and 30. chapters of 2 Chronic. for the magistrates power of calling synods is of the same stamp It is true chap. 29. v. 4. Ezechiah gathered Priests Levites together but it was to make an exhoâ—tation to them not that they should congregate into a synod invested with judiciall authority I think that none ever yet dream'd of it that synods in the old Testament could be proved out of that place The last place Prov. 11. v. 14. speaketh of counsellors in the multitude of which there is safety but not a word there of calling of them nor that those who were called were Priests and Levites but rather any other One would almost think that they had a mind to weaken a good cause and make invalid the power of the magistrate by alledging places that make nothing for it but however they will have them to passe for valid proofs that magistrates by divine right are to call synods But to the matter I am quite of another mind then our brethren the Scots are and I desire to be judged by any other then by them whether there be any spark of reason or truth in their saying Is it not more like that in a well-constituted church things must run their wonted channel that the power of calling synods belongeth to the magistrate but the church being in a troubled condition then that ministers yea any good man should contribute his helping hand toward the reforming of the church whether by way of synods or otherwise without expecting orders from the magistrate In turbata ecclesia omnis homo miles est Christianus minister But who sees not but the drift of our brothers the Scots is to constitute a jurisdiction independent from that of the magistrate The third section or article of the 31. chapt of the confession needeth a comment to make it agree with the second it belongeth to synods and councels ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience to set down rules and directions for better ordering of the publick worship of God and government of his church to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration and authoritatively to determine the same which decrees and determinations if consonant to the word of God are to be received with reverence and submission not only for their agreement with the word but also for the power whereby they are made as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his word First they do not define what synods are here meant whether convocated by the magistrate or by private churches or even convocated by the ministers themselves If by the magistrate how can a company of men called to advise him make constitutions valid except they be first submitted to the judgement and approbation of him by whose authority they were assembled The like judgement may we make of the decrees of syâ—ods convocated by the common consent of private churches If the ministers assemble of their own accord were they so many Apostles they must have some magistracy to give vigour of law obliging to obedience either actively or passively else their canons would have no jurisdiction but over them they could overcome by perswasion The fourth article or section is all synods or councels since the Apostles time whether generall or particular may erre and many have erred therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practise but to be used as an help in both A synod is no rule but to him that is willing to make it a rule All the synods power and authority is only so much as either the magistrates will is or a conscience inlightened or convinced is perswaded to yield unto I know no middle way to create authority There is a rare saying of Festus Hommius disp 18. thes 2. de concil authoritate the foundation of all synodicall authority is an agreement with the divine truth and ordinance whereof we must be first evidently and clearly made certain before the synod get any authority with us So that synods are of authority when men and churches are clearly convinced of the equity reasonablenesse and truth of their decisions I am not of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen and Bazil who condemned all synods generally for I believe they are of very good use and necessarily to be had so that the members be not invested with any judiciall power independent from the magistrate or from particular churches whose decisions be counsells and advices given to them both not lawes otherwise I think little or no good is to be expected from them and that they are not a way to decide controversies 1. Judges in an assembly never so upright must be indifferent to persons and causes but so cannot ministers be in a synod for a synod made up of orthodox Divines is no competent judge of Arminians Therefore it is no marvell if the councell of Trent did condemn the Lutherans in the first Session before they ever heard them or that a late synod at Charenton prepossessed against independent churches in England did as it were anathematize them though none of the members of that synod being 80. in number had hardly seen the face or writings of any of them 2. It seemeth to be against all courses and proceedings of courts either of law or chancery that both plaintiffs and defendants should sit as judges in one judicatory to determine their own cause 3. If there be but one party either the defendent or plaintiff sitting voting no doubt but he will cast his adversary out of the court therefore there being no other then Protestants sitting and voting in the synod of Dordrecht the Arminians could not chuse but loose their cause besides that it is no lesse unreasonable that one party should submit to the judgement of his adverse party 4. It seemeth neither just nor reasonable that churches and men should submit to the major part of the members stating and concluding of any matter of religion rather then to the weight of the reasons of the minor part dissenting Should in synods alwaies the major number of votes carry it in a generall councill made up of Papists Lutherans Calvinists no doubt but that party that is most numerous though it carrieth it but by one vote would give religion and faith to all the rest therefore the late long Parliament did wisely decline to adhere rather to the major part of the members in the assembly who had voted for a presbyterian government reserving to themselves the liberty to weigh the reasons of both not to number the persons Hence we may gather how unreasonable it is in matters of faith and religion that that which is not the act of all should be reputed as done by all when as it may fall out that the major part hath out-voted the minor but by one suffrage for usually all collections syntagmes of confessions of faith canons and decrees go currant and are published to the world as if all the members had consented to them with a
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
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
necessarie in every judicatorie not so much as one of them is found in the court of Mr. Calandrin 1. They do not cite the party they entreat him to come if he will not come they have no remedy they cannot compell him 2. They have no witnesses nor evidences of the case and therefore cannot pronounce sentence 3. The absolution must be null when they do not know whether it shall stand 4. Neither do they know whether God will not absolve whom they condemn 5. They cannot put their sentence in execution 6. This can be no court which the arraigned can dismisse when he pleaseth 14. I shall willingly admit two courts whereof I have spoken largely in my Paraenesis one called forum externum the externall court or the court of magistracy which is to be found in some measure of power in all assemblies and societies of men as churches synods presbyteries families schools colledges corporations c. and the other called forum internum or the court of the conscience 1. In this God hath set a tribunall a judge a witnesse a plaintiff and defendant 2. In that all is carried by outward evidences whether in a synod presbyterie or any other court 3. In that there is an obligation of active or passive obedience to the laws decrees and ordinances that have the sanction of a law whether just or unjust 4. In this obedience is due for conscience sake and in obedience to God to lawes ordinances and commands either of God or of men that are by the judgement of approbation discretion apprehended to be good just and holy 5. In this there is a stronger stresse of obligation laid then in that so that as we ought rather to obey God then men a man is obliged notwithstanding all the sanction of the magistrate to appeal from the court of the magistrate to that of the conscience and to yield no obedience to any lawes injunctions or commands of magistrates pastours synods presbyteries churches till after they have been there reviewed and approved of There being but these two courts and jurisdictions in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin the minister cannot be judge in another mans court or conscience and in that court I do not conceive he would put a greater tye then the magistrate doth upon any man as to bind him not to appeal from his judgement to the court of his own conscience or at least not to remove the cause judgement of the ministers court to his own court Neither is the minister judge in the other court except by a delegated power from the magistrate or by an assirmed power of magistracy binding either to active or passive obedience neither from that court do I think that Mr. Calandrin would bind a man not to appeal to the court of his conscience 15. To draw to a conclusion in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin we have acts of function but none otherwise of jurisdiction then in the function of a physitian whom in relation to his sick patient either being alone or sitting in a colledge among his brethren I might make to exercise a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate and parallel the physitian with the pastor the patient with the penitent the colledge of physitians with the consistory the curing of the patient with the absolving of the penitent and so make the case propounded in the behalf of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction applyable to the medicall jurisdiction changing only the persons Yes I might shew that a parallel being made the medicall would outvie the ecclesiasticall as being lesse inconsistent with the nature of jurisdiction and more distinct from that of the magistrate For 1. the magistrates office extendeth more to the care of souls then to that of bodies 2. Physitians more properly cure diseases then ministers pardon sins 3. Physitians judgements of the nature of diseases are more certain and evident then the ministers judgements of grace and repentance and therefore their sentences are more peremptory I might instance in more particulars at least I could so match both jurisdictions as to make them alike distinct from that of the magistrate Mr. Calandrin in a postscript giveth severall exceptions against what I have said in my Paraenesis of the two courts He saith I do not deny that conscience may be called a court improperly neither do I say that it hath all the properties of a court of magistracy but it hath the necessary conditions required in a court and that name it hath by the common consent of all Divines Philosophers school-men heathens Papists and Protestants none doubting of it whereas many have questioned whether there be any such thing as forum ecclesiasticum and none of those that admitted such a forum or ecclesiasticall court but as they have confessed that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is improperly so called so have they thought no lesse of an ecclesiasticall court He also findeth fault with me for saying that excommunication was no act of ecclesiasticall power because exercised in the court of man and saith Is not preaching as much an act of the externall court as excommunication when both are done alike with words outwardly I grant that the preaching of the word is an externall act performed by outward moving of the lips and lifting up the voice and so all outward actions of men as buying selling walking striking with a hammer eating drinking and the like which are said to be performed in the court of man not because they are juridicall acts but because they are the subject and matter not only of suits and controversies depending on the court of man but also of lawes and orders made in the same court as if a man preached not at all or preached amisse and erroneously or seditiously that act of his may create an action in the externall court of man so may all other actions I have named as if one sell another mans wares unknown to him if he walks in an undue place and time if he strikes his neighbour with a hammer and so one may make an induction of all actions of men which otherwise are no forinsecall acts but are either naturall morall actions or acts of function and not of jurisdiction as in a physitian to cure the sick in a sea-man to set his ship to sail in a merchant to vend his wares and so in a Divine to do the acts of his function all which are actions performed outwardly in the court of man albeit they be not forinsecall And by reason that excommunication is an outward act it is done in the court of man as well as buying selling and walking and besides it is a forinsecall and juridicall act binding men to outward obedience either actively or passively and of the same nature with other juridicall acts in the courts of men but such an act preaching of the word is not binding none to outward obedience except he be first inwardly convinced though it may fall out to be the subject and matter
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
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.
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
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
Paraenesis and in my Corollarie in a letter of his written but a few weeks before he died where his judgement is wholly consonant to my opinion that all church-government is prudentiall arbitrary and taken up by consent for necessity of order and not for conscience Besides I have the testimony of a very reverend preacher in a famous church in Normandy in a letter of his to me wherein after he hath delivered his own judgement concerning the book he addeth that of one of his fellow-ministers in that church in these words One of my collegues who hath read your first book hath given this testimony of it That he is much satisfied upon the reading of it and that your opinion is so far from weakning our discipline that on the contrary it doth rather streng then it and places it upon its true and naturall bottom Geneva's excommunication had the greater influence upon the minds of the Non-conformists and Puritans in England for the respect they bare to Calvin more then to the Hierarchy metaphorphosed from Romish to English For whatever were the thoughts of some Romish Episcopall Doctors such as the English Hierarchy hath alwayes had the practise of all Bishops courts witnesseth that excommunication was but a law of the Land and of the opiscopall jurisdiction annexed to the Crown Excommunication was not much feared since Prince and subjects left off to be afraid of the Popes thunderbolts Wiclâ—ff begun first to pluck off â—ts vizard and to condemne both the abuse and the use of excommunication for the council of Constance recon'd up amongst his errours this tenet That it was a comfort to the faithfull church that excommunication and suspension and such like lying and feigned censures are not grounded on the law of Christ but are craftily devised by Antichrist But that it may appear that Wicliff held no other excommunication then that which is made in the Court of Heaven the 13. article objected to him as an errour clearly sheweth it Whoever leaves off preaching or hearing the word of God because of mans excommunication they are excommunicated and shall be so held in the day of judgement for betrayers of Christ and the 11. article saith that no man must excommunicate another except he knows him to be excommunicated by God In short whereas our brethren the Scots held that all jurisdiction of ecclesiasticall assemblies synods and presbyteries was derived from Jesus Christ the English people at least the magistrate who would never permit the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to get up held no jurisdiction but such as was derived from him for even from King Edward the sixths time the soveraign Princes have been very shie of Bishops keeping any courts or calling synods but only in their name Our brethren the Scots had their excommunication from Geneva as well as the reformed churches of France only Andrew Melvin did mightily improve and heighten it But they and the Geneva churches have this disadvantage which those of France never had that these have two pleas for their discipline and excommunication The one is the necessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent under a cross magistrate by which plea they may justify all the acts of their jurisdiction the other plea if the first prove not strong enough they have in common with all other reformed churches living under an orthodox magistrate and that plea is the discipline of Christ which as it is a second string to the bow of the reformed churches of France if the first should break so it is the only string and hold that the Dutch Scotish and Geneva churches must hold by so that if they cannot make good their jus Divinum of discipline and excommunication they have no plea at all for their jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate as the reformed churches of France have This book would swell too much if I should make it good as I have done in my Paraenesis and Corollarium that they have outgone all the reformed in the task of building an empire within the empire of another or in the endeavour to settle a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate having while they strive to run furthest from Popery gone so far about that they have joined issue with Popery in that particular I find three main causes why in Scotland more then in any other nation where religion was reformed from popery the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction hath highest lifted up its head The first is it was not so much any humour or designe of the godly people as opportunity that brought it in For reformation taking its beginning there not at the head but at the foot and in opposition to a persecuting magistrate it was not possible to settle the pure worship of God without a government and jurisdiction assumed within the jurisdiction and distinct from that of the magistrate They having had it some time under a Romish magistrate conceived it was to continue in the like manner under a reformed magistrate and so turned the nenessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent as it was by the faithfull people of Iuda under a heathen magistrate and by the reformed churches of France under a Christian into a necessity of Divine ordinance which being much countenanced by the great ones of the land who rescued the soveraign magistrate from the Popish party and brought him up from his infancy in the reformed religion the same men who were assertors of the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction against the magistrate when he was no friend of theirs had a fair opportunity to keep it still up when the magistrate was their friend and in their power and possession who when he was grown up to years found the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction too deep rooted for him to master and overbalancing the power that by right as all other magistrates and Kings in the world he was to have over all causes matters and persons So that from that time when King Iames in his â—…per years came to understand that he was a King and no King till he came to be King of great Britain we read of nothing but clashings and conflicts betwixt church court Parliament and ecclesiasticall assembly it being impossible that two coordinate jurisdictions and of the same nature could stand together amongst one and the same people in the same countrey Another cause is that the members of Parliament specially the nobility and gentry being also members of ecclesiasticall judicatories and the ecclesiasticalls having over and above an addition of strength by all the ministers of the land who were not members of Parliament it could not otherwise fall out but that the jurisdiction assumed in churches presbyteries synods and assemblies should not only appear distinct from that of the magistrate but also be raised to a greater height A third reason is that the Kings of Scotland having never had that majesty power revenue and splendour that other Kings abroad had and yet the land full of nobility and gentry