular church for example that of Saumur considered as not united by any voluntary confederacy to other churches oweth the same duty of respect to the orders and constitutions of the churches of Leyden Heydelberg and Basil as to to those of Paris or Rouen 4. that the power of synods over churches is of the same humane and civil right with the power of a judiciall senatover cities and towns Pag. 144. he hath these words The Church and the Commonwealth have some things that seem common and they may be almost alâ—ke managed both by ecclesiast call assemblâ—es and by the powâ—r of the magistrate How doth this agree with what we have heard him say that it were an horrible confusion for the church and state to be governed by the same men Pag. 198. and 199. he speaketh of the authority of synods in the language of our brethren It is true that the meer authority of councils ought not to move us to receive a point of religion the knowledge of the truth of the thing ought to be the chief motive and ground But we have him very expresly teaching his scholars and auditors at Saumur that the appellation of a true visible church doth properly belong to a particular church I shall cite his words Disp de ecclesiae nomine definitione thes 28. in English I know that a communion and as it were a confederation of many the like societies which are associated either by the same use of tongue or the same form of Commonwealth or else by the same government and discipline is called a particular church thus we speak of the French English and German churches as of particular churches to distinguish them from that universall society of Christians which comprehends all nations that bear the name of Christians but as we said before the word church is not proper to the society of all Christians as it is to the particular assemblies of Christians so that consequently we say that the word church is not to be said in the like manner of a consociation of many particular churches Let then that communion which is between the churches of France be said to be a church and that the church is a confederation of many churches for if taken according to the use of the holy Scripture St. Paul calleth the severall particular churches which were in Achaia not by the name of the church of Achaia or the Achaian church but of the churches of Achaia A passage very considerable which force of turth hath drawn from the mouth of the greatest enemy to the brethren for their greatest advocate could not say more in justification of what they have alwayes urged about the nature of the church but could never be heard till of late viz.
that there was no true proper church but a particular church that therefore a presbyterian nationall church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery is not properly said to be a church I am of opinion that the Roman church upon that account is very improperly called a church but most improperly a tâ—ue church for if it hardly deserveth the name of a church how can it be called a true one at least morally though it may be metaphysically it being a consociation of erroneous and hereticall churches for if every privaâ—e church within the Roman communion is so disfigured that I do not think it deserveth the name of a church how improperly then is a systern made up of those particular churches stiled a church And so I conceive that the question about the truenesse of the Romish church which hath so puzzled men may be easily resolved I have but one passage more of Amyraldus to alledge which a man could hardly believe to be the language of a professed enemy to the cause of the brethren For if they should state their own opinion of the power and independency of churches they cannot use more significant words then those of Amyraldus who in his disputation de concil author thes 28. saith that private churches ought to retain their full right liâ—erty and power untoucht specially in matters of great concernment as points of faith not submitting slavishly their own judgements to synods but expecting that synods should define and decree nothing till they have had the advice and approbation of particular churches This is the passage in Latin Alibi diximus pulcherrimum saluberrimum esse earum ecclesiarum institutum quae concillorum decreta ad res magni momentâ— qualia sunt dogmata fidet pertinentia rata esse noluerint nisi prius consultis synodis ecclesiis particularâ—bus quarum quaeque symbolam suam ad veritatis cluc'dationem conferat Salmasius followeth the steps of Amyraldus or rather Amyraldus of him for Amyraldus wrote last He is very large in his apparatus ad libros de primatu and I should be tedious to the reader to set down here all that he hath handsomely stated about the nature of a church I will only quote two pages which are 265. and 266. The substance of his discourse is comprehended under these 4 or 5 heads 1. That all churches by right are equall in power and dignity and are independent 2. That the consociation under the heathen Emperours was voluntary and by consent 3. That under Christian Emperours a consociation was introduced by humane right so that what was at first by free and mutuall consent came afterwards under the Christian Emperours to be of humane institution and constitution 4. That the unity of churches consisted not in an united collection of private churches but in an agreement in faith and doctrine for such an union there is betwixt the Helvetian Belgick and French churches who agreeing in the same faith and doctrine do notwithstanding differ in discipline so that these churches may be called independent each on the other yet they keep an union and communion among themselves No other communion and independency do the reverend dissenting brethren admit and practise either among themselves or with the presbyterian churches both at home and abroad 5. The fifth head is that a consociation of many particular churches joyned with the same band of discipline and under the direction counsell advice not the command or judiciall power of any synod or presbytery doth much conduce to the keeping the unity of faith the band of charity and the communion of saints In the same place and many others throughout his apparatus he saith that the communication betwixt particular churches was voluntary and by way of counsell every church reserving to themselves full right and power as to those acts of their discipline and the acts of binding and loosing so that every church had power to take cognizance of any fact and crime committed in their body to censure and excommunicate them or reconcile them again without any appeal to other churches or synods except it were to beg their friendly intercession for so they were wont to consult and entreat Bishops and namely him of Rome to review the sentence repairing to him as to an umpire not a judge to disannull or evacuate the judgement which makes the Romanists take those applications to the Bishop of ROme as an acknowledgement of supremacy over all the churches To these authorities Iwill adde that of learned and moderate Spanhemius who did not use invectives as others but arguments and reasons as good as he could yet in my opinion the good man mistaketh much in his Epistle to David Buchanan not so much through ignorance of the right as of the fact yet in the 55. page he hath these words which are much to the advantage of the brethren A particular church hath no power at all over another but they are all collateral and of equall right and authority Let us now hear other advocates of the brethren before the word independency came to be given to Protestants in the world The first is learned Amesius in his first book of the marrow of Divinity chapt â—0 where after he hath in the 17 18 19 20. and 26 sections spoken of the parity and equality of particular churches in right and power in the 27. section he tells us what consociation of particular churches may be admitted these be his words Particular churches may yea ought to have a mutuall confederation and consociation amongst them in classes and synods that by a common consent they may be helpfull one to another with as much commodity as may be chiefly in things of greater concernment but this combination doth not constitute a new frame of church neither ought it in any sort to take away that liberty and power which Christ hath left to his churches since this form is only usefull by way of direction John Mestrezat a very learned orthodox Divine lately deceased minister of Paris goeth upon the same grounds with Amesius in his book of the church written in French and his testimony is most considerable because being a French-man he could not know or foresee as Amesius perchance might any such plea in England about right or power of churches aggregated It would be too long here to set down his own words at large For those that understand French they may see specially the 1 chap. of the 3. book where he saith that all power to do any church acts is placed in the particular church that all church-priviledges and promises were made and granted unto and in consideration of a particular church assembled in one place As for aggregation and consociation of churches he holds it not to be grounded upon any pattern or command from Scripture or even from a judiciall power given by Christ to classes synods presbyteries over particular churches but meerly assumed prudentially for mutuall preservation
crime to appeal or repair about any matter to Jerusalem or attend at those solemn meetings enjoyned by the law of Moses three times in the year and every seventh year and therefore to keep themselves free from idolatry they frequented as much as they could those places of convocation as appeareth by a notable example 2 Kings 4. v. 22. For when the Sunamitish woman desired an asse to ride on to Elisha her husband told her wherefore will you go to him to day it is neither new moon nor sabbath The greatest part of these houses of convocation for some of them did not much alter from their first institution but remained schools and nothing else in processe of time did not properly degenerate but changed their nature and lasted longer thus then in their first institution and that begun from the time that they were led into captivity and so continued under the Babylonians Persians Grecians and then the Romans for whereas at first they needed no other discipline then the law of their nation which received vigour strength and protection from their own magistrate who was a friend and protectour of their law religion and liberty when afterwards they lived under those that were no good friends to their lawes and religion and yet were suffered to enjoy them both being dispersed they were fain to alter the frame of their assemblies and convocations and make of them so many little Commonwealths endowed with judiciall authority yet retaining still some prime face of a church or convocation and besides more mixture of ranks of men for not only Prophets were governours and members but also Priests Levites and elders of the people and all matters were handled as in a court of magistracy and yet reading and expounding of the law was not forgot as we see Act. 13. v. 27. and ch 15. v. 21. Nor was it grown out of use for scholars or young Prophets to sit at the feet of the Rabbins and receive instructions as St. Paul at the feet of Gamaliel Act. 22. v. 3. and Marie at the feet of the Lord Jesus or for the young Prophets to ask questions of the old as 1 Cor. 14. v. 29. And as the form and matter handled did alter so also the Prophets and teachers did change their names and were called Doctours Rabbies Lawyers Masters Scribes and Wise among the Jews And such were the synagogues in the time of Christ which Mr. Gillespie is not certain whether he ought to call churches or civil courts yet he is rather of opinion that before the 30. year of Christ when they had power to judge of capitall matters they were rather civil courts then churches but after the 30. year of Christ this judgement of causes for life and death being taken from them then they were to be called churches or ecclesiasticall assemblies Which is a very frivolous exception as ever was devised and sheweth the weaknesse of his cause For is a court more or lesse civil because it hath or hath not the judgement of capitall causes By that reason most courts in England should be ecclesiasticall as the court of Exchequer court Baron and court Let. But the nature of those convocations synagogues or particular churches of the Jews having been for many hundred years since they were carried first into captivity such that they were invested not only with a faculty to perform duties and acts of worship to God but also with a power of magistracy when a great many of them from synagogues of the Jewes were after turned into churches of Christians they retained the same constitution and qualification in performing church-duties and exercising power of magistracy which sometimes was assumed by the consent of the members sometimes delegated by the Emperours For as the Jewes began to be the first professours of Christian religion so the first churches were synagogues of the Jewes converted to Christian religion but yet before the conversion of an entire synagogue those that were Christians concealed themselves for fear of the rest and yet did not depart but when they were persecuted or thrust out of the synagogue So that some synagogues for some Christians that were among them were called churches as we may see if we compare Gal. 1. v. 13. with Act. 22. v. 19 for in one place St. Paul saith that he persecuted in every synagogue those that professed the name of Christ in the other that he did persecute the church And Act. 18. v. 19. it is like that either the greatest part or the whole synagogue was a Christian church though it retained still the name of a synagogue And no doubt at Antioch the whole synagogue professed Christ since they durst openly take the name of Christians But the words of Christ Iohn 16. v. 2. they shall put you out of the synagogue shew that syâ—agogues of the Iewes should become Christian churches and that those that professed the name of Christ or at least believed in him secretly for fear of the Iewes were not to depart that by their means the whole synagogue might be wonne and therefore the Lord Iesus Christ takes this expulsion for an injury done to them in the foregoing verse These things have I spoken to you that ye be not offended Had not the Lord Iesus a mind to make of these synagogues churches he would have bidden those that were Christians amongst them to flee from them and go from them as he biddes his people flee out of Babylon And indeed we do not read that Crispus chief ruler of the synagogue and other believing Iewes did forsake the synagogue or that when the whole synagogue was converted it did presently loose the name of a synagogue but kept it as we see Iames 2. v. 2. If there come into the synagogue and Hebr. 10. v. 22. The very heathens did not put a distinction for a good while betwixt Iewes Christians for Suetonius saith that Claudins did restrain the Iewes who by the impulsion of Christ did raise tumults So that in expelling the Iews the Christians were comprehended for it is said Act. 18. v. 2. that Aquila and Priscilla though Christians were commanded to depart from Rome And as the Christians suffered as Iewes so what priviledges they enjoyed it was a grant unto the Iewes and as in the 9. of Claudius the Iewes and with them the Christians were banished so in the first year of his Empire the same liberty that was granted unto the Iews did also belong to the Christians So then the synagogues were the first origine and platform of Christian churches and after those synagogues the gentils converted did modell their churches retaining the same power of magistracy as the synagogues had as Mr. Lightfoot doth very well observe yea in their way of teaching following the Prophets in their synagogues which were also schools of learning as namely when they spoke by turns and the younger Prophets submitted to the judgements of the elder 1 Cor. 14. v. 29 30 c.
Therefore since the churches of the Christians were but synagogues changing somewhat the doctrine but not at all the discipline we must conceive of all churches and their acts of power as of synagogues and of church-excommunication as of Jewish excommunication or putting out of the synagogue that of Christians being no more a law or ordinance of Christ then that of the Iews was a law and ordinance of Moses for neither of them was For it never came to be in use among the Iewes till they took it up upon the want of their own judges and magistrates by consent and by a confederate discipline in â—eâ— of magistracy The Christians imitatours of the Iewes and who had the law and the covenants yea the Lord Iesus Christ from them did also take up excommunication upon the same grounds as they did Bullingerus in an Epistle to Dathenus an 1531. tells us it was thought so by Zwinglius the Apostles lived under a heathenish magistrate who yet did not punish wicked actions but that the church might inflâ—ct some kind of penalty they took up admonâ—tion and exclusion because they could not make use of the sword which was not committed to them and this was the cause of bringing in excommunication Now that the Christian magistrate may punish wicked deeds there is no further need of excommunication CHAPTER XXIV That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline or a power of magistracy as the synagogues were appointing men which Ambrose calls elders to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance This practise is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1 2 c. and confirmed by Origen Iustin Martyr Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperours with some alteration they erecting in lieu of them Episcopall courts That all church-power was the Emperours power That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them HAving hitherto made good that there is no such thing as a government in the hands of church-officeâ—s distinct from that of the magistâ—…e and proved the nullity of that distinction 〈…〉 â—…call civil jurisdiction by reason Scripture and the example of the Iewes it followeth we should prove that since the time that the 〈◊〉 church began whether under the hâ—… the â—or under Christian â—mperours it was not governed by a jurisdiction distinct from that of magiâ—…acy and that neither â—he hâ—…hen noâ— the Christian Emperours ever knew any 〈…〉 as an ecclesiasticall power not sub 〈…〉 to the magistrates power yea that the 〈…〉 did but in words challenge a power 〈…〉 from that of the magistrate and that 〈…〉 they made but one of two and acknowledged that it could not be so much as 〈◊〉 they should be exercised asunder and 〈…〉 reason that the learned of thâ—m as 〈◊〉 and others maintain that one of them 〈…〉 subordinate to the other erâ—ing onâ—… 〈◊〉 that they subordinate â—…e civil to the 〈…〉 〈…〉 then being converted into 〈…〉 churches and also turned over to 〈…〉 same jurisdiction of confederate 〈…〉 power of magistracy assumed by 〈…〉 the members of each synagogue yet 〈…〉 â—ewish synagogues had been alwayes 〈…〉 â—ccuted and had enjoyed their confeâ—… dâ—…cipline for the most part by edicts from 〈…〉 magistrate under which they lived that was the reason that they bad a greater measure of freedom to exâ—… their confedâ—… are â—…cipline and acts of coercive a◠〈…〉 dicall â—…wer over all persons of their own body and religion and in all causes except in causes capitall and the medling with any thing whereby to free themselves from paying taxes 〈◊〉 But the Christian churches though moâ—…ed after the pattern of the Iewish synagegues being continually either under perseâ—…oâ—… or in rear of it could not put forth those acts of coercive â—…risdiction unlesse it were a putting â—ut of the congregation which thing may be done without much noise but inflicting bâ—dly or pâ—cuâ—iaâ—y punishment could not â—e wâ—…l made use of without discovering too much and laying themselves open to persecution Besides that the members of Christian churches being not members of the same notion and therefore led by the only interest of and love to religion a coercâ—…e jurisdiction was nothing so necessary nor was it any thing so frequent to put out of churches as out of synagogues so that the differences between church members being rather differences in their judgements then any want of chariâ—… that magistracy assunted at first by the syâ—agogues when afterwards it was devolved to the Christian churches looked rather like an aâ—…trators judgement and counsell Yet still by that modified magistracy they decided and composed not only matters of faith but also all differences in matter of wrong either in goods mony or good name between brother and brother setting over besides the most eminent that laboured in the word and doctrine some of lesse eminency among them to decide differences and controversies of another nature And no doubt but St. Paul points at this practise 1 Cor. 6. vers 1 2 3 4 5 6. and 7. a notable place which yet was never pressed to the utmost meaning For 1. St. Paul there enjoyneth the Corinthians rather then to go to law to appoint some men besides those that labour in the word to decide all matters that one man might have against another 2. He giveth the same measure of power in settling matters of religion or faith and in composing differences that are usually judged in the magistrates court for learned Diodati by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 matter or businesse saith we must understand civil businesse and the Dutch Annotations say that this matter is worldly businesse So that St. Paul makes the church-power no more ecclesiasticall then civil for the same confederate discipline gave power to ministers to preach and administer the sacraments as did to chosen men of their body to compose friendly by their wisdome and authority such differences as are usually the matter of all courts of magistracy 3. The words of the Apostle Do ye not know that the saâ—nts shall judge the world I conceive to be equivalent to these Seeing ye do now live under a heathen and persecuting magistrate and yet there arise such contentions and debates amongst you as are judged for the most part in secular courts with the breach of charity and losse of time and mony specially the judges being no friends to your persons and religion your best way is to have them taken up friendly by Christian arbitrators of your own churches untill God at length after you have long suffered be pleased to set over you a Christian magistrate to whom you may repair when such differences arise amongst you It is observable that the holy Apostle when he saith is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you c. and set them to judge who are least esteemed speaketh ironically implying that were there no
true that many learned Grammarians and Lawyers as Polydore Virgil Tiraquellus Fortatulus and some others hold that excommunication was in use among the heathens before it was practised among the Jewes but it had nothing of the excommunication agreed on by all parties The example of Alcibiades condemned for keeping holy conventicies in Cornelius Nepos doth not concern excommunication since it was a judiciall act of the people of Athens neither was that an excommunication whereof Caesar speaketh in his Commentaries being a forinsecall sentence pronounced by the Druides who were judges of the land and medled with any such kind of matters as are usually judged at Westminster Hall in term time for there was not then any division of power Draco saith Demosthenes amongst other penalties imposed ranketh exclusion from courts pleading temples and performing their idol-worship Dionysius Halicarnasseus in the year from the building of Rome 254 saith that the Senat made a decree to expiate all those that in the civil wars were necessitated to shed blood And Diodorus Siculus hath a notable example lib. 16. sect 23. that though amongst all the nations in Greece there were variety of functions yet there was an identity of jurisdiction for the Council of the Amphicty ones did proceed against the violators and plunderers of Temples and Altars made lawes concerning their publick worship Also Lampridius telleth us that Alexander the Emperour reviewed the sentences of the colledge of Augurs also Tertullian in his Apologetick cap. 5. saith that it was the prerogative of the senate to consecrate their Gods and to order the religion that was to be observed among the people Let us now come to the Jewes and first examine what they have to shew for excommunication before the law was given Beza and others make excommunication as ancient as the creation they say God did excommunicate Adam and Cain Others would have those Angels who did not persist in their integrity to have been thrust out of Heaven by excommunication But these acts being judiciall acts of God not as Pastor of his church but as loveraign judge cannot serve the turn besides that excommunication supposeth a possibility of absolution and returning to the former condition and such could not the excommunication of the bad Angels be nor that of Adam who was never to return to Paradise Since the Law they alledge for excommunication cerith or cutting off which Mr. Rutherfurd confesseth was done by death or otherwise and so can be no plea for excommunication besides that it was inflicted by the magistrate and was a corporall punishment which concludeth nothing for presbyterian excommunication Zanchius in an Epistle to Frederick the III. Prince Palatine saith that Marie the sister of Moses was excommunicated being put out of the camp But was the camp any more a part of the church then of the commonwealth or why was this act of exculsion rather an ecclesiasticall act then a civil And was this penalty inflicted upon Mary by the Priests and Levites sitting in a judicatory distinct from that of Moses No great stresse or strength is there for excommunication in the judgement that befell Korah Dathan and Abiram for this example rather teacheth us that the nature of excommunication stands not in an expelling or removing any one from us by a judiciall sentence but rather in excommunicating and withdrawing our selves from the communion of the wicked for so are the words Numbers 16. Separate your selves from among that congregation and bid all the people to depart from the tents of these wicked men Such excommunication I shall willingly grant whereby we may avoid and reject hereticks and heresies flee from the devil but not put the devil to flight by excommunication The best way to eschew the unfruitfull works and workers of darknesse and to have no communion with them is to withdraw from their communion They urge much legall uncleannesse for which they say men were separated from the rest of the congregation This Mr. Rutherfurd saith p. 285. was a ceremoniall excommunication thereby silently confessing that reall excommunication was not in use till all the ceremonies were taken away Suppose that the legall uncleannesse had been a type of the morall it could not be a type of a thing then present but of a future but we have proved that the legall cleannesse was a type of Christs righteousnesse the legall uncleannesse a type of those that being not clad with Christs righteousness were separated from Christ and his elect as the goats are from the sheep A perfect righteousness such as was the legall cannot be a type of the morall righteousnesse which is imperfect and the want of legall cleannesse doth very well prefigure the want of Christs righteousnesse but it doth not so well shadow out the want of morall righteousnesse which doth not as such separate men from Christ Since then as Mr. Rutherfurd confesseth this separation of lepers and such as were polluted with legall uncleannesse was but a ceremoniall excommunication I long to hear from him but one only example in all the old Testament of a reall excommunication which was typified by the ceremoniall excommunication or that ever any man was kept from the passeover or the sacrifices for a morall uncleannesse which he will never be able to shew Besides this sequestring or separating of a leprous or legally unclean person was no judiciall act of the Priests and Levites more then of the elders of the people and so by that excommunication should not be a sentence agreeing with the description we have given of it and which is agreed on by all sides that plead for excommunication It is observable that not all the Levites but only Aaron and his sons could judge of the leper therein prefiguring Christ who only knoweth his own and discerneth his elect from others and the sheep from the goats so that this legall rite cannot be applyed to excommunication which they say is a judiciall act that may be performed by every minister of the Gospell And therefore the Papists have very good reason on their side who being not willing to loose their power of excommunicating nor to forgo the usuall plea taken from the Priests judging of the leper saw that since only Aaron his sons were invested with the power of judging the leper it was therefore fitting that the power of excommunication prefigured by that power of discerning leprosie should belong only to the Bishops who succeed the sons of Aaron and are in the Christian church what the sons of Aaron were in the Jewish Now I have shewed elsewhere that Gospell-Prophets or ministers did not succeed the Priests or Levites but the Prophets of the old Testament who had nothing to do with judging of the leprosy and that therefore the Priests judging of the leprosy apart from other men is no plea either for excommunication or for ecclesiasticall jurisdiction besides that the Priests did judge of the leprosy not so much by their office as by the
every society though never so much kept under and in awe can viz. expell any member of their society without giving an account of what they do herein to the magistrate And upon that account might the Corinthians very well expell the incestuous person which act should I hold to have been of the same nature with casting out of the synagogue I see not how any of my opposites could alledge any thing to the contrary But I believe the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles had no need to have recourse to that power of magistracy like that of the synagogues assumed by confederation of discipline For 1. In the first preaching of the Gospell there was lesse need of discipline because the number of pastors was greater then of church-members the great work of the ministery being laid upon every man and women converted were to strive to convert others 2. The Apostles and the disciples as Timothy Titus and others who were looked upon as secundary Apostles being conceived to be led by an infallible spirit the people in all controversies arising needed not go far to be resolved or take much time in discussing of them by overseers or elders set a part for that purpose 3. The gift of miracles striking a terrour supplied the place of a discipline therefore Bucer on the 16. of Matth. giveth us this reason why no externall power and jurisdiction was used in the time of Christ which serves also for the time of the Apostles these be his words No commonwealth can be governed without inflicting punishment upon the wicked What was wanting to the church in externall power the Lord Iesus did supply it by a miraculous and singular power and by speciall weapons and a sword called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. v. 10. But that extraordinary way of striking terrour into new converts by the power of miracles ceasing Christians being grown numerous and confirmed in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus it was now convenient they should settle churches which they did following the example of the Jewes under a magistrate of a contrary religion for indeed at first Christian assemblies were but synagogues turned into churches so that they needed not to look out for other manner of power and discipline then that which was exercised by the Jewish synagogues Were it granted that excommunication is to be proved by those words Matth. 18. tell it unto the church or by the example of the incestuous person put out of the church of Corinth or by the eleventh chapter of the same Epistle yet this act of exclusion could not be made good not to be such an act of magistracy assumed by confederate discipline as was the casting out of the synagogue Beza in his preface to his book against Erastus alledgeth the opinion of Musculus and Bullinger to be the same with what we now speak of that the first Christians wanting the power of magistracy to restrain them that walked disorderly and wickedly assumed such a power of magistracy to themselves and devised excommunication and that if there had been a power of magistracy in Corinth to punish the incestuous person there had then been no need either of excommunication or of delivering the man to Satan And so far we allow excommunication as it is an act of magistracy assumed by a confederate discipline by the first Christians in imitation of the Jewes for want of a Christian magistrate and not upon any commission granted to the ministers of the Gospell independently from the magistrate or grounded upon the power of the keyes of binding loosing for it were a lesse matter to discard and keep off the magistrate from concurring in acts of exclusion if for the placing it in the ministers the Scripture were not so grossely abused and made to speak what it never intended and that which hath as much strength for upholding the Romish hierarchie as the presbyterian ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Before therefore we come to speak how excommunication from a law of the confederate discipline became to be the main engine to advance the mystery of iniquity we will examine all the places of the new Testament usually alledged by the advocates of the presbyterian jurisdiction to prove that excommunication is a law of Christ and a church-ordinance as well as the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments which are a like committed to the ministers of the Gospell only CHAPTER XXVIII That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15 16 17 and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication neither Iudas non-admission if granted to the Eucharist nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11. THe first place is taken from the context in Matthew 18. v. 15 16 17 18. a place clear enough had it not been handled by men of prejudiced judgements I wil not loose so much paper time as Mr. Rutherfurd Gillespie have done to make it difficult nor throw so much dust in the eyes of the readers nor repeat all I have said upon this subject in another book I will chiefly restrain my self to Calvins authority to evince that the whole context maketh nothing at all for such an excommunication as is a judiciall act pronounced independently from the Christian magistrate by the ministers of the Gospell 1. Calvin in the fourth book of his institutions chap. 12. § 3. and more expressely in an Epistle to the Neocomenses saith that the offence Matth. 18 15. If thy brother c. ought to be understood of private offences and known only to the party offending and offended These be his words We understand the words of Christ of concealed offences as the words sound therefore if thy brother hath trespassed against thee and it be known to thy self only and there be no witnesse Christ commandeth that thou shouldst repair to him privately And a little lower here it is not meant that hidden sins should be brought to light thereby to shame our brother So that this offence not breaking forth into an open scandall it is not like that the wronged party would have taken a way to put his brother to an open shame or that the Lord Jesus Christ had wished him so to do but rather to make first one or two privy to it and then some more trusty secret friends it may be a colledge of three called a church amongst the Jewes appointed to reconcile disterences between brother and brother which were like the Morum Censores censors of manners or it may be such as are mentioned 1 Cor. chap. 6. who were like the elders spoken of by Ambrose which were not invested with any authority to constrain censure or punish the offender for the words in the 17. verse let him be to thee shew both that the offence was private that the offended party was not to take any other course but only to have no further converse with him For if he offender had been excommunicated by a
publick judgement he had been a publican and a heathen not only to the offended party but to all others But Jesus Christ seemeth to a private offence and a private way of proceeding to give a private counsell how the party wronged ought to behave himself to wards the offender Learned Mr. Lightfoot thinketh that in all the context there is nothing intended either of Jewish or Christian excommunication that there was no judiciall sentence pronounced nor constraint put upon the offending party but only shame and that not publick but only within the walls of the synagogue or of the school As if a man would not provide for his family after a first and second admonition he was put to shame in the synagogue by these or like words Such a one is cruell and will not nourish his children 2. This makes way to know both what power that church in the Text had and what is meant by it Calvin upon the place hath some remarkable concessions much to our purpose 1. That Jesus Christ alluded to the custom of the Jewes and had respect to the form of discipline among them 2. That the power of excommunication belonged to the elders of the people who represented the church Which concessions are convincing arguments to prove 1. that Iesus Christ by the word Church did not mean an assembly of men whose power was distinct from that of the magistrate since no such thing as was called Church Kahal Gnedah in the old Testament was ever taken for an assembly of churchmen invested with jurisdiction and distinct from those of the Commonwealth 2. Since the elders of the Iewes were no more elders of the church then of the Commonwealth and that they had the sole power of excommunicating it followeth that the act of excommunicating was not more an act of church then of state and therefore if Christ speaking of the Christian excommunication alluded and had a regard to the custome of the Iewes that likewise their excommunication must be like that of the Iewes and be as well an act of magistracy as an act of the church Which is confirmed by what he faith upon the 18. verse speaking of the government of the church where he makes two kinds of elders in the Christian church answerable to two kinds of elders in the Iewish church Now as these were not invested with a power called ecclesiasticall distinct from the civil so may we conclude of the elders in the Christian church These be his words Legitimam Ecclesiae gubernationem presbyteris injunctam fulsse non tantum verbi ministris sed qui ex plebe morum censores illis adjunctierant But above all he is expresse upon the 17. verse where he saith that the Lord Iesus Christ in modelling the churches discipline sendeth them to the institution under the law admonuit in ecclesia sua tenendum esse ordinem qui pridem sub lege sancta institutus fuerat If we all stand to Calvin the quarrell is ended and the church Matth. 18. will prove such a church as was in Moses Ioshua and Davids time by which is never meant a congregation of Priests or church-elders distinct from the commonwealths elders So then we see even according to Calvin if Iesus Christ spoke in the context of a church Christian as I do not believe he did it must be a church of the same nature with the Iewish in which excommunication being an act of magistracy so must it also be in the Christian church But I do not believe that in this whole context there is any thing meant either of the Iewes or Christians excommunication or of such a church as our opposites would have to be understood by the word church viz. an ecclesiasticall senat or presbytery being certain that neither in the old nor in the new Testament the word church in Greek or Hebrew is taken in that sense Is it likely that Iesus Christ would mention a church that was never recorded in all the old Testament and whereof neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles speak Doubtlesse Christ speaketh here of such a church or assembly of men who were as Calvin saith Morum Censores censors of manners much used among the Iewes and Romans not invested with any judiciall power but yet of such authority and gravity that whoever did reject their wholesome advice and counsell was as much discredited as if he had suffered corporall punishment It may be those censors of manners were rectors and teachers of schools men who for their gravity and learning were highly esteemed among the people and such a school some say Christ and his Apostles made up much like those schools of the Prophets in use in Samuels time in which the scholars or young Prophets did sit at the feet of the Rabbies as Mary at the feet of Iesus who for that was called Rabbi-However those words if he neglect to hear the church do argue that the church spoken of in this context was not invested with a power of censuring the offender as Bilson and Sutliffe do judiciously conclude from the words For thus speaketh Dr. Sutliffe in his 9. chapter de presbyterio Christ speaketh of a church that had no power to constrain and which one might despise without insurring punishment for if it had had power to constrain in vain had he added if he will not hear the church for the church would have constrained him In short these words tell it unto the church are made like regula Lesbia a nose of wax by Papists Episcopall men and presbyterians it is to them a wood which if a thousand men go into none will fail to shape himself a stick a mallet or a hammer Bellarmin will tell us that tell it unto the church signifieth tell it unto the Romish church or tell it the Pope Mr. Gillespie will expound it tell it unto the presbytery Dr. Hammond tell it to the Bishops called by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not urge much the words let him be to thee an heat hen or a publican which if they do not make void excommunication I am sure they do not help it much seeing that neither a publican nor a heathen were the object or subject of excommunication I conceive that the true pataphrase of these words may be this and that this was the meaning of the Lord Jesus If the offender refusech all honest wayes to right thee then prosecute him in the court of the magistrate where heathens and publicans have their own judges deal with thy brother as if he were and as thou wouldst do with an heathen or a publican for since thou must now repute thy brother as to thee as an heathen or a publican and since thou wouldst not scruple to implead an heathen or a publican so neither must thou scruple to sue thy brother For sure neither Jesus Christ in this place nor St. Paul in the 1 Cor. ch 6. forbiddeth Saints to go to law against an heathen before an heathen
Paraenesis and in my Corollarie in a letter of his written but a few weeks before he died where his judgement is wholly consonant to my opinion that all church-government is prudentiall arbitrary and taken up by consent for necessity of order and not for conscience Besides I have the testimony of a very reverend preacher in a famous church in Normandy in a letter of his to me wherein after he hath delivered his own judgement concerning the book he addeth that of one of his fellow-ministers in that church in these words One of my collegues who hath read your first book hath given this testimony of it That he is much satisfied upon the reading of it and that your opinion is so far from weakning our discipline that on the contrary it doth rather streng then it and places it upon its true and naturall bottom Geneva's excommunication had the greater influence upon the minds of the Non-conformists and Puritans in England for the respect they bare to Calvin more then to the Hierarchy metaphorphosed from Romish to English For whatever were the thoughts of some Romish Episcopall Doctors such as the English Hierarchy hath alwayes had the practise of all Bishops courts witnesseth that excommunication was but a law of the Land and of the opiscopall jurisdiction annexed to the Crown Excommunication was not much feared since Prince and subjects left off to be afraid of the Popes thunderbolts Wiclâ—ff begun first to pluck off â—ts vizard and to condemne both the abuse and the use of excommunication for the council of Constance recon'd up amongst his errours this tenet That it was a comfort to the faithfull church that excommunication and suspension and such like lying and feigned censures are not grounded on the law of Christ but are craftily devised by Antichrist But that it may appear that Wicliff held no other excommunication then that which is made in the Court of Heaven the 13. article objected to him as an errour clearly sheweth it Whoever leaves off preaching or hearing the word of God because of mans excommunication they are excommunicated and shall be so held in the day of judgement for betrayers of Christ and the 11. article saith that no man must excommunicate another except he knows him to be excommunicated by God In short whereas our brethren the Scots held that all jurisdiction of ecclesiasticall assemblies synods and presbyteries was derived from Jesus Christ the English people at least the magistrate who would never permit the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to get up held no jurisdiction but such as was derived from him for even from King Edward the sixths time the soveraign Princes have been very shie of Bishops keeping any courts or calling synods but only in their name Our brethren the Scots had their excommunication from Geneva as well as the reformed churches of France only Andrew Melvin did mightily improve and heighten it But they and the Geneva churches have this disadvantage which those of France never had that these have two pleas for their discipline and excommunication The one is the necessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent under a cross magistrate by which plea they may justify all the acts of their jurisdiction the other plea if the first prove not strong enough they have in common with all other reformed churches living under an orthodox magistrate and that plea is the discipline of Christ which as it is a second string to the bow of the reformed churches of France if the first should break so it is the only string and hold that the Dutch Scotish and Geneva churches must hold by so that if they cannot make good their jus Divinum of discipline and excommunication they have no plea at all for their jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate as the reformed churches of France have This book would swell too much if I should make it good as I have done in my Paraenesis and Corollarium that they have outgone all the reformed in the task of building an empire within the empire of another or in the endeavour to settle a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate having while they strive to run furthest from Popery gone so far about that they have joined issue with Popery in that particular I find three main causes why in Scotland more then in any other nation where religion was reformed from popery the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction hath highest lifted up its head The first is it was not so much any humour or designe of the godly people as opportunity that brought it in For reformation taking its beginning there not at the head but at the foot and in opposition to a persecuting magistrate it was not possible to settle the pure worship of God without a government and jurisdiction assumed within the jurisdiction and distinct from that of the magistrate They having had it some time under a Romish magistrate conceived it was to continue in the like manner under a reformed magistrate and so turned the nenessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent as it was by the faithfull people of Iuda under a heathen magistrate and by the reformed churches of France under a Christian into a necessity of Divine ordinance which being much countenanced by the great ones of the land who rescued the soveraign magistrate from the Popish party and brought him up from his infancy in the reformed religion the same men who were assertors of the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction against the magistrate when he was no friend of theirs had a fair opportunity to keep it still up when the magistrate was their friend and in their power and possession who when he was grown up to years found the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction too deep rooted for him to master and overbalancing the power that by right as all other magistrates and Kings in the world he was to have over all causes matters and persons So that from that time when King Iames in his â—…per years came to understand that he was a King and no King till he came to be King of great Britain we read of nothing but clashings and conflicts betwixt church court Parliament and ecclesiasticall assembly it being impossible that two coordinate jurisdictions and of the same nature could stand together amongst one and the same people in the same countrey Another cause is that the members of Parliament specially the nobility and gentry being also members of ecclesiasticall judicatories and the ecclesiasticalls having over and above an addition of strength by all the ministers of the land who were not members of Parliament it could not otherwise fall out but that the jurisdiction assumed in churches presbyteries synods and assemblies should not only appear distinct from that of the magistrate but also be raised to a greater height A third reason is that the Kings of Scotland having never had that majesty power revenue and splendour that other Kings abroad had and yet the land full of nobility and gentry
1â—41 relates what troubles and ado there was to bring it in that many alledged the examples of the neighbour-churches meaning Zurich Bern c. among which excommunication was not in use some saying that bâ—…t the Popish tyranny was recalled But all these difficulties saith Beza Calvin surmounted yet he did not censure other churches as unchristian that had not proceeded so far nor those pastors who did not conceive their flocks needed to be restrained by such a bit or bridle And indeed Calvin himself though very eager to bring in excommunication insomuch that sometimes he calls it the yoke of Christ the discipline of Christ professeth to be ready to endure either death or banishment rather then to suffer that the towns senat should take upon them the right of excommunicating as he saith in an Epistle to Viret yet he cannot but speak very respectfully of his neighbour ministers who acknowledged no such necessity upon excommunication as that it should be accounted amongst the ordinances of Christ These be his words in an Epistle to the pastors of Zurich in the year 1553. All men are not of the same opinion concerning excommunication neither am I ignorant that there be many godly and learned men who think not excommunication necessary under Christian Princes I should not care much to erre in that point of excommunication with Bullinger and Musculus upon condition that I were as godly and learned as they But however the opinions of the neighbour churches and ministers about excommunication stood Calvins great authority prevailed to set up excommunication In an Epistle to a person not named pag. 409. and 410. in folio he declareth at large which way he went about it and there he hath these words which carry as much authority as if his will had been a sufficient rule for Geneva and so for other churches to be governed by Volui ut aequum est spiritualem potestatem à civili judicio distingui ita in usum rediit excommunicatio It was my will that as it is fitting the spirituall power should be distinguished from the civil judgement and so excommunication came again to be in use But however his will was he was never able to make good his ecclesiasticall or spirituall jurisdiction distinct and independent from that of the magistrate 1. Because the same spirituall senat was made and constituted by the senat of the town as Calvin acknowledgeth in an Epistle to Bullinger in the year 1553. and therefore it was subordinate to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate not only in its first making but also all the time after just as when Constantine the great instituted for a Episcopalia Bishops courts he looked upon them as depending on his jurisdiction not only in their first constitution but also in their duration in the reviewing and ratifying their lawes and sentences or disannulling them 2. It is true Beza saith in the life of Calvin an 1541. that at the first constitution of that ecclesiasticall senat and its lawes by the magistrate and the people there was a soveraign law made that no sort of men ministers magistrates or people should hereafter presume and attempt to disannull what therein was established by the law-makers of Geneva This indeed would have been a very foolish absurd law like that of Clodius whereof Cicero speaketh that could not be repealed or abrogated either by the senat or people for when ever the law is abrogated that clause also that the law cannot be abrogated is likewise abrogated Who would think that either the magistrate and people of Geneva should so enslave themselves and tye their hands as not to be able to repeal review or reforme lawes formerly made by them or that they should believe their lawes were composed and given by them with such an unerring judgement that they needed no further recognition 3. This jurisdiction called by Calvin ecclesiasticall could not be exercised and managed without a coercive restraining power or a power of magistracy either seated in the ministers and consistory or delegated from the magistrate For among the lawes of discipline of Geneva this is one If any one in contempt of the ecclesiasticall sentence or judgement is so bold as to attempt to come to the Sacrament let him be repelled and driven back by the minister Here then there is a power of magistracy or a coercive power assumed by the ministers without which he confesseth that all ecclesiasticall censures are null and of no effect So in an Epistle to Viret an 1547. speaking of a woman within the consistory who declined the presbyteriall court and judgement and besides did tire them out with her too much prating she saith he would have overwhelmed us with her thundering language if she had not been put out by force I ask here by what power was this woman thrust out was it ecclesiasticall and spirituall and a power of binding and loosing or a civil coercive power and of the two keyes they say they have which of them was taken in hand and by which end of the key was the woman driven out 4. But the nullity of that spirituall jurisdiction is evidently demonstrated by the perpetuall conflict and clashing in Calvins time betwixt the sentences and judgements of the consistory of Geneva and those of the magistrate whereof I have given many examples out the life and Epistles of Calvin Among others of one Bartolier who being excommunicated by the consistory did appeal from that sentence to the magistrate who once did confirm the judgement of the consistory and another time did evacuate and disannull it Whereupon there being a great contest betwixt the magistrate and the consistory to whom the judgement and right of excommunicating did belong Calvin with much earnestnesse obtained that ere any thing were concluded the opinion of four cities of the Switzers should be desired Bullinger maketh mention only of one city namely Zurich in an Epistle of the Senat of Geneva to that of Zurich wherein among other quere's this was one Whether there is no other way to excommunicate a man but by the consistory In that Epistle Bullinger though very fearfull to offend Calvin yet manifestly sheweth his dislike of the whole businesse and exhorteth him to moderation and mildnesse Whatever was the issue of the contest we do not read that the magistrate of Geneva did ever repeal this decree of the court that the last judgement about excommunication falls under the cognizance of the Senat of Geneva CHAPTER XXXII A continuation of the History of excommunication in France the Low-Countreys Scotland the Palatinate How it came to pass thaâ— amongst reformed states the Scottish ecclesiasticall jurisdiction ascended to such a height What plea the reformed churches in France have for excommunication That it is more justifiable among them then in churches under an orthodox magistrate THe reformed churches of France took their pattern of discipline and therewithall excommunication rather from Geneva then from the Protestant
Cantons for being to live under a cross magistrate they could not exercise their discipline as a law commanded by the magistrate nor execute their censures of excommunication as acts of the magistrate and therefore the reformed churches of France have upon much better grounds retained excommunication then the churches of Geneva who living under a magistrate that was himself part of the church were not necessitated to divide jurisdictions since the same men who were members of churches were also members of the city and magistracy and since the discipline yea excommunication was a law of the magistrate there was little need to divide powers and jurisdictions which when they should have done all they could must needs stream from the same spring-head But in France they could not be so happy and therefore since they could not have a jurisdiction immediatly derived from their â—agistrate it was requisite they should take up one â—y muâ—uall consent and by a confederate discipline For when the magistrate as it was among the Jewes in their captivity is no countenancer of the true religion nor a keeper of the two tables nor a nursing father of the churches that live under him they musâ— if they can obtain his leave be a magistrate and a law unto themselves and set up a kind of magistracy by mutuall consent not only in their private churches but also in their consistories and synods by which religion and piety may be asserted and errours in lise and doctrine be restrained So that when a private church excludeth a man either out of its communion or assembly this it doth by no other power then a magistrate a town a coâ—poration or a hall should act by in banishing or expelling a member of their own body I confesse few of the ministers in France will acknowledge that their discipline is taken up upon such grounds but rather that it is according to the pattern in the mount and the discipline of Christ as if it were a spirituall censure and a sword committed only to the ministers by a Scripture warrant and from the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing But I much wonder that wise men having a good foundation upon which they may firmly ground their discipline should rather chuse to build it upon the sand and upon the sea shore where it may be soon washt away What man possessing an inheritance by a good title would renounce that and rather feign a false will and testament and upon that ground his title which proving invalid will put him by the inheritance he had a good title to Yet this they do who will acknowledge no discipline but from Christ and will not put a man out of their assemblies but by a power derived to them from Christ But it being proved to their faces 1. that Jesus Christ never chalked out any form of discipline but left it to the prudence and discretion of Christian magistrates pastors and people who in generall are commanded to see that all things be done orderly 2. that excommunication is no otherwise a law of Christ then is the act of putting away a hurtfull member from any society these two things I say being made out to them to be Scriptu e reason and common sense and yet they persâ—sting to have no other grounds for their discipline then those feigned ones who seeth not that their discipline must be groundlesse since they cast away that which might strongly support it Thus they are like a man that cuts off his good leggs and buyes himself wooden crutches to walk upon This is that doctrine that my Paraenesis was so much blamed for by my countrey-men yea nearest kindred as if I went about to take away all discipline and to bring in stead of it disorder and confusion yea further to lay the reformed churches open to the persecution of their adversaries But my conscience tells me I never had any such designe and my reason prompts me that no such thing can be concluded from what I have written of that subject For it is with the discipline of the reformed churches in France under their magistrate as it was with that of the Jewes under the Babylonians Persians and Romans for whereas before their captivity they had no distinction betwixt church and state no other discipline then the law of the land no jurisdiction distinct from that of their magistrate afterwards when they lived under magistrates who were no friends to their lawes and religion they were fain as far as they were permitted to set up a discipline by consent which was in lieu of the magistrate whereof one law was to be casting out of the synagogue which we may call excommunication So that their jurisdiction was no otherwise distinct from that of the magistrate then as the power of a son in ordering his own affairs and religion contrary to the unjust commands of his father is distinct from the paternall power When a man cannot go to the charge of lead he must thatch his house with straw if he wants means to keep a servant he must serve himself and if he wants one to govern him he must be his own governour and yet that power whereby he governeth himself and is master of his own actions is not distinct from that which a governour was to have over him The very same thing the reformed churches in France may say who make use of what magistracy they can contrive and set up among themselves in lieu of their own magistrate who cares not for their religion If they be persecuted while they hold that their discipline is taken up by consent as the Jewes was under strange magistrates I do not see how they will be lesse exposed to persecution when ever they hold that their discipline is not of mans devising but of Christs own appointment For the magistrate doth not give them the liberty 〈◊〉 their discipline under any such notion either as it is confederate and arbitrary or punctually set down in Scripture for either way he counteth their discipline to be but a departing from the true church and their reformation to be a meer deformation So that it matters not much as to their safety what foundation they make their discipline to stand upon Sure it is not like that those that were the authors of the discipline of the reformed churches in France did look upon it as a modell left by Christ to his churches but rather as a collection of rules well digested by humane wisedome and prudence alterable according to time and place For so much saith the last article of their discipline These articles contained in this book concerning discipline are not so determined and ratified amongst us but that they may be altered as the emolument and benefit of the church shall require I hope when all prejudice shall be laid asides no rationall man will deny my principles I have alledged John Mestrezat a very learned man late minister at Paris both in my