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
oblige the conscience Hence we may gather how impossible it is to share betwixt laity and clergy by Divine and humane right power of legislation and jurisdiction about things causes and persons as that pastors and ministers should be over things that are of divine right and magistrates over those things that are of humane right without clashing of powers causes and persons there being such a complication of right causes and persons that they cannot be so much as imagined a sunder besides that the preaching of the Gospell and magistracy do comprehend all actions of man and parts of life wherein men ought to live godly justly and soberly CHAPTER III. The nature matter forme and author of law The canons and sentences of Church-judicatories have no force of law except they receive it from the sanction of the magistrate The defects in the division of lawes into Divine and humane into morall ceremoniall and politick and into Ecclesiasticall and civil INtending chiefly to prove the vanity and nullity of a power called ecclesiasticall distinct from that of the magistrate since also no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction can be exercised without a power to make a law and to command obedience to the law it will be requisite to know the nature of law that so making good that Church-officers are not invested with any power to make lawes or to command obedience to them all their jurisdiction may be brought to just nothing Law sometimes is taken for a dictate of nature or right reason and consent of nations thus they say of Aesop that though he was free by nature yet the law of man enslaved him generally it is defined the rule of actions and duties This ensuing definition I conceive to be one of the most perfect Law is a rule of life and of morall actions made and published by a legislatour armed with a judiciall power commanding things to be done and forbidding things that are not to be done under recompenses and penalties To understand the nature of law we must consider the matter of law which is whatever can be commanded whether God or man be the author of it so that no causes or things can be exempted from being the matter of the law of God or of man it is enough that it may be commanded The very doctrine and matter of faith may be matter of the law for the Hebrew thorah signifieth both law and doctrine so that there is no doubt but that not only the decalogue but also all the doctrine of the Gospell is matter of the law For were there any thing that should not be the matter of the law of man we had need to have a visible infallible judge on earth besides the soveraign magistrate who should determine which thing must be the matter of the law which not The very doctrine of the Trinity is made the matter of the Code of Justinian and Theodosius commanded that all his subjects should embrace the religion that Peter the Apostle Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria professed 2. Next we must consider the form of the law which giveth force of law and without which law would be no law and no obedience were due to it in the court of man That form is the stamp or sanction of the soveraign power obliging men to obey upon penalties Law saith Campanella without penalty is no law but counsell That form is expressed in short in the Digests Legis virtus c. the vertue of the law is to command to forbid to permit to punish The soveraign power giveth the form of law to any matter that is the subject of a mans dutie or obedience either to God or man yea it giveth form to the lawes of God which though they oblige the conscience whether published or no by the magistrate yet they are of no force in the court of man to oblige for fear of punishment and as the Apostle speaketh for wrath except they are commanded by the magistrate So that it is properly man that giveth name and force to a law and a man may well say with St. Austin ep 66. that Jesus Christ commandeth by the magistrate hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum bonum jubent per illos non jubet nisi Christus 3. We must consider the author of the law either as he that hath given his counsell and it may be furnished the matter and contrivance of the law as Tribonianus to Iustinian or he that hath given sanction and force of law to the matter brought to him such was only Justinian and not Tribonianus Sometimes the same person contrives the law and giveth sanction to it such was Solon and Lycurgus God who is the author of his lawes is not the enforcer of them among the Mahumetans nor any where else without a Moses but with those people whom he doth encline to obedience by a law of the spirit 4. To the nature of the law it is required that the legislator be armed with a sword to punish the transgressours of the law therefore equity truth and justice are no conditions required to the validity of a law for it receives force from the will of him who is able to make his will good were it never so bad 5. It is required that the legistator should command his own lawes not anothers commanding in his own name and not in the name of another and therefore those that are invested with judiciall soveraign power are to give account of their actions only to God By what I have said it is easily conceived what force of law have the judgements sentences canons decrees of ecclesiasticall judicatories except they receive form and sanction from the magistrate without which they are but counsels admonitions and advices 1. Touching the matter they may afford it as Tribonianus to Iustinian in that sense they may be the authors of a law but they cannot give form and sanction to it obliging men under penalties in case of disobedience since they are not invested with coactive power without which law is no law except they have that power in subordination to the magistrate for two coordinate powers cannot give sanction to the same law except it could be imagined that the will of one should never crosse the will of the other which is not conceivable 2. Ministers and church-judicatories are not to command any lawes much lesse their own lawes but only deliver the commands of a superiour either God or the magistrate The pastor may say with Moses Exod. 18. v. 15. I do make the people know the statutes of God his lawes but he cannot lay any penalty upon the breaker of the law except as Moses he be invested with magistracy But were the minister not only to deliver the commands of God but also lay a command this he could not do but in the name of God and therefore the magistrate hath this priviledge that although he be a minister of God as well as
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
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
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
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
this old form saith he hath remained to the having even in our dayes a medley of clergy and laity in our courts of Parliament But I foresee that some of the presbyterian brethren will take me at advantage for saying that ministers may vote in synods and there being invested with judiciall authority make canons lawes and constitutions which bind churches to obedience for if they may have that judiciall power in Parliaments which doth oblige all men and societies and so churches to obedience why may not they have the same right power in synods I hope the rever brethren will not so require me for my pains in being their advocate retorting my plea made in their behalf against my self But I willingly grant that the ministers of the Gospell have alike power of sitting and voting in synods and in supreme courts of the magistrate but how viz. if they be called to it by the magistrate and so their acts whether they sit in synods or Parliaments are a production of the magistrates jurisdiction delegated to them and as such they oblige all men societies and churches Besides as I said ministers sitting in Parliaments and synods do discourse and debate matters touching doctrine church-discipline as ministers of the Gospell but they reduce what they discoursed of into lawes and stamp their authority and sanction upon it as men invested with judiciall authority from the magistrate just as I said of physitians who vote in Parliaments not as such but as judges of the land Against the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament it may be objected that thereby they would be kept off from the main care they are to attend which is over souls and from the preaching of the Gospell I answer 1. that their particular calling which is to be ministers of the Gospell ought not to keep them off from a moderate taking care and looking over things that are of lesse concernment as that of familie land estate suits in law much lesse to mind the generall good of the nation in which religion and peace are mainly concerned 2. There being two branches of the power of the magistrate one of legislation the other of jurisdiction this latter power is exercised by judges Mayors Sheriffs Sergeants and the like This power as men that have otherwise a constant profession which taketh them wholly up as physitians souldiers marineâ—s and the like cannot well manage so neither ministers of the Gospell but for the power of legislation the managing of which doth not take a man up so much there is no doubt but that as a physitian may take it upon him so also may a minister For the making of a law is like the making of a coach which being made in few dayes will be many years adriving by the coach-man before there be need of a new one so in a well-constituted state a good law which requireth but a little time to make it will continue many hundred years A minister may be well dispensed with for a little intermission of his ordinary calling to contribute his counsell to the making a law which may be of very good use a long time though there be no need he should busie himself further like a coach-driver to see by a power 〈◊〉 jurisdiction the law to take right course and be well obeyed I believe if in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth that drove away popery and settled the Protestant religion many of the godly ministers that suffered persecution in Queen Maries days had been sitting and voting in Parliament the then-reformation would have been much more compleat 3. Some ministers may be found whose parts lye lesse for preaching and more for government and who have wise politick heads why may not such be fit members in Parliament 4. As there is no reason to deprive a man of his right because he cannot alwayes attend to make use of it so must not a minister be devested of his right to sit in Parliament because it may be he cannot alwayes attend it A physitian would be loth because of his great practise to be made incapable to sit in Parliament so would a Divine however much taken up with the work of his ministery The premisses considered I conceive that the Rever Assembly doth part with its own right when they say in the last section of the third chapter that synods and councells are to conclude nothing but what is ecclesiasticall and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs unlesse by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary or by way of advice for satisfaction of consciences if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate By which as they seem to keep off magistrates and lay-men from sitting and voting in synods so they bar themselves from sitting and voting in Parliament But if such assemblies as were the great Sanedrim the synagogues of the Jewes the conventions that I have mentioned for 7. or 8. hundred years in Christian states the politick ecclesiasticall Senates among the Helvetians and that which was settled in the first reformation by the Prince Palatine of the Rhene if I say such assemblies in which there is a mixture of men and causes are lawfull as indeed it were very fit there should be no assemblies of publick concernment but of this nature why may not in these assemblies lay-men conclude in ecclesiasticall matters and ministers in civil If they may not or it must be with distinction and caution how shall the conscience of a man sitting in those assemblies if he be a lay-man be resolved when he may intermeddle while ecclesiasticall matters are debated and likewise if civil things be in agitation how far a minister sitting in the same company may interpose vote must when civil affairs are handled the ecclesiasticall persons first be required to vote or must they petition to have that liberty It may be they mean that when the assemblie is upon ecclesiasticall affairs that then the laity should likewise petition the clergy for a liberty of voting and intermeddling But suppose a member of this assembly be both a States-man and an elder of a church and therefore an ecclesiasticall man must he change his name and personage as the nature of the matter handled requireth professing not to interpose in such a businesse in the capacity of a church-officer but as a member of the Commonwealth And how shall the conscience of a man be resolved what is an ecclesiasticall affair what a civil that he may not doubt when he may vote and intermeddle when he must sit mute and silent or go out of the assembly For the casuists have not yet determined what is ecclesiasticall what civil for some of them make the discipline of the church of humane constitution and therefore to be ordered directed and commanded by the same power that giveth sanction to all humane lawes And if it be put to the question when how often in what place synods are to be convened what time they must
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
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
Testament when nothing hinders but that Kings may be ministers and ministers Kings CHAPTER XVIII The cause of mistakes in stating the nature of the church and calling that the true church which is not Three acceptions of the word church in holy writ The meaning of the word church Math. 18. v. 17. IN treating of the church I conceive a world of writers both Papists and Protestants might have spared themselves much labour about the nature power truenesse fallibility antiquity succession of it if both parties had not walked in the dark and if they had agreed upon some few and very easie common principles consonant to holy Scripture and reason How many volumes on our side are written to state how far the Romish church is a true church to vindicate us from schisme to prove that we have a right succession of churches power and ministry that the English church is a true Catholick church that the reformed in France have likewise a right to that title One party yields more then needs must and fearing to want for themselves a right of church-succession and Baptisme they will acknowledge the Romish church to be a true church and yet with such metaphysicall reservations and modifications that from a metaphysicall goodnesse they insensibly descend to a morall making of a magistrates power an ecclesiast call of a cadaver and carkasse a living body of an aggregation of churches under one presbytery of the same extent with the jurisdiction of the magistrate the only true church of Christ This made the late English hierarchy conceive that their best course was to approach as near as they could to the Romish yea to be one church with them that otherwise they could not make their power calling and succession good nor clear themselves from the guilt of schisme So that as all parties have been equally mistaken in their grounds so have they hardly understood one another raising doubts where there were none some by that weakning their own cause and strengthening that of their adversaries who took all concessions for truths putting their opposites to very great straights For not knowing well how to deny the church of Rome to be a true church and that salvation is to be had in it and not being able to shew an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles time as the Romanists can do nor vindicate themselves from schisme each party is very eager to call his neighbour schismatick rending the seamlesse coat of Jesus Christ that name being liberally bestowed by the Romanists upon the Protestants and by some of these upon those that adhere to the dissenting brethren each of them Papists and Presbyterians challenging that seamlesse coat of Christ even right of church and ecclesiasticall power and therefore for fear of schism rendings they will be sure to cast lots upon it that they may have it whole and entire Whereas had both been well informed of the nature of church and of schisme and that suceession is a needlesse plea neither availing the Romanists a whit nor prejudicing any way the reformers Baronius Bellarmin Stapleton as well as Whitaker Chamier and the like might have saved the world so much labour in reading them the first in putting the reformers upon the task of proving themselves a true church and the latter in taking off the aspersion of schismaticks for then no doubt all the hard task had been on the Romanists side who being not able to make invalid our grounds about the nature of the church the power of the church the calling of pastors their succession and of schisme had been wholly put upon vindicating themselves and not weakning our title for it had been to little purpose so long as we had retained the same grounds which do put us into a firm and unmoveable possession About the nature of schisme Dr. Owen whose grounds which is very strange though we never conferred our notes together are those that I stand upon in treating of the nature of the church hath so well resolved the world that it is but in vain for any one either to write after him or against him And having in my Paraenesis handled the nature of the church intending here only an extract of it I will say only so much of it as will make way to what I mainly intend to prove viz. that the parity and independency of churches each from the other in power of exercising all church acts best agreeth not only with Scripture antiquity and the opinion of Zuinglius Musculus Bullingerus and Erastus but also with the sense of the seven dissenting brethren sitting twelve years agone in Westminster together with the other members of the assembly of Divines yea that many forrain divines and other learned men Salmasius for one no way intending to favour the cause we have in hand have been strong patrons of it in severall of their writings and treating of the right of churches and of the power of the magistrate over them have laid the same foundations as we I find in holy writ specially in the new Testament that the word Church is taken properly three wayes I. for the mysticall body of Jesus Christ the elect justifyed and redeemed whereof the Gospell is full thus Hebr. 12. v. 23. and Ephes 5. v. 26 27. c. II. for the universality of men through the world outwardly called by the preaching of the word yielding an externall obedience to the Gospell and professing visibly Christianity of this mention is made 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. and 2 Tim. 2. v. 20. III. for a particular visible congregation with one accord meeting in one place for the worship of God according to his institution which is spoken of Rom. 16. v. 4. Gal. 1. v. 2. 1 Cor. 16. v. 1. 2 Cor. 8. v. 1. 1 Thess 2. v. 14. Act. 9. v. 31. Act. 15. v. 41. 1 Cor. 16. v. 19. yea such a church as is confined within a private family as Rom. 16. v. 5. St. Hierome upon the 1. of the Galatians takes the word church properly either for a particular church or for that church called the Body of Christ which hath neither spot nor wrinkle dupliciter ecclesia potest dici ea quae non habet maculam rugam vere est Christi corpus ea quae in Christi nomine congregatur relating to the words of Christ Matth. 18. v. 19. where two or three c. which cannot be understood of a nationall church There be two places in the new Testament where the word church is taken otherwise namely Act. 19. v. 41. for a concourse of people Matth. 18. v. 17. a place so much controverted and which when we speak of excommunication requireth we should insist upon it It sufficeth here to say that if by it were meant an ecclesiasticall assembly of pastors and elders some other parallel to it might be found in the old or new Testament I am sure as there is none in the new so neither in the old
constitutions that are made about them are acts of the major part of the members are valid not because they are lawes of Christ and approved to every ones conscience but because like lawes and orders of other societies they do oblige as such and as consented unto in the making of them by the major part of the members though it may be the minor part were in the right for as the acts of a magistrate commanding things directly commanded by God are the magistrates acts so those acts performed in a particular church though commanded expressely by God in as much as they require externall obedience either actively or passively are acts of that magistracy set up in that church I find in a result of a synod in New-England printed at the end of the book of Mr. Cotton of the Covenant of Grace some conclusions wholly consonant to what I now write in this chapter of the two kinds of acts that are performed in every particular church the one done by them as church-members the other being an effect of magistracy set up in every particular church considered not as a church but as a society The first kind of acts is proper to those church-members who by any power of magistacy are not put upon stronger engagements of oredience then if there had never been any The second is exercised by magistracy either in the church or out of the church against the obstinate and unruly and such as need to be compelled I find the synod speak much to that purpose namely p. 40. the collectour saith from them that for remedying disorders and taking away or preventing grosse errors there must be a power of restraint and coercion used and in regard that every particular church is to be as well considered in the quality of a civil society as a society of church-members CHAPTER XX. That the power attributed to private churches by the reverend dissenting brethren doth very well accord with the power of magistracy in matters of religion as it is held by Erastus Bullingerus Musculus Grotius Mr. Selden and Mr. Coleman This same is proved by reason and by the testimony of Mr. Burroughs writing the sense of all his brethren as also by the practise of the churches in New-England WHen at first I undertook to write of this subject I had no other designe but to assert the nullity of a double externall jurisdiction and to prove that there being no such thing neither in Scripture nor reason as an ecclesiasticall power all jurisdiction that was not united under and appertained not to the magistrate was not a power of coercion was no jurisdiction Neither was I then lesse dissenting from the church-way and power retained by the rever brethren of the congregation then from the presbyterian brethren and the rather because I saw both parties carried with as much eagernesse of opposition against Erastus and Mr. Coleman as they were among themselves besides not fancying to my self otherwise but that all jurisdiction called ecclesiasticall and assumed by whatsoever society of men either single or made up by the aggregation of many societies which was not subordinate to the magistrates power was alike against reason and Scripture But being not able to study my main matter intended without enquiring into the nature of the power that both parties assumed to themselves I found that the tenets of the brethren of the congregationall way could very well accord with mine and which was not yet by any considered that the right of particular churches as the dissenting brethren hold might very well consist with that measure of power that Erastus Bullingerus Musculus Gualterus Grotius Mr. Selden Mr. Coleman allowed to the magistrate in matters of religion and over churches and that independency of private churches I mean independency from presbyterian classicall and synodicall judicatories doth no way hinder their right and liberty nor their dependency on the magistrate nor cutteth short the magistrate of the soveraign power he ought to have overall societies and persons and in all causes and matters Lastly I found that this way of reconciliation was most agreeable with Scripture reason the practise of the Jewes and of the primitive church of Christians besides was confessed so by many learned men who though seemingly otherwise affected and carried by more heat then knowledge of what was passed or held in this Island have notwithstanding in their tracts about the power of churches and discipline laid the same grounds that the dissenting brethren have delivered I need not be very long in proving by reason that this reconciliation betwixt the advocates of the magistrates power in matters of religion and those that plead for the right of churches is already made to our hands by what I have already handled I adde further these following considerations 1. Since every private church hath within it self a power of magistracy and that all magistracy in whatever society it be seated is subordinate to the magistrate of those societies it doth consequently follow that that magistracy wherewith every private church is invested is also subordinate to the magistrate for as I have demonstrated since no society of church-members no more then of citizens merchants physicians and the like can be imagined without lawes discipline and power of restraint and coercion so neither can it be imagined that such a power is not dependent on the magistrate for if a member of a society be obstinate and refractory and will not be ruled but by coercion and compulsion it be more then church-members as such can do to reduce him by exhortation and good advice then church-members must act also by a power of magistracy either assumed or delegated however it be that power of magistracy is subordinate to the soveraign magistrate 2. It is a maxime in Scripture Philosophie and common reason that theorems or propositions that are true asunder are no way contradictory one to another Now these two following propositions are of an undeniable truth viz. The magistrate is a soveraign governour over all persons and societies and in all matters and causes whether they pertain to religion or no and this Every particular church hath a right and power to govern it self without any dependence either on other churches or church-judicatories Each of these propositions being considered as true asunder must also be very consistent and no way clashing one with the other 3. That the right of churches may well stand with the power of the magistrate may appear by example of many societies as families corporations halls whose intrinsecall power of magistracy agreeth exceeding well with that of the magistrate over them for none doubteth but every father of a family hath a power to govern his children houshold and servants as he listeth being in his own as it were house a magistrate and a Priest yet none hitherto questioned but that paternall and oeconomicall powers are subordinate to the power of the magistrate for even the civil law and so
against the common enemy and for keeping communion as of saints so of churches that those church judicatories were set up not for conscience sake or in obedience to any prescript of Christ but for orders sake as the reverend man wrote to me but a few weeks before he died CHAPTER XXIII The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magâ—strates power in ordering publick worship proved by the example of the Iewes that they had through all the land particular convocations synagogues or churches called also colledges or schools where the Prophets sons of the Prophets taught especially on the sabbath-day that they were independent from any church-judicatory How synagogues were altered from their first institution and that being converted into Christian churches they retained the same right power and way of government THe most convincing proof for the consistency of the right and power of particular churches with the magistrates power in ordering settling and commanding the publick Divine worship of the Nation is the example of the Commonwealth of the Jewes wherein we are informed of three main things which taken into consideration will clear all doubts about the right and power of particular churches and the magistrates jurisdiction in matters of religion and publick worship 1. That in the Commonwealth of Israel at their first institution there were particular churches throughout all the land near every families dwelling-place called synagogues 2. That these churches were independent both from any of their own of the Priests or Levites judicatories 3. That the while the magistrates power and jurisdiction remained whose entire and undivided over all persons and in all causes and matters particularly in ordering settling and commanding the publick nationall worship of God For the first that such churches were instituted in the land of Canaan we have a very expresse proof Leviticus 23. v. 1 2 and 3. Speak unto the children of Israel c. six dayes shall work be done but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest an holy convocation ye shall do no work therein it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations 1. We have here a convocation and an holy one every sabbath 2. near every families dwelling place at that distance which is called in the Gospell a sabbath-days journey and to travell a sabbath-days journey was equivalent to go as far as the house of convocation which was esteemed a fulfilling of the command Exod. 16. v. 29. abide every man in his place let no man go out of his place on the seventh day For he that went no further then the place of convocation or meeting to attend on the ordinances where they use to tarry from morning to evening obeyed that command let no man go out of his place on the seventh day For how could they keep a sabbath-day holy without an holy convocation and how could that be frequented and they not stir from their own place except by not going out of his place be meant not going any whither but to the place of convocation For they could not keep the sabbath without a holy convocation kept near every ones dwelling Now that this convocation cannot be meant of nationall and festivall meetings is evident for those were appointed but thrice in the year and far from every ones dwelling-place and after the building of the Temple they were celebrated either before the Tabernacle or in the fore-court of the Temple Now had they been bound to repair to Jerusalem every sabbath-day it would have been against the command not to stir from their own places on that day These convocations or synagogues were particular churches assembled in a temple or house called also schools or colledges where Prophets and their sons or scholars dwelt and taught daily but on the sabbath-day they had a more solemn meeting of all those that dwelt near for prayer expounding of the law exhortations conferences the main action being performed by the Rabbies yet the disciples were not silent but sate at their feet asking questions and hearing their answers and resolutions sometimes a new comer in might interpose as we see in the example of Jesus Christ Luke the fourth who being unknown had the priviledge to expound the Scripture and to ask questions and give answers so had St. Paul as we read in the Acts of the Apostles chap. 13 v 15. But to speak more particularly of the place the teachers and the matter and form of worship in those places of meeting or synagogues I say first one may trace the place in the old and new Testament In the 26. Psalm David saith he will blesse the Lord in the congregations and Psal 68. v. 26. blesse ye God in the congregation which doubtlesse ought to be understood of those convocations in temples which are called synagogues Psal 74. v. 8. they have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land Which texts make it good that such places for an holy convocation were erected through all the land Calvin upon the place saith that the people met in syngogues every sabbath-day to read and expound the Prophets and call upon God by prayer The 29. Psalme v. 9. doth not obscurely mention them for the Psalmist relates that while the works of God sounded by haile rain and thunder the faithfull not only under a shelter of stones and timber but of Gods gracious providence and protection did attend the service of God Of this House and Temple David also speaketh Psal 87. v. 2. The Lord loveth the gates of Sion more then all the dwellings or tents of Iacob The sense of which words paraphrastically I think to be this although God graced with his blessing and presence those convocations which at first were kept under tents in the wildernesse yet he is much more taken with that glorious manifestation of his between the cherubins whereby God setteth out the Lord Jesus Christ Also Salomon Ecclesiastes 5. v. 1. and 2. speaketh of these houses or meetings when he warneth men to be more ready to hear then to speak in the house of God intimating that there was a freedome for the faithfull in those convocations and synagogues more then one to speak and besides that there were no other sacrifices performed in them but those of preaching praying and thanksgiving This house of convocation was also a place to train up disciples called the sons of the Prophets which were indifferently of all tribes and therefore by the way the ministers of the Gospell that do not succeed the Priests and Levites but those Prophets who had neither ordination nor jurisdiction cannot pretend other call or power then such as these sons of the Prophets had So then these house or places for convocation were also colledges and schools and therefore Philo in the life of Moses calleth them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 houses of prayer and of learning of which you have mention 2 Kings 6. v. 1. where
skill annexed to their office and so they did but as physitians who are best able to judge of the pestilence yet are only to give their judgement but not to separate any one from the rest of men by their jurisdiction no more then the Priests did CHAPTER XXVII That neither in the time of Ezra such an excommunication began That the casting out of the synagogue did not answer that excommunication That there is no ground for it nor practise of it in the new Testament SOme are of opinion that excommunication had its beginning in Ezra's chap. 7. v. 27. and Nehemiahs times Nehem. 10. v. 29. and ch 13. v. 25. where Aben Ezra expoundeth I cursed them of the two kinds of excommunication Niddui and Cherem though others question it and say that these three kinds of excommunication Niddui Cherem and Schaâ—natha were not invented of two hundred years after However it is certain as some Rabbins observe that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah something like excommunication begun for the people being led captive and wanting their wonted magistrate and usuall legall proceedings and having no power within themselves to keep up their religion without mixing with the heathen or to restrain those that would run after Idols the best-minded people yea most of the nation who as yet had not consulted with themselves how far they were to persevere in the religion they were born and brought up in did body themselves into severall synagogues where they bound themselves mutually by a sacred oath some say they broke bread upon it to keep the law of Moses and not to join themselves by marriages to the heathens and to hold close to the customs and constitutions of their elders and ancestours even of those that were the keepers of such a confederate discipline and were to see all things performed according to oath or covenant and to take order that whosoever did break it should suffer the penalty imposed by the discipline These synagogues supplyed the defect both of magistracy and of all those godly meetings which were kept every sabbath-day in the houses of Prophets for in them not only the law of Moses was read and expounded and prayers made but also all those causes and matters which usually were handled and determined in higher and lower courts or Sanedrims were adjudged so far as the Princes under whom they lived gave them liberty and enlarged or shortned their priviledges for sometimes they were not permitted to put any man to death sometimes they were allowed even out of Judea to have their Ethnarcha or Prince of the people who did not so much govern the countrey as the nation Hence we are satisfied how the chief Priests came to give Paul power to lay hold on the Jewes living out of Judea and bring them captive to Jerusalem for they could not have given such a commission to apprehend a Gentile Amongst other penalties that the severall synagogues dispersed in Judea Aegypt Greece Pontus and Galatia inflicted casting out of the synagogue was one The Rabbins say for the Scripture is silent in it that this casting out comprehended many degrees of excommunication so that when they were permitted to put to death to be put in Cherem was thought as much as to dye But what ever were the degrees or species of excommunication and by what title so ever called and distinguished among the Jewes it is certain that none of these censures inflicted by the synagogues or by the keepers of their liberties were of the nature of the excommunication we have described in the precedent chapter For 1. These synagogues were a mixt assembly of men betwixt a corporation and a church and had not within their body a jurisdiction of Priests and Levites distinct from the rest of the synagogue for the high Priest was a long time the chief magistrate 2. There being other censures inflicted besides casting out of the synagogue which they make excommunication as stoning burning whipping cutting of limmes as learned Mr. Despagne tells us in his judicious piece of the Harmony of times there is no reason at all to make one censure more ecclesiasticall then any of the rest as if casting out was a censure inflicted by churchmen and whipping and cutting of limmes were civil censures inflicted by others Sure a magistrate by the same power that he causeth a cutpurse to be whipt also banisheth a seditious man so were all penalties in those synagogues acts of the same power and the same men and equally using force upon the body for as yet they knew no such distinction of powers and censures nor were the distinctions of ecclesiasticall and civil spirituall and temporall found out 3. Those that were cast out of the synagogue were alike restrained from church and from Commonwealth-priviledges the church and the Commonwealth being not yet taken for two distinct bodies 4. We do not read that those that were put out of the synagogue were kept off from the Temple and from being partakers of the same mysteries that others not put out of the synagogue enjoyed which sheweth that excommunication was not answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or casting out of the synagogue for those that in the synagogue had power to put one out of it had not power to bar him either from killing the passeover in the temple or from eating of it at his own home or from being partaker of all other sacrifices and ceremonies in the Temple Christ and his Apostles taught daily in the Temple though excommunicated and put out of the Jewes synagogues 5. Neither do we find to the contrary but that a man put out of one synagogue might in the same town or countrey be entertained by another synagogue for Gemara Babvionica saith that he that was excommunicated in one town was not thought excommunicated in another 6. Many Rabbins say that one private man used to excommunicate and absolve another and hereupon some are ready to say that Jesus Christ related to that Matth. 18. when he said Let him be to thee c. as if he had said Since he will not hearken to thy good advice nor that of two or three nor yet to the church thy last refuge is to excommunicate him in thy private name and as to thy self only having nothing farther to do with him And in that manner will they have the 40. men who had conspired to kill Paul to have excommunicated one another in case any one had been slack in the enterprise Now let us see what plea there is for excommunication in the new Testament We have shewed that the Christians succeeding the Jewes retained by the same confederation of discipline under a magistrate no friend to them the same power of magistracy as they though not in that high measure of jurisdiction because the Christians were alwayes more persecuted and never had so large priviledges and liberties granted them as the Jewes had but yet as little as they had they could do that which
change for the better or hinder a change for the worse The King or another magistrate as he doth not ordain so he doth not depose formally as I may so speak or administratorily yet he doth it of himself not only by his counsell command and authority for he may command it when there is just cause of deposing a minister to those that have that power in the church who in that case and there being just cause for it if they do not obey and do what he commandeth are subject not only to wrath but also to Gods judgement Ministers as ministers are subjects to the soveraign magistrate why then should it not be lawfull to appeal from the judgement of subjects to the supreme magistrate and why may it not be lawfull for the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects to ratify them if they be good and to abrogate them if they be bad There is a subjection of the magistrate to the ecclesiasticall senat but not of jurisdiction as under a command but of direction and counsell CHAPTER XXXIII The judgement of some Divines yet living both of the argument in hand and of the writings of the Author Of some mens strong prejudices against harsh censures of him I Have through all this book and in the first section of my Corollarium proved that I have digressed nothing in my Paraenesis from Scripture reason about the right of churches and the magistrates power in matters of religion but my opinion is also confirmed by two kinds of authorities of learned and orthodox Divines The first kind of authorities is of those that for the main concur with me or rather I with them such are Zuinglius Musculus Bullingerus Gualterus Mestrezat Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs Mr. Lightfoot c. The second kind is of those that though in generall they profess to be for a church-government distinct from that of the magistrate yet if one take notice of all the positions concerning that argument which each of them admit and grant will be found jointly though not every one of them considered a part to say as much as I just as the Protestants doctrine will be found in all though not in each of the Romish authors overcome by the evidence of truth in the handling of some points controverted betwixt them and us as Scotus confesseth that Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture Cajetan denyeth the Popish indulgences Bellarmin after he hath much heightned the merit of works concludeth with a â—utissimum est and flieth to the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith as the safest anchor to stay a staggering Christian Jansenius is right in the doctrine of grace all the rest in some positions or other hold with us And of this kind are Bucer Martyr Jewell Zanchius Reynolds Camero Rivet and many more who besides by yielding an inch have given us a whole handfull to believe that what we have discoursed of the nature of power lawes judgement the right of churches and the magistrates power in matters of religion is both reason and Scripture For whoever admits as most of these authors do that the judgements of Pastors in presbyteries synods are subordinate to that of the soveraign Christian magistrate and that appeals from church-judicatories to the magistrate are grounded upon Scripture reason and the practise of all nations and besides saith that the magistrate is the supreme governour and head of the church over all causes and persons whoever I say grants these to be truths must needs overthrow ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and power of excommunication except it be in subordination to and dependently on the magistrate But among all the reformed Divines who appear in the throng of those that hold an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and a government distinct from that of the magistrate none hath delivered positions in print so near the language of Mr. Coleman as Ludovicus Cappellus pastor and Professor at Saumur yet living hath done which passing currant for truth from the mouth of Cappellus if they had fallen from Mr. Coleman would have been taken by our brethren the Scots for pernicious and dangerous tenets and mere Erastianisme In the first part of his Theses Salmurienses de potestate regimine Ecclesiae thes 12. he saith that pastors have properly no other jurisdiction then that which subdueth the affections of the world and the flesh when the spirit of Christ in the word restraineth the assaults of Satan that there is no other authority of governing the church then what is seated in Christ the head when by the efficacy of his spirit he enlighteneth the mind and convinceth the conscience In his 40. thesis he saith that the constitutions of the church have authority no further then as they agree with reason In his 41. and 42. he puts equall stresse of duty upon the magistrate in governing and ordering the church the commonwealth as being keeper of one table as well as the other These are his words in Latin Porro his de rebus dispiciendi atque statuendi ita penes ecclesiam hoc est ecclesiasticos quos vâ—cant viros est potestas ut si magistratus pius Christianus sit fierâ—id non debeat non modo sine ejus consilio conscientia verum etiam sine ejus authoritate qua ea quae videbuntur in hoc genere conducibilia confirmentur vimque legis obtineant Is nempe est utriusque divinae legis Tabulae vindex atque custos ad quem propterea pertinet etiam pastores si cessent vel peccent in officium movere objurgare ubi opus fuerit castigare denique prospicere atque providere ut omnia tum in ecclesia tum in republica seu politia recte ordinate fiant utque ordinis legitime constituti turbatores violatores pro merito puniantur This he seemeth to speak after Pareus in his Miscellanea Catechetica art 11. aphoris 18. where he layeth upon the magistrate a greater duty in governing the church then the commonwealth and more in keeping the first table then the second Hoc vero jus gubernandi ecclesias sacra Scriptura disertim magistratui attribuit ut ei quemadmodum tenetur procurare ut bonum civile in foro judiciis legitime administretur ita non minor imo longe major ejus cura esse debeat ut jus Divinum bonum illud animarum hoc est vera religio pietas subditis suis in ecclesia scholis ad aeternam eorum salutem proponatur juxta legem testimonium idem docent exempla laudatissimorum regum Davidis c. Sic Paulus affatur Christianos Romanos Minister est Dei tuo bono ubi intelligit omne bonum tam civile terrenum quam ecclesiasticum seu spirituale secus namque magistratus homini Christiano non plus commodaret quam infideli Ac sane dolendum est rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos qui unanimi consensu regi suo demandarunt
other part in the other senate which is very impertinent and a needlesse multiplication of businesses yet those two jurisdictions must at length be resolved into an integrall one as when Protectour Lords and Commons that make up one Parliament must unanimously agree that all the votes and orders shall end in the same law and act I confesse there can hardly be clashing of powers judgements votes betwixt these two supreme senates such as Mr. Gillespie supposeth so long as the same men are members of both senates but withall I should count it a needlesse and senselesse multiplication of senates and that in vain the same matter and cause were to be decided by two coordinate senates when as one senate would serve the turn for however at length the two senates as they meet in the same persons so must they in the same accord and agreement which is all one as if it were but one jurisdiction Again it is observable that diversity of things and persons to which lawes and constitutions have relation doth not constitute a diversity of power and jurisdiction specially when the same men are to make the same lawes and constitutions for as the same men making lawes about navigation and the militia cannot be said to act from two powers and jurisdictions they are invested with so neither if the same men do make lawes as for example about Gods worship and the militia Briefly I believe Sir Thomas More in all his Utopia cannot parallel such a piece of constitution of state made up of two jurisdictions both coordinate subordinate each to the other materially the same not formally where of the same men are members A happy state indeed in which there can be no clashing except the same man be opposite to himself or that the members of the ecclesiasticall senate forget to day what they decreed yesterday when they met in a civil senate But since these two senates are materially the same men what need we give them severall names and formes for some accidentall circumstances of time and place either because they do not sit in the same place or that they are upon severall businesses must the same members of Parliament sitting to day upon religion be called an ecclesiasticall senate acting by an ecclesiasticall power and to morrow sitting to order the militia of the state it may be in another place be called a civil or military senate acting by a civil or military power But most of those that are for ecclesiasticall presbyterian jurisdiction finding no probability in the opinion of Mr. Gillespie viz. that among the Jewes there was a jurisdiction in the hands of church-officers distinct from that of the magistrate go another way and admit willingly an identity of jurisdiction but withall say that from the coalition of jurisdictions amongst the Jewes it cannot be inferred that the same ought to be under the Gospell that that church in its pedagogy is no pattern to the church in its maturity thus speaketh Amyraldus in his book of the government of the church chap. 3. p. 91. Whoever commits these two powers into the hands of the same persons he not only brings back the church into its infancy as if it were still under the pedagogy of the law but also casts it into that confusion from which the condition of those times did deliver it A man upon better grounds may invert this paralogisme and make use of this reasoning of Amyraldus to prove the quite contrary to what he drives at and so imitate smiths who with the same tool pull out drive in a nayl for had the Jewes had a government of the church distinct from that of the Commonwealth I would thence inferre there is no further need among Christians of such a division but rather of a coalition of powers that the Jewes being rude and weak in knowledge under a burdensome administration loaden with ceremonies and legall rites where the sixth part of the people was either judge elder leader Priest Prophet Levite or officer in the Leviticall service had need to have many keepers guardians tutours many helps of government so the governours might be very well parted into ecclesiasticall and civil and so the whole government might be shared betwixt the two supreme powers the keepers of each having wherewithall to employ themselves but the Christian church being wholly freed from the burdensome administration of lawes and officers and having no platform of government neither hath it need of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction when there is no ecclesiasticall law or constitution Thus were I of Mr. Gillespies opinion that among the Jewes the government of the church was distinct from that of the Commonwealth I would speak in the language and words of Amyraldus and infer that for the same reason that the Jewes had a double jurisdiction the Christians may be very well without it But the opinion of Amyraldus that there was no distinction of jurisdiction among the Jewes rendereth his inference for a double jurisdiction under the Gospell much more groundlesse weak and absurd for if under a burdensome administration when they had need of many pedagogues and schoolmasters yet they were governed without distinct government of church and state much lesse do the Christians need such a distinct government seeing they are freed from the necessity of having so many schoolmasters guides watch-men and masters to govern them and teach them so many rudiments and unriddle them all the ceremonies besides that sure God never gives distinct governours but also he giveth a distinct law and discipline to be a rule to govern by which yet God never did Though I am so far of the opinion of Amyraldus that the government of the church was not distinct from that of the state yet I am not of his mind in this to think that identity of government would bring a confusion in Christian states for I count that identity so needfull and necessary whether the state be never so much or never so little burdened by men lawes constitutions and businesses to dispatch that in a state loaden with lawes and businesses as the Commonwealth of the Jewes was two jurisdictions coordinate would have brought an horrible confusion and multiplication of suits and businesses and in a state lesse incumbered with lawes and businesses that double jurisdiction would still bring more work then need be if there was but one jurisdiction The argument of Mr. Gillespie to prove that there were two coordinate jurisdictions among the Jewes because of the wide division and distinction of offices amongst them neither the King being to take upon him the Priesthood nor the Priest the Kingdom as it makes nothing for him so doth it rather plead for an identity of jurisdiction under the new Testament for if when the functions were so distinct that the King could not offer incense and be Priest nor the Priest King yet there was no distinction of jurisdictions much lesse is that distinction needfull under the new
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
clergy-man or not was decided capitall only excepted For matters of faith I confesse there be many Emperours sanctions forbidding secular courts to meddle with them but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more then declarative not sancitive For 1. This very sanction that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith was a law of the Emperour and the episcopall courts or synods could not challenge any power therein but by a commission from the Emperour 2. The Emperours did not conceive themselves obliged to receive lawes concerning faith from the Bishops or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperours dominions except they were approved of and ratified by them 3. The Emperours did not think themselves much obliged to receive lawes of doctrine and faith from the Bishops in regard that most of the lawes and constitutio is concerning the fundamentall points of faith were composed reduced and inserted into the Code without so much as taking counsell or advice of the Bishops though we never read that they ever complained thereof Only a late famous Lawyer and a Papist in his book de Iustinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiasticall power seated in the clergy 4. And the power that the Emperours challenged to belong solely to them to call synods to chuse members to review their acts to approve ratifie disannull or give them the vigour and strength of lawes obliging all churches and men to obedience either active or passive is an argument that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperours did in calling of synods making lawes and decrees and requiring from all churches and church-members obedience to them the Emperours did not conceive otherwise of those acts of theirs but as of acts of magistracy taken up by consent for want of a Christian magistrate and which was to last no longer then till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperours and the Bishops at that time how came it that Constantine the Great the other Christian Emperours that came after him did not rather wish the Bishops clergy to call synods upon their own authority as they were wont to do and how came it that Oâ—ius Spiridion Paphnutius did not disswade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods telling him that it was more then did belong to him and speak in the language of Mr. Gillespie that ministers by virtue of their office are to call and assemble synods that it is altogether unreasonable that they should be abridged of what they had enjoyed for 300. years and now loose a main branch of their ecclesiasticall power that hitherto it was not so much as thought on that magistracy which is not a thing essentiall to the church should so far entrench upon the government of Christ wherewith the ministers are solely entrusted But these notions came not into the minds either of the Emperours or of Osius Eustatius Paphnutius and others nor of Hierom who questioned the validity of a synod that was not convocated by the Emperour These good men did not quarrell either at the convocation of synods or at the making or giving of lawes to churches by the sole authority of the Emperours 5. A further proof that neither the Emperours nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces conceived that Bishops and clergy-men had any judiciall power distinct from theirs is that for many 100. years in most parts of the Roman Empire as it then was Emperours and Kings kept state-assemblies where both clergy and laity sate and voted without any such distinction of power ecclesiasticall and civil I should here shew as I promised in the beginning of the chapter that the very heathens never knew any such distinction of power for although the law of nature and nations taught them that there must be a sacred function distinct from others yet they never knew nor understood that the jurisdiction of that function was distinct from that of the others for many thousand years neither the people of God nor the heathens knew any such distinction Aristotle in the third of his politicks ch 10. speaking of heroick Kings the Kings saith he were judges and moderators in all divine matters So was the Roman Senat both before and after it was governed by Emperours for it was wont to consecrate Emperours and the name of Pontifex Maximus of which they were so jealous was taken by the Emperours even till Gratians time In short they alwayes conceived that a common magistracy and soveraign power was made up of these two main ingredients viz. ceremonies about religion and humane lawes both put in trust with the soveraign magistrate One thing I cannot but observe that the very heathens by the light of nature have gone here beyond Mr. Gillespie For to confirm a common errour that the church jurisdiction is wholly independent from the magistrate and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporall life having nothing to do with promoting the eternall good of the soul to confirm I say this errour he teacheth us that magistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediatour ex natura rei But this errour is refuted by the very heathen namely Aristotle in his 3. book of Politicks ch 16. where he saith that the scope of politicks is not simply to live but to live well I should ask Mr. Gillespie when a magistrate turneth from heathenism to Christianity whether his first duty is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven both for himself and all that are under his charge There is also a notable passage of Pareus among his Miscellanea Catechetica artic 11. aphoris 18. where he lamenteth that heathens should surpasse Christians in this particular in attributing more to the magistrate for ordering matters of religion and that they in this point should be more orthodox these be his words Ac sane dolendum est rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos qui unanimi consensu regi suo demandarunt curam religionâ—s cultus Deorum idque persuasi tam jure naturae quam gentium As pregnant a proof that the same persons amongst the heathens had the managing of religious as well as civil affairs is that of Cicero in his Oration pro domo sua ad Pontifices the words are these Praeclare à majoribus nostris constitutum est quod vos eosdem religionibus Deorum immortalium summae reipublicae praeesse voluerunt ut amplissimi clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo religiosissimi religiones sapienter interpretando rempublicam conservarent It was excellently well ordained by our ancestours that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion and the supreme government of state that so whilst the most