not of their own nation and religion then they performed by a confederate discipline what the magistrate was to enjoin and command them The confession of Basilartic 6. hath a notable saying speaking of the duty of magistrates to propagate the Gospell as they are magistrates This duty was enjoyned a magistrate of the gentils how much more ought it to be commended to the Christian magistrate being the Vicar of God If then the heathen magistrate fails of his duty in not propagating the Gospell those that live under him and are better minded ought to supply the part of the magistrate in that particular and yet in doing of that they do but perform their own duty and businesse like as a master leading his horse down the hill his man being out of the way doeth both his own businesse and that of his man and both employeth his own strength in guiding an unruly horse and supplieth that of his man or which expresseth more lively the thing in hand as the Duke of Somerset in training up Prince Edward in the true religion did both do his own duty and that of Henry the 8. his father who being wanting to his duty in shewing his power authority to have his son brought up in the true Protestant religion Somerset Cranmer and others were not to be wanting to theirs and yet were not to act by a power distinct from the power of the King for if so then when ever a power is exercised rightly and yet against an unlawfull command of a superiour we had need to give a new name to that power and there would be as many kinds of power as duties to be performed Having done with Origen I come to Ambrose whom I was to alledge upon the 1. of Timothy relating to the places of St. Paul and Origen and to the power of magistracy assumed by churches There he teacheth the custom both of the synagogues of Christian churches of having elders that composed in stead of the magistrate controversies arising amongst church-members saying that first synagogues and afterwards churches had elders without whose advice there was nothing done in the church and wondreth that in his time which was about the year 370 such men were out of use which he thinks came by the negligence or rather pride of some Doctors who thought it was beneath them to be esteemed the lesse in the church as S. Paul saith of them while they are to decide controversies not as judges invested with a coercive power but only as arbitrators and umpires But the true cause why these elders ceased which he wisheth had been still continued he mentioneth not but the true cause is when the magistrate that was for above 300. years heathenish became Christian these arbitrators and elders ceased in great part at least they were more out of churches then in churches and in stead of them the Emperours created judges which yet retained much of the nature of those whereof Origen and Ambrose speak and which were invested as most of the Lawyers affirm as Cujacius for one with them my Rev. Father in his book de Monarchia temporal and in his Hyperaspistes lib. 3. cap. 15. not with a coercive jurisdiction but as they term it audience hence comes the Bishops and Deanes and Chapters Audit However such arbitrators sate in a court and were chosen by the Christian Emperours and were not members as before ever since St. Pauls time chosen by the members of that church where the contention did arise betwixt brother and brother and at that time it was not thought a violation of the command of St. Paul if a wronged brother had gone to secular judges because they were not infidels but Christians faithfull and saints as the Apostle termeth them 1 Cor. 6. 2. therefore it was free for any lay-man or other either to repair to the Audit of the Bishop or to the secular judge Which custome Ambrose doth not like so well as when Jewes and Christians were obliged by the law of their discipline to have controversies decided by their own elders Certain it is that these elders though they were not as Ambrose wisht they had been in his time arbitrators in those churches whereof they were members kept that office a long time under Christian Emperours but with more authority and dignity because they were countenanced by the Emperours their masters We have them mentioned pretty late even in Theodosius Honorius and Arcadius time for in one law they enjoin that ordinary judges should decide the contentions between Jewes and Gentils not their own elders or arbitrators Thereupon it is worth considering that that title which in the Theodosian Code is de Episcopali audientia in the Justinian Code is de Episcopali judicio a main proof that these judgements in episcopall courts had much still of the nature of those references in churches under the heathen Emperours These episcopall courts were set up by the Emperours to favour the clergy that they might be judged in prima instantia by their own judges for if either party had not stood to the sentence of that court they might appeal to the secular court The words of the 28. Canon of the councell of Chalcedon are very expresse If a clerk hath a matter against a clerk let him not leave his Bishop and appeal to secular judgement but let the cause first be judged by his own Bishop Now this episcopall court being in substance the same power with that of the elders mentioned by Ambrose which were first in synagogues and then in Christian churches under the heathen Emperours one may plainly see how weak and sandy the grounds are upon which ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing in the hands of church-officers is built which government say they is the government of Christ and is to be managed by those church-officers by a warrant from Christ the mediatour For Constantine erecting an episcopall court and empowering the judges of the court to decide causes and controversies did not intend to give them a commission of binding and loosing or to put into their hands the keyes of Heaven so delegating a power which was none of his to give but only granted what was in his own power namely that some magistrates under him should set all things in order in the church and among the clergy Besides he intended to set up that magistracy which was through the necessity of the times assumed first by synagogues then by Christian churches under persecution for sure Constantine did not place the power of the keyes of binding and loosing in the exercise of that power managed either by the elders which Ambrose mentioneth or by the episcopall court erected by himself Neither Constantine nor any of his successours did ever conceive that churches were to be governed by any other power then their own as all other societies of men were In this episcopall court any cause between man and man
the minister of the Gospell yet he may command in his own name the law of God which the minister of the Gospell may not It is the opinion of the gravest Divines that ministers have no power of legislation which being granted it is not possible they should have a power of jurisdiction for it was never heard that he that hath no power of or capacity to legislation can have any to jurisdiction for every member of Parliament is supposed to be capable of exercising jurisdiction but were he disinabled to have a power of legislation by that he should loose all capacity to bear any office of jurisdiction Camero is very expresse in his tract de Ecclesia p. 369. where having shewed that there be two things which are the matter of law 1. faith and good manners 2. things that pertain to order and discipline he addes in neither kind the church hath power to make lawes having said a little before that what proceedeth from the church ought rather to be called admonitions and exhortations then lawes Musculus is no lesse expresse in his common places p. 6â—1 We do confidently assert that all that power by which authentick lawes are made binding the subjects to obey whether they be called civil or eccle siasticall do not belong to the church that is to the multitude of the faithfull and subjects nor to the church-minister but properly to the sole magistrate to whom is given a mere command merum imperium over the subjects 3. This sheweth the invalidity of all canons decrees and sentences of church-judicatories which except they be known to be equitable true and just are not to be obeyed since the validity of an ecclesiasticall law is not like that of the magistrates which be it never so unjust hath the force of a law but sure none of our presbyterian brethren will maintain that all judgements and sentences of church-judicatories are infallible and therefore it belongeth to every man censured by such a judicatorie to be well informed of the justice truth and equity of the censure before he obeyeth it yea before it hath the force or name of a censure For it fares with the sentences of ministers as with the counsels of physitians which must convince the party of the necessity of vielding to this or that remedy their commands must have alwayes some reason annexed why they must be obeyed but the law of the magistrate needs none and permits none to interpret it but obey it according to the letter Lawes are variously divided into Divine and humane ecclesiasticall and civil morall ceremoniall and politick Some call those divine which are made by God and those humane which are made by men others call them divine lawes which rule the conscience and those humane laws which govern the outward man But none of these divisions are without their defects for humane lawes govern and oblige the conscience as the Apostle tells us Ro. 13. and albeit all humane lawes are not divine yet all divine lawes are so far humane as the magistrate giveth a sanction to them and imposeth an obligation in the court of man to obey them Likewise the division of lawes into morall policick and ceremoniall hath its defects for I conceive that the morall law is the ground and basis of the ceremoniall and politick and a rule by which God is to be worshipped State cities families fathers husbands children servants must be governed So that the ceremoniall law is but the morall law applied to the use of divine worship and the politick or civil law is but the morall law applyable to the practise and conversation of life at home and abroad The holy Scripture putteth no such distinction 1. God was alike the author of them all 2. God only and Moses his deputy on earth did give a sanction and stamp of obligation to them all 3. The matter indeed was diverse and so are the military lawes distinct from the matrimoniall and testamentary and yet are they all comprehended under the civil law because the civil magistrate giveth force of law to them alike upon that account why may not the morall and ceremoniall law be called civil 4. Because when the Scripture speaketh of the perfection of the law of God of those that walk in the lawes of God that the law of Moses was read every Sabbath that many dayes passed without law the whole body of the lawes given by Moses is understood without any such partition 5. Because the same persons judged every causes and matter punishable by the law there being as Mr. Gillespie faineth no such thing as a judicatory ecclesiasticall for ecclesiasticall causes a civil bench where the judges decided civil or politick causes for so we should need a third bench of judges medling with morall matters and causes Yet Mr. Gillespie p. 14. grants that the Jewes had no other civil law but Gods own law and besides that the Levites judged not only in the businesse of the Lord but also in the businesse of the King 1 Chron. 2. v. 30. 32. And so falls down the division of lawes into ecclesiasticall and civil for 1. They differ not in kind otherwise then a man from an animall this being the genus the other the species 2. All lawes devised by men whatever subject and matter they are about are civil politick and lawes of that power that giveth them force and vigour of lawes such are all the constitutions about discipline of the church which in vain they call ecclesiasticall 3. If a law were to be called ecclesiasticall because it handleth lawes for the government of the church we should need as many kinds of lawes as there be societies in the world and we should have one peculiar classis for lawes to govern schools and Universities another to govern societies of merchants a third for societies of drapers I do not deny but that a law may be as properly called ecclesiasticall as a law is called nauticall military testamentary matrimoniall either because they are about matters of churches armies wills husbands wives or because they were invented for the benefit of churches souldiers married people and the like but in vain do they think to call a law ecclesiasticall because not only it is of church-matters but also because it must be made by ecclesiasticall men and receive form and sanction from them and because all causes matters which they call ecclesiasticall must be judged by ecclesiasticall men For 1. As ecclesiasticall power if there be any such thing must be subordinate to the civil as we have proved before so ecclesiasticall lawes to the civil lawes 2. Ministers having no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction therefore lawes to govern Christians in churches need not to take their name from church minister or ministery but from the magistrate who is the maker latour and giver of them and binds men to a submission to them under penalty Musculus in the above-quoted place disproveth at large this
for expressely all kinds of debates about matters criminall not criminall were to be judged by them jointly So then the elders of the Jewish church cannot be a fit parallel with the elders of the church of the new Testament since the elders under the old Testament were judges even in capitall causes but under the new they were not besides that the elders under the old Testament were to make but one councell one judicatorie with the Commonwealth with the Judges and Princes of the land but neither the Rev. Assembly nor M. Gillespie will allow the elders of the new Testament to have any thing to do to sit as church-officers with the judges of the land and to decide causes betwixt blood and blood 3. But the eleventh verse concerning Amariah the chief Priest appointed to be over all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah for the Kings businesses doth further clear that there was no such thing amongst the Jewes as a government distinct from that of the magistrate though many cry here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were a strong place for a distinct and double jurisdiction for it is plain here that Amariah the chief Priest was appointed to be as Mr. Gillespie confesseth p. 146. the Nasi or Prince of the Sanedrim and chief ruler of the Senate whereof mention is made in the 8. verse and which was made up of Priests Levites and the elders of the people of Israel and judged of such causes and matters as usually a high court of Parliament do This Amariah in that place of chief-presidency in the Senate is said to be over all matters of the Lord because as all manner of lawes constitutions and ordinances were all from God the author and latour and from Moses under God the giver of them all so every matter or businesse concerning any of those lawes violated and broken or that needeth further explanation by reason of the infinity of cases and the seeming contradictions between one law and another was truely and properly called the matter of the Lord and was debated in the Senate for no doubt all causes about ceremoniall lawes and judgements concerning degrees of marriages inheritances and such like were as well matter of the Lord as the judgement of leprosy sacrifices and the like In that Senate which debated such matters of the Lord was Amariah Mr. Speaker Mr. Gâ—…spie acknowledgeth that he was the ruler and judge of the people for thus he speaketh p. 140. that the high Priest was a ruler of the people as well as of the Priests and Levites is man fest from Act. 23. v. 5. where Paul applyeth to the high Priest that law Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people Thus Mâ— Gillespie pleadeth for us with as strong arguments as we could ever produce for our selves viz. 1. that the jurisdiction of the high Priest as such was not distinct from that of the magistrate neither before nor since Christs time 2. that his jurisdiction was not annexed to the Priestly office but to the office of a judge and â—uler of the land 3. that he judged of the matters of the Lord as judge ruler and Prince of the Senate and not as a high Priest 4. that there being not two Senates as Mr. Gillespie acknowledgeth in Christs time nor before his time one ecclesiasticall another civil that one Sâ—nate that was standing could not properly be called either ecclesiasticall or civil â—ut the magistrates Senate endowed with one and that externall jurisdiction in all causes and matters and over all persons 4. Now for Zebadiah the case is clear that he was appointed either Steward or Mr. Controller it may be chamberlain of the Kings houshold or rather a principall minister not of State but set over his familie lands armies moneys jewels c. 5. This alone that Iehosaphat appointed both Amariah and Zebadiah to be chief magistrates and rulers one over the matters of God the other of the King evinceth that all jurisdiction was united in the King depended on him and was subordinate to him For it is plain out of Iosephus lib. 9. cap. 1. that these two magistrates Amariah and Zebadiah and the setting of them over the matter of God and the businesse of the King was an act of sovereign jurisdiction or of magistracy summos magistratus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex amicorum numero praeposuit 6. The matter judged in that Sanedrim where Amariah was Speaker argueth that it was no ecclesiasticall court Mr. Gillespie understandeth betwixt blood and blood not of capitall offences but concerning forbidden degrees of marriages Which though it were he must prove that matrimoniall causes belonged to the cognizance not of civil but of ecclesiasticall tribunals which no man will ever be able to prove 7. To take away all doubt but that Amariah was appointed the chief ruler of the people of God under the King in all matters that concerned the lawes given by God to his people of whatever nature they were and Zebadiah Governour under the King of the Kings house and affairs there is a pregnant place 1 Chronic. 26. vers 30. and 32. For in the 30. verse Hashabiah and his brethren even one thousand and seven hundred officers on this side Iordan westward are said to be set over the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King and 〈◊〉 the 32. it is said that David made ruiers over the Reubenites the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh for every matter pertaining to God and the affairs of the King First here we see neither Priests nor Levites but men of other tribes set promiscuously over both the matter of the Lord and the affairs of the King 2. Who seeth not that the matter of God is the matter of the Commonwealth even all judgements lawes constitutions appointed by God by which the people of God were judged and righted and that the affairs of the King were those that pertain to the Kings demeasnes rents armie c. 3. And who seeth not that all the affairs and all the matters that needed to be ordered and regulated in those places and tribes are divided into two classes viz. into the matter of God or the people of God and the affairs that respected the Kings own businesse and service 4. What absurdity then would it be to imagine that the affairs of the King were civil businesses judged and handled by secular men and the matter of God ecclesiasticall causes judged by ecclesiasticall men in an ecclesiasticall judicatory For even admitting Mr. Gillespies sense why should not the affairs of the church be the affairs of the King since he was set by God and appointed to reform it and why should not the affairs of the Commonwealth be the affairs of God 8. Mr. Gillespie p. 14. is of another mind then he meaneth to be p. 140. whence we have quoted him for us for in the 14. page he approveth that the reverend and learned assembly of
Divines should draw an argâ—ment for ruling elders out of the 2 Chron. 19. see pag. 15. besides whereas it is the opinion of all Rabbins and most Dâ—vines that in that place 2 Chronic. 19 there is mention but of one Sanedrim which Iosaphat did â—…form Mr. Gillespie maintaineth that there is mention made of two one ecclesiasticall of which Amariah was president and anotheâ— civil in which Zeâ—adiah was Speaker for saith he where was it ever heard of that a Priest was President of a court and â—n sacred things and causes that a civil magistrate was president of a court and that in civil causes and yet not two courts but one court But where will he make good that distinction of power and Senat among the Iewes one ecclesiasticall the other civil For 1. he himself doth not deny but that the great Sanedrim was an intermixture of persons and preceedings what need then to have a partition of power 2. He takes for granted that the high Priest was the president of the great Sanedrim if he was no absurdity then he should be president of a civil court such as they cannot deny the great Sanedâ—im was 3. If he were president of a civil court and Priests and Levites sate with him in the same court what need we suppose another court called ecclesiasticall when the first court might supplie both 4. But that this was but one court it is plain by what he saith p. 29. and 33. and so that there is no place for his double jurisdiction and Senate or Sanedâ—im the one ecclesiasticall over which Amariah was the other civil whose speaker was Zebadiah for in these quoted places he saith that the government of the Iewes in Christs time was not as Iosephus thinks aristocraticall simply but was an ecclesiasticall aristocracy it was in the hands of the chief priests that they judged of all causes but only capitall because the judgement and the cognizance of them was taken from them after the 30. year of Christ which he proveth p. 33. out of Constantin l'Empereur 5. So then by these concessions as he cannot make a double Sanedrim in Christs time so neither in Iosaphats time 6. What need to call the Sanedrim in Christs time ecclesiasticall since it had the judgement of all causes and over all persons as usually the magistrates tribunall hath except in capitall causes 7. But could the judgement of capitall causes taken from them make the Sanedrim in Christs time more an ecclesiasticall assembly then when they had the judgement of the said capitall causes must a court be called ecclesiasticâ—… because it hath no power to punish by death were it so all court leets and court-Barons and the court of the Exchequer were ecclesiaâ—…icall courts because they have no power to punish a man by death 8 So then before the 30. year of Christ when the Iewes had the judgement of capâ—…all causes their Sanedrim if we believe Mr. Gillespâ—e was not an ecclesiasticall but a civil court and yet it was made up of Priests Levites and elders of the people and judged of all causes and persons which sheweth how weakly Mr. Gillespie proveth that there was an ecclesiasticall and a civil Sanedrim in Iosaphats time whenas he cannot so much as deduce them unto Christs time nor after Christs time but by one at a time stiling that one Sanedrim as it serves his turn sometimes civil sometimes ecclesiasticall hoping by this means to find his ecclesiasticall Sanedrim Matth. 18. to whom our Lord sends the party offended for a redresse in those words tell it unto the church CHAPTER 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 MY noble and reverend friend Mr. Caesar Calandrin propoundeth a case which he hath often desired me by word of mouth and by letters to satisfie him in He is confident that by it a double jurisdiction is made good I will set it down in his own words A murtherer condemned to death if he be truely penitent the spirituall court doth absolve him and yet the civil magistrate shall punish him with death though he be never so penitent which evidently proveth that the civil and ecclesiasticall judicature do not enterfear but are of a quite different nature Else how can the magistrate punish him as guilty who is absolved by the Consistory or how can the Consistory absolve him whom the magistrate doth condemn The Consistory by absolving him in the spirituall court doth not thereby at all opposethe sentence of condemnation which the magistrate hath given against him in the civil court The condemnation in the civil court stands in force even then when in the spirituall court it is no longer a condemnation but is changed into absolution upon his repentance The magistrate doth not regard repentance because his office doth not extend to the care of souls the Consistory must absolve and comfort the penitent lest Satan should tempt him to dâ—spair The magistrate cannot take exceptions that the Consistory absolveth him whom the magistrate hath condâ—mned nor can the Consistory take exception that the magistrate puts him to death whom the Consistory hath absolved I adde for further illustration if the absolution given by the Consistory were upon grounds of his being innocent or that his crime did not deserve death this I confesse would thwart the sentence of the civil mag strate but the Consistory meddleth not with the sâ—ntence of the magistrate nor with his civil punishment but labours to keep his soul being penitent in a right posture and to strengthen it against temptations The argument holds as well on the other side The magistrate may absolve a man after he hath satisfied for his crime in the civil court though the same man should stand condemned in the spirituall court When the sentences are so directly contrary and yet the judicatures do not enterfear nor at all meddle nor make one with another these must be acknowledged courts of a different nature The case propounded maketh nothing against me nor for a jurisdiction of presbyteries classes and synods to depose excommunicate and make lawes authoritatively independent and distinct from the magistrate which is the hinge of all our controversie 1. Properly ministers do not absolve or pardon neither are they otherwise pardoners then saviours but only upon the demonstrations of repentance they do declare pardon of sins and remission either past or to come For I do not enter into a controversy betwixt Rever and learned Mr. Baxter whom I give thanks for his kind usage and civilities and my self whether repentance goeth before remission or followeth it but however the minister doth no further forgive then in declaring that God either hath forgiven sins already or will forgive them So that he neither pardoning nor sealing forgivenesse of sins
but all sit and vote as men invested with power of legislation and at that time a physitian voteth not in the quality and capacity of a physitian no not when lawes are made for physitians and apothecaries although when they are in debate a physitian may discourse pertinently of physick as a physitian and skilfull in his art This is the very case of ministers of the Gospell who for that reason that men do not sit and vote in Parliament considered as men of such a calling or profession in the Commonwealth ought likewise to vote sit in Parliament for as the profession of physick or manufacture doth not devest a man from being a good and understanding Commonwealths-man so neither doth the pastorall calling 4. It seems to me very unreasonable yea unconscionable that any mans profession or habit how high or low soever should lay an incapacity upon the person of one though never so much capable and sufficient to contribute his wit and counsell towards the common-weal as if the magistrate would not take a loan of money of 100000 l. of one that had a long cloak but would be willing to take it of one that had a short cloak or a man in danger of drowning would not take his neighbour by the cloak or by his hair for fear of spoiling or disordering of them for thus do those which will not admit the advice of a minister in publick deliberations were he never so able to serve the Common-wealth by his wit wisedome and industrie and the need never so great meerly because of his habit and his profession of the ministery Which calling I am so far from thinking that it doth disinable him from sitting and voting in Parliament that not only it renders him the fitter but also that he is not thereby hindred from attempting any noble action which might turn to some great publick benefit A minister having the valour of Caesar ability to subdue Rome or a secret to burn all the ships of the King of Spain in his ports I conceive that his ministery ought not to keep him off from being employed to use all his industry to serve the Church of God or his countrey in such a way But why is not a physitian disinabled by his profession to sit in Parliament and a Divine is whenas there is a great deal more affinity betwixt the profession of a Divine and the debates in Parliament then betwixt them and the profession of physick 5. Although men do not usually fit and vote in Parliament by the right of the calling and profession they are of in the Commonwealth except they sit by their birth yet it were to be wisht that men that are generally more skilled in most professions and best able to judge what is right or wrong and are not ignorant of affairs of the world should be called such as I conceive are university-men and ministers of the Gospell 6. Since the greatest end of magistracy is to advance the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus and that for obtaining of that end it is needfull to make lawes and constitutions subservient to it why should ministers of all men be left out whose education and profession renders them more capable to advise for the obtaining of that great end 7. Since also there is such a complication betwixt the church state as they cannot so much as be imagined asunder and that most lawes and constitutions made by men are grounded upon and have some warrant from Divine writ and that those that appoint by law oaths to be taken should at least be well advised about the nature of the oath I do conceive that since all ranks are promiscuously called to advise about these of all men ministers best furnished and stored with knowledge and acquainted with the right and plea of conscience upon which equity right and law is grounded should not be forgot Why should not men who make it their whole employment to study the judgements of God be as fit judges in Parliaments and high courts of judicature as Physitians or merchants 8. There is the same reason for ministers to sit in Parliament as there was for priests and Levites to sit in synagogues and judiciall assemblies of the Jewes and in all consultations of state it being certain that the great Sanedrim was a mixture of Priests and Levites with the Princes and heads of the people 9. There is equall reason that if the supreme magistrate calls say-men to sit and vote in synods he should call the clergy to sit and vote in Parliament 10. There was no such thing so much as heard for many hundred years after the fourth age that ministers and Bishops should be thought incapable to sit and vote in the supreme courts of the nation I could prove it by the practise of Italy Germanie France Spain and England for above 7 or 8 hundred years even far within popery that though the Pope had much advanced the hatching of his two egges ecclesiasticall civil jurisdiction yet all state-assemblies were not distinguisht either from synods or from civil courts but promiscuously men of all ranks and professions Senators Bishops Lords Priests Gentlemen did sit and vote in one assembly and place about any matter whatsoever rite law discipline or ceremony Neither is it to be conceived that the causes debated in these assemblies were divided into two classes and that when ecclesiasticall matters were handled clergy-men did then vote and lay-men sate mute and when civil were in agitation then the clergy were silent and lay-men did only appear as judges which is indeed a pretty conceit but will not serve for a double jurisdiction He that will see that further proved at large needs but only read Blondellus de jure plebis c. and Mr. Prinne in his book of Truth triumphing over falshood A thing very considerable it is that during all these ages clergy-men because they were most skill'd in controversies of dâ—vinity exercised to speak in publick were also thought the fitter to judge right from wrong and to meddle with secular matters and therefore in courts of law or chancery clergy-men dispatched more businesses then the laity handled all cases except it may be criminall matters and wills not being permitted to be executors of Testaments otherwise they filled the courts so far that there were no knowing men yea none that could read or write but they hence to this day no court Justice of peace or lawyer but hath his clerk and they say still legit ut clericus he reads like a clerk This I find much urged by a famous lawyer a Romanist John du Tillet in his memoires who speaking of the encroachments of the Popes of Rome saith that they have alwayes endeavoured to sever what from the times of the Apostles was united and to make of one jurisdiction two which yet they could not so distinctly separate but that still to our dayes one may see it was not so in the beginning and
distinction of jurisdiction was not necessary because it was one people one nation and one temple whereto all the Iewes did gather together and therefore since they could conveniently be governed the unity of jurisdiction standing there ought not to have been a distinction yea it was very convenient that there should be an identity of jurisdiction that it might be believed that it was the same God to whom they all ministred There was the same reason for the temple for it was his will that there should be one place in which they should offer sacrifice unto him lest if that had been done in many places they might have thought there had been many gods Stapleton de Prin. doctrin 197. acknowledgeth the same indentity of jurisdiction among the Jewes I come to the second viz. to Mr. Gillespies concessions which are as large as I can wish that the church state were the same materially that the same man was both high Priest and chief judge of the nation that elders of synagogues did exercise coercive jurisdiction that the Jewish Senat after the thirtieth year of Christ was ecclesiasticall and yet was over all persons and causes except capitall and that there was not then any other senat extant but that before the thirtieth year the same senat having the judgement of capitall causes was civil All these being granted I see not what further can be required in the behalf of unity of jurisdiction since 1. the same men that were members of the ecclesiasticall senat were also members of the civil senat 2. that the synagogues were invested with magistracy since the elders had a coercive power so that in the very synagogues there is by his confession a coalition of powers and jurisd ctions 3. making but one senate both before and after the 30. year which judged of all causes and matters and over all persons the civil before the 30. of Christ judging of ecclesiasticall causes and the ecclesiasticall after the 30. judging of civil But I could never understand why he calls the senate after the 30. year of Christ meerly ecclesiasticall because it did not judge of capitall causes though it had cognizance and judgement of all other matters Can the judging or not judging of capitall and criminall causes alter the constitution and name of an assembly or court so as that when it judgeth of capitall causes it must be called civil otherwise it must be called ecclesiasticall Now because there is some obscurity in that concession of his that the church and state were the same materially we will hear what his countrey-men say to that in a late book printed anno 1657. called A true representation of the present divisions of the church of Scotland that we may the better weigh his recantation or rather modification when he saith that though they were the same materially yet they were distinct formally the words are pag. 18. The church of God being restrained to that one people of Israel their church and commonwealth were materially the same by divine constitution so that none could be members of the commonwealth but such as were also members of the church and so professours of the true religion as now under the Gospell it may be otherwise Now let us hear Mr. Gillespie pag. 6. They were formally distinct in respect of distinct lawes the ceremoniall was given to them in reference to their church state the judiciall was given to them in reference to their civil state But if they were distinct in regard of the judiciall and ceremoniall lawes why may they not be united in regard of the morall law For Mr. Gillespie passeth over the morall law and leaves it uncertain who is to be the keeper and guardian of it and whether it was given in reference to their church state or in reference to their civil state or whether a third power jurisdiction or state must not be constituted that is neither civil state nor church state to which the morall law hath reference for sure there was some union of jurisdictions in the protection and defence of the morall law which was as it were the bottom and the basis upon which the ceremoniall and judiciall were grounded and is of far more large extent then the ceremoniall and judiciall put together and from which in so many difficulties that are incident for the clearing of ceremoniall rites and judiciall sentences there must be continuall appeals to the keepers of the morall law which being at least equally in the custody of the magistrate and church-officers and both parties having a joint interest in the morall law as to see all men and businesses governed and squared thereby they also to that end must conjoin their power and jurisdiction For indeed the morall law is no more different from the politick then from the law given to families fathers masters husbands only the politick law is the practise of the morall or is the morall law applicable to cities families c. In like manner the ceremoniall law is but the morall law applyed in the practise of religious service for the morall law saith God only is to be worshipped the ceremoniall saith where how when by whom So that as all lawes are streams from the morall law so must all jurisdiction be from one fountain of magistracy It seems that Calvin had the same thought when in his harmony of the Pentateuch he reduceth all lawes under one classis But to examine a little nearer his distinction of materiall and formall I do not understand what he meaneth by formall in opposition to materiall for the jurisdictions that are one materially must be also one formally Let us suppose two coordinate supreme senates as Mr. Gillespie would have them among the Jewes one civil and another ecclesiasticall and that as he would have it the same men were members of one and the other I say if they do not differ materially neither do they differ formally so long as no law order or constitution civil or ecclesiasticall can have any force without the joint consent of both and except both senates put their seals of confirmation to what either of them hath decreed For example the appointing a day of publick humiliation by the ecclesiasticall senate must be also an act of the same men sitting in a civil senate who if they will have the injunction to stand must make orders subservient to it that there be no markets nor courts that day kept otherwise those that keep markets or courts upon such a day by vertue of former warrants from the civil senate will not know how far they are to obey the injunction of the ecclesiasticall senate without a dispensation from the civil senate This double jurisdiction is in effect but one for the same men appointing a day of humiliation in an ecclesiasticall senate to be kept forbid also in a civil senate all markets and courts to be kept and though one part of the injunction was made in one senate and the