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
the sentence before he causeth it to be executed 3. that the magistrate having both the last judgement of approbation and of that they call imperative or command to yield obedience to the declarations and sentences of synods or consistories it is plain he is the soveraign judge of all ecclesiasticall judgements sentences and debates and that they are but counsells and advices till the magistrate approveth of them and commandeth them This single passage of Mr. Gillespie graunted unto him might serve for an answer to all his book would overthrow all ecclesiasticall jurisdiction And indeed all the controversie lieth in the narrow compasse of these few lines of his the matter of which by right should have been the main subject and bulk of his book and not have been so slightly passed over for this is the very hinge on which Gualterus and Maccovius conceive that the whole controversie betwixt Erastus and his opposites hung and which as it is stated by Maccovius will give a bone to pick till doomsday to the assertors of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction it is a Gordian knot which they will never disintangle but by cutting of it the truth of it being so undeniable that it was never answered by Walaeus Apollinus Triglandius nor by Mr. Gillespie who indeed in this paragraph alledgeth the substance of Maccovius positions but doth not answer them to any purpose The three positions of Maccovius are brought by severall in various terms but all to the same purpose and are these 1. It is the duty of the magistrate to look and take order that the word of God be preached with purity that the Sacraments and the discipline of the church be duely administred and to make a diligent enquiry into the ministers performing of these and to punish them if either they misse or do amisse in the dâ—scharge of their places Which words of Maccovius Rivetus upon the decalogue doth expresse in equivalent terms It is the duty of ministers to infuse doctrine to wound by censures to administer the sacraments immediatly and personally and as they speak ex officio by their office Now the magistrate under whose authority these things are to be done if ministers do not perform them by his grave and commanding power may and ought to force them and enjoâ—n them to do these things and to do them well and to punish them that do otherwise then they should do 2. The second position of Maccovius is Since no determinations or sentences of presbyteries and synods have any force of obligation in them to obedience without the sanction of the magistrate therefore not the presbyteries and synods but the magistrate is the supreme judge giver and maker of all constitutions sentences and determinations of consistories and synods 3. The third is The magistrate is either to put his seal of sanction and give his judgement of approbation to all the judgements sentences and definitions of synods with a blind judgement and stand without disputing within himself to what they agreed and decreed among themselves or he must disapprove those things that in his own apprehension are not good and convenient and approve what he conceiveth to be true just and fit Whatever the opposers chose they are at a stand for they make the magistrate either a soveraign judge and arbiter over all ecclesiasticall matters or a sergeant and blind executioner of the judgements and sentences of synods and presbyteries Mr. Gillespie being not able any way to make invalide the strength of these positions of Maccovius only saith that the magistrate in having the last view and cognizance of all ecclesiasticall determinations and giving his sanction to them does not judicem agree but judâ—care which I know not how to English but that in so doing he doth not the part of a judge and yet doth judge of the thing But what strength hath this That man doth the part of a judge in whose power and breast it is to make valid and currant or to disannull whatever is debated and determined by others Of much like strength is it when he saith that the magistrate judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his conscience Which if he may do the magistrate hath as much as Maccovius proveth to belong to him for in that he is not satisfied and doth not concur with the judgements of church-officers he maketh all their judgements void null of no force to oblige either actively or passively any man or assembly under his jurisdiction Had not the states of the low-countreys approved and ratified the synod of Dordrecht their decrees would have been but counsells advices and answers of prudent and wise men and had not put any obligation upon the ministers churches schools and academies within their dominions more then upon England or France to be conformable to their determinations Next in the conclusion Mr. Gillespie saith that this doth not make him supreme judge and governour in ecclesiasticall causes which is the prerogative of Iesus Christ nor yet doth it invest the magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forinsecall directive judgement in ecclesiasticall things or causes which belongeth to an ecclesiasticall not to a civil court I understand not wherefore he bringeth this for what he hath said before doth sufficiently evince the magistrate to be soveraign judge and governour over all persons and in all ecclesiasticall causes and censures so long as they are of no force and cannot be brought to execution except the magistrate approves of them and commands them It seemeth Mr. Gillespie by these words would put it to the vote who must be the supreme judge and governour in ecclesiasticall causes whether the ministers or the magistrate It is sure enough if we believe him the magistrate must not be It remains then that the ministers should be the supreme judges and governors for all M. Gillespies drift is to take from the magistrate that which he saith duly pertaineth to the ministers and in short to put as he conceiveth the saddle upon the right horse For to what end should he except against the magistrates being invested with the power of supreme judgement and government in ecclesiasticall causes but to reinvest the ministers into it and to declare that that usurpation in the magistrate was done to the prejudice and wrong of the ministers to whom it is due by right Here then Mr. Gillespie maketh the ministers of the Gospell supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes whereas he alwayes before declined those titles as belonging only to and being the prerogative of Jesus Christ But suppose ministers in synods and consistories had also the coercive power and were invested with that externall jurisdiction that giveth force and sanction to all their censures this I trow would not make them more or lesse supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes then the
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
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.
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
obedience which powers I have shewed that nothing could step between as medium either of participation or of negation although our presbyterian brethren tell us that the ecclesiasticall is also coordinate if not to the power of the word at least to the power of the magistrate a power they say which is distinct both from the power of the word and from the power of the magistrate But this having already been disproved by reason I will alledge but one of their own namely Triglandius de potestate ecclesiastica against Vedelius as good as confessing he cannot tell what to make of that ecclesiasticall power and where it must be placed for in the description he makes of the power of the magistrate about sacred things and that of the power of the word which yet he calls ecclesiasticall he leaves no room for a presbyterian ecclesiasticall power of excommunicating deposing and making lawes authoritatively as they speak Though I say he calls that power ecclesiasticall yet it hath but merely the name of it for he giveth such a description to it as I could give no other to the power of the word These be his words in the prefaâ—… to the reader The ecclesiasticall power is the spirituall power seated in the administration of the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven striking at the soul and intrinsecally affecting the consciences of men which God maketh use of as an instâ—ument and a mean for their conversion and salvation and for that cause is so much nobler then the civill as the soul is nobler then the body and eternall felicity and salvation is more excellent then temporall prosperity But this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate There is nothing in this description that belongeth to the ecclesiasticall presbyterian power such as Mr. Gillespie would give us for excommunication doth not strike at the soul but at the body and the opposition he maketh of the things he likens it to do shew he speaketh of such a power as is called the power of the resurrection Philip. 3. v. 10. and the power of God Rom. 1. v. 16. and by which we are the sons of God Ioh. 1. v. 12. which properties cannot belong to the power of excommunication and of making lawes in a synod which being carried by the major part of votes though it were but of one oblige all men to obedience Yet my â—everend â—…nd Mr. Caesar Calandrin conceiveth that Triglandius by the keyes understood both keyes of the word and of discipline To that I say 1. that Triglandius description of ecclesiasticall power reacheth only to the soul and not to the ordering the outward man by discipline 2. that a key is an admission to the Kingdom of grace and not to a visible assembly 3. a key is an instrument to get in those that are without if they please to come in willingly not to force them in or to keep them from entering nor to cast out those that are within by excommunication except they desire to go out of themselves They use to expell men with staves and â—udgels but not with a key except it be taken by the wrong end and to a wrong use What Triglandius saith that this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate is true of the power of the word in converting from darknesse to light which indeed none of the divines ascribe to the magistrate But if he had spoken of a power of presbyterian ecclesiasticall judicatories it had not been true what he saith that none of the divines attribute it to the magistrate for it is the opinion of Bullingerus Musculus Gualterus great and famous divines who take off from the ministers all such presbyteriall power and give it to the true owner even to the Christian magistrates Now let us see how farre he extendeth the power of the magistrate in sacred things by which it is plain he affords no room for presbyterian power to interpose between the power whereof we have just now seen the description and the power of the magistrate These be his words ch 16. p. 317. It belongeth to the civil power to deliberate what religion he will have to be exercised among his subjects if he doth remove the true religion he abuseth indeed his power yet for all that his power must not be denied I would fain know by what power the magistrate doth these things Is it an ecclesiasticall or civil If civil then some acts of the ecclesiasticall power are subordinate to the civil if ecclesiasticall I ask whether it is coordinate to that of the ministers power or subordinate to the civil power If subordinate 't is all I say If coordinate then it is ten times more absurd to fain two equall powers and judicatories over the same persons and in the same cause and matter as we shall see in another place To clear all mistakes about subordination of powers 1. When we say that ecclesiasticall power is subordinate to the power of the magistrate we do not understand a subordination of functions for neither the functions of physitians merchants professours of arts no more then that of ministers are subordinate to magistracy but that whatever jurisdiction ministers physitians merchants or professours of arts have is subordinate to the magistrate And indeed this hath been one great cause to deny a subordination of ecclesiasticall to civil because persons and functions and the affairs about these functions having alwayes been separated this errour hath soon crept in that jurisdiction and rule must be also separated but if jurisdictions have need to be separated and distinct because functions are so there would be as many jurisdictions in a state as there be professours of arts and sciences And since functions that have no affinity with magistracy make no distinction of jurisdiction much lesse the sacred function and magistracy that are so near a kin have need to have severall jurisdictions And indeed the affinity is great both tending to the promoting of the soveraign good and for many 1000. years the same person having been invested with them both 2. It is a great mistake of some who because a jurisdiction is from God and subordinate to him deny it to be subordinate to the magistrate For is not the maritall or paternall power-subordinate to God and yet to the magistrate and is not despoticall power subordinate to God Colos 4. and yet to the magistrate 3. Neither do we say that all those whose jurisdiction is subordinate to the magistrate ought to exercise their power by authority from the magistrate only for they must do it as servants 1. â—n all just and lawfull things 2. not with an eye-submission as St. Paul saith of servants as men-pleasers but as subject to Christ and from a principle of conscience though there were no magistrates at all 4. This consideration will remove many mistakes that it may well stand that a power a command a law a precept may be both from God from the
magistrate thus the decalogue is as well a law of the magistrate as of God Yea I maintain that a command or law of God hath no force of law in the court of man or in any presbytery synod or assembly whatsoever binding to active or passive obedience except it hath the stamp of magistracy and be published anew by the soveraign magistrate and that no man can be punished legally for robbing and stealing yea not for killing much lesse can he be excommunicated except there be a law of man against robbers and murtherers and that some magistracy impowereth churches or synods to passe a sentence of excommunication 5. This also hath been a great mistake which made many deny a subordination of ecclesiasticall to civil because those that embrace the true religion and live under those that hate them or persecute them endeavour as to have a communion independent from the magistrate so also a jurisdiction 6. Another errour in making the church jurisdiction not subordinate but wholly independent from the magistrate is this assertion easily descending into the minds of those that affect rule and jurisdiction viz. that the end of magistracy is outward peace and quietnesse only and purchasing all means to the attaining of the preservation of temporall life wealth and prosperity having nothing to do with promoting the eternall good and happinesse of the soul But this errour is not only refuted by the very heathens but also by the most learned orthodox Divines both English and others Pareus on the 13. to the Romans dubio 5. saith the end of the magistrate is not only the civil good but also the spirituall good of the subjects that religion may flourish in the church according to the word of God and so Junius Meditat. on the 122. Psalm tom 1. col 721. saith that the magistrate is to procure by divine and humane right the good of the spirituall Kingdom of Christ But Antonius de Dominis lib. 5. de republica ecclesiastica cap. 5. § 1. is very prolix and nervous to prove that he that is invested from God with a power to purchase naturall felicity is also invested with a power to promote the spirituall 7. It is also a great errour to make a coordination of powers seated in the same persons For if it could be imagined that one part of the people were the Church and the other part the Commonwealth they might be also imagined independent one from another thus a society of merchants and a colledge of scholars may be well imagined to be corporations so independent one from the other that none of the society of merchants are part of the colledge and none of the colledge are part of the society But granting that the same persons are members of the society of merchants and of the colledge of scholars the command law discipline of those two corporations as long as they admit the same members must have either a perpetuall conflict and clashing or the command of one corporation must be subordinate to the command of the other or else if they be both coordinate they must also be both equally subordinate to a power set over them both This is the case between the Church and the Commonwealth Granting that the same persons are members of the Commonwealth and of the Church it is not possible to make these two jurisdictions coordinate and yet subsist together in peace love and amity and without one disturbs the other they must joyntly agree to have one power over them or the law injunction and commands of one must be subordinate to the lawes of the other 8. The grandest inconvenience in this coordination of powers and jurisdictions is that the same persons being members of societies under both these powers and submitting to the commands of both shall be in continuall perplexity which to obey if both do not command one thing There is such a communion in mens actions causes relations functions callings commands duties jurisdictions freedoms liberties among those that live under one soveraign power and within the precincts of one jurisdiction that it is impossible that any outward action can be performed in whatever relation a man be considered as husband master father pastor lawyer physitian merchant at home or in church in a synod or in a city or hall except they all are modified ruled and directed by one supreme jurisdiction otherwise the saying of Tacitus would prove true ubi plures imperant nemo obsequitur where there be many coordinate powers there is none found to obey When a magistrate doth command a subject to attend him in the wars this command doth exempt him from the commands and injunctions that may be made to him as he is a son member of a consistory or of a synod or of some other corporation therefore when the King of Scotland in the year 1582. commanded the magistrate of Edenburgh to entertain and feast a French Ambassadour on a set day and the presbytery of Edenburgh to crosse this command had enjoyned a fast upon the same day since both commands could not be obeyed at once by the magistrate of Edenburgh either the magistrates commands must be subordinate to those of the presbytery or the commands of the presbytery must be subordinate to those of the magistrate or else the different commands of both must be subordinate to a third power above both presbytery and magistrate I have brought in my Paraenesis a cloud of witnesses Martyr Musculus Gualterus Iunius Pareus Cassander Hooker Antonius de Dominis proving the necessity that the power called ecclesiasticall should be subordinate to that of the magistrate I will only alledge Musculus in whom we shall see the sense of all the rest loc com de magistratibus The way and nature of government cannot bear that in the same people there be two authentick powers two diverse legislations and dominations except it be by subordination as there is no place for two heads upon one body Learned Dr. Hammond who is neither for Geneva presbytery nor of Erastus opinion nor yet of Musculus Bullingerus Gualterus who made little account of excommunication yet he holds that ecclesiasticall power is subject to the civil magistrate who in all causes over all persons is acknowledged supreme under Christ These be his words in his tract of the power of the keyes p. 87. though by them he overthroweth all power in ministers and Bishops of excommunicating independently from the magistrate which yet he strives to assert against Erastus Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gillespie think that if it were granted that the magistrate is Christs viceregent it would subvert wholly the grounds upon which ecclesiasticall presbyterian power is built I question whether this concession of Dr. Hammond that the magistrate is the governour of the Church under Christ would not equally unsettle his episcopall excommunication I should in this chapter as I intended at first shew the vanity and nullity of the multitude of divisions and subdivisions of ecclesiasticall
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
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
sit what matter they must handle may not the lay-man then interpose as in a businesse of his classis may not also ecclesiasticall persons do the like Besides 100. constitutions may be found of such a mixt nature that it is not yet resolved what classis they pertain unto whether ecclesiasticall or civil such are the lawes about wills marriages tithes tenths usury collections for the poor appointing of dayes for fasting or thanksgiving lawes for pious uses and the like Will this expedient serve to resolve the conscience viz. if such an assembly of mixt persons and causes be named neither a councell or synod nor a civil judicatory but an assembly or some other name participating of the nature of both as if names could alter the nature of the thing and satisfy the conscience In short I believe the reverend assembly both wrong themselves and no way satisfy mens minds and consciences in not stating what is ecclesiasticall what is not and how far this or that man may meddle in ecclesiasticall and civil matters what name is to be given to this or that assembly I am crowded with matter that were worth deciding about synods which argument I handled largely in the 22. and 23. chapters of my Paraenesis The power of synods is decisive directive and declarative they decide by way of discussion and disputation they direct by way of counsell and they declare their opinions as expert and well known and read in the thing that is in question Coercive and judiciall power they have none but what is delegated from the magistrate or from private churches so that though the authority of a synod is greater then that of a private church yet the power of that church is greater then that of a synod If there be an union of churches as there ought to be even under an orthodox magistrate all canons and decrees are no otherwise binding as laws then as they have the stamp of magistracy upon them Supremi magistratus approbatio est supremum arrestum ut loquuntur saith Festus Hommius disp 18. thes 4 and disp 17. thes 3. the approbation of the magistrate is the supreme decree And not only reformers but also some Romanists namely the authour of the Review of the councill of Trent a learned book and which the learned Dr. Langbane thought his pains worthy in his youth to turn into English Lib. 3. cap. 13. the Emperour as is commonly known the Monarch of churches is president to the synodall sentences gives them force composeth ecclesiasticall orders giveth law life and policy to those that serve at the altar Is it credible that a Romanist should be of a more sincere judgement in this matter then a reformed Christian such as Mr. Gillespie Those that are for a judiciall power of synods over churches do alledge the synod of the Apostles which being infallible is no example to us no more then the miracles of Christ and the Apostles argue that ordinary ministers must work miracles When private churches can be sure that a synod in these dayes is led by such a spirit of infallibility they may yield to it without disputing yet not without examining as did those of Beroea who tryed the Sermon of St. Paul whether it was agreeable to other scriptures and were there now a synod made up of 40. or 50. men like Peter and Paul a church should reverence their orders but yet that synod should have no coercive jurisdiction over the church but such as overcometh the inward man by perswasion and leadeth him as it were captive to the obedience of truth And in case men and churches were not perswaded or did delay obedience and submission I say that such an Apostolicall synod could bring neither churches nor men to an outward conformity to their sentences lawes and decrees without a power delâ—…ated from the magistrate or some magistracy seated in churches Let us come to the second section As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion so if magistrates be open enemies to the church the ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office or they with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches may meet together in such assemblies There is nothing in this section but I will willingly grant 1. They yield that magistrates may call synods 2. that a synod is an assembly of men convocated by the magistrate 3. who are to advise the magistrate about ordering matters of religion and discipline 4. under an orthodox magistrate as synods receive their jurisdiction from the magistrate so private churches under them ought to receive their orders and constitutions as lawes of the magistrate but under an heterodox magistrate synods receive their authority from private churches so that canons and decrees of synods are so far valid as they are approved or ratified by private churches that have conferred the power they being then in lieu of the magistrate The generall assembly of Scotland perceiving that this article doth much weaken ecclesiasticall power under an orthodox magistrate hath thought fit in their generall assembly at Edenburgh Aug. 27. sess 23. to put a glosse or comment upon it saying that the assembly understandeth some part of the second article of the thirty first chapter only of Kirks not settled or constituted in point of government and that although in such Kirks a synod of ministers and other fit persons may be called by the magistrates authority and nomination without any other call to consult and advise with about matters of religion and although likewise the ministers of Christ without delegation from their churches may of themselves and by vertue of their office meet together synodically in such Kirks not yet constituted yet neither of these ought to be done in Kirks constituted and settled So they will have the second article to be understood of churches not constituted or settled in which case they say the magistrate may call synods else they say it doth not belong to him but to the ministers who then ought to assemble of themselves without any commission from the magistrate which is expressely against the literall meaning of the second article which as all others of the confession is of things that are to be received believed and practised at all times and which they count of Divine right and for which therefore they alledge places of Scripture namely Isa 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers a place which in my opinion maketh little to the purpose no more then the place out of 1. Tim. 2. v. 2. where we are bidden to pray for Kings doth to prove the power of magistrates in calling of synods Neither doth that place 2 Chronic. 19. v. 9. c. avail much but only that magistrates may call and constitute assemblies in generall for there is no speech there of any ecclesiasticall assemblies for they were not yet thought on at that time The 29.
nemine contradicente Thus the late confession of faith and directory go for currant to be the opinion of the assembly because they were the act of the major part of them albeit many godly and learned men among them had no hand in framing the 30. 31. chapters of the confession In affairs concerning temporall life it may be born with when what hath been voted by the major part of the counsell or Senat goeth for the act of all and this was one of the state-precepts that Philip the II. gave to Margerite Governess of the low-Countrves by the report of Strada 5. In all great differences betwixt nation nation army and army party and party the judges that are appointed to reconcile them must propound conditions by which parties in extremes should come to some accommodation and moderation each side if need be complying and parting with some of his right to prevent a continuance of strife But such a composition cannot be expected in or by a synod for making up differences in religion since each side apprehendeth his opinion to be the truth and would think it a great sin to baulk any part of it or admit an accommodation CHAPTER 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 THis subject touching the identity or diversity of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall and civil among the Jewes well understood will decide the whole controversie which Mr. Gillespie well apprehendeth and therefore perceiving the strength of this plea that good reason it is that the ecclesiasticall power should be distinct or not distinct in the church of the Jewes as well as in that of the Christians since the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing of censuring excommunicating and making lawes authoritatively be the same in both churches and therefore that it cannot be supposed without great inconvenience that the jurisdictions were indistinct amongst the Jewes but distinct amongst the Christians this I say being considered by him makes him withall endeavour to lay hold on that opinion that maketh jurisdictions distinct in the Commonwealth of Israel for this supposition he takes to be the ground-work of the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction But I will not enter far into this matter having in the examen of the 30. chapter of the confession of the Rever Assembly taken off the main objection from Amariah and Zebadiah for I cannot think but Mr. Gillespie hath embraced this opinion for conveniency and more because it is subservient to the fabrick of his book then that it hath any great probability 1. because most of the learned Papists and others even his fellow-presbyters are of another judgement who if they had had never so little shew or likelinesse for a double jurisdiction among the Jewes specially the Papists and with them Amyraldus and others no doubt they would have made as much of this advantage to further their cause as Mr. Gillespie thinketh to prevail with it for himself 2. because Mr. Gillespie when he hath done what he can to assert a double jurisdiction in the church of the Jewes reaps very little benefit by it for he pulls down by his large concessions with one hand what he hath striven to set up with the other For the first it were an endlesse labour to produce the names of the authors that are for Erastus opinion in this particular and for one Constantinus l'Empereur which he pretends to be on his side twenty may be brought of a contrary opinion Not long since discoursing with Manasseh Ben Israel at the house of my noble friend Mr. Sadler about this same subject he told me he could not conceive how this opinion that there was a double jurisdiction among the Jewes was taken up by the Christians and that he held it altogether absurd against Scripture and reason Nothing can be added to what Grotius Selden and Cunaeus have written on this subject Amyraldus in his Theses de spiritu servitutis thes 28. saith that religion and policy were so straightly conjoyned among the Jewes that one being overthrown the other could not stand but must needs fall too and in his book of the government of the church p. 46. he saith the same man did judge Israel as a soveraign magistrate and was also over matters of religion Lud. Capellus parte 3. de ministerii verbi necessitate thes 18 19 c. doth not only conspire with Amyraldus but outgo him in asserting that the 70. judges or elders though lay-men and not of the tribe of Levi were not only to compose controversies and suits in law but also to instruct the people about the worship of God and to teach them the fear of the Lord so far that from the time of Ezra to Jesus Christ any in the synagogues which were known to be gifted might teach read and expound the Scripture which he proves by the example of Jesus Christ Luc. 4. 17. who though unknown was admitted to expound the Scripture and of St. Paul Act. 13. 15. My rever Father is of the same mind namely in the 19. chapter de Monarchia temporali where he saith that neither the Levites nor the chief Priests made use of any other law then that which was common and that they had no ecclesiasticall judges distinct from the civil Iudicious R. Hooker is very expresse for us in his 8. book of ecclesiasticall polity p. 144. Our state is according to the pattern of Gods own ancient elect people which people was not part of them the Commonwealth and part of them the Church of God but the self-same people whole and entire were both under one chief governour on whose supream authority they did all depend I have alledged elsewhere Mr. Lightfoot wholly concurring with Richard Hooker Mr. Herbert Thorndike a judicious writer and much versed in the antiquities of the Jewes is wholly for an identity of jurisdiction among the Jewes In 8. chapter he saith that when Moses was dead a President was chosen over and beside the seventy whom they called the Nasi to be in his stead from age to age as R. Moses writeth Which refuteth what some say that the President of the Sanedrim was alwayes a Priest and sheweth that the chief ruler of the Commonwealth was ruler over persons and causes of all kinds without any distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall In the 9. chapter we have these words The Sanedrim consisted of the chief of that people as well as of the Priests and Levites because the chief causes of that Commonwealth as well as of religion passed through their hands Tostatus a great Papist and writer upon Matth. 16. v. 19. will tell us the opinion of his party In the old Testament a