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
nemine contradicente Thus the late confession of faith and directory go for currant to be the opinion of the assembly because they were the act of the major part of them albeit many godly and learned men among them had no hand in framing the 30. 31. chapters of the confession In affairs concerning temporall life it may be born with when what hath been voted by the major part of the counsell or Senat goeth for the act of all and this was one of the state-precepts that Philip the II. gave to Margerite Governess of the low-Countrves by the report of Strada 5. In all great differences betwixt nation nation army and army party and party the judges that are appointed to reconcile them must propound conditions by which parties in extremes should come to some accommodation and moderation each side if need be complying and parting with some of his right to prevent a continuance of strife But such a composition cannot be expected in or by a synod for making up differences in religion since each side apprehendeth his opinion to be the truth and would think it a great sin to baulk any part of it or admit an accommodation CHAPTER XVII That the Iewish Church-officers had not a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate Mr. Gillespies distinction that they were not materially but formally distinct examined The argument of Amyraldus that though they had a distinct jurisdiction yet the example of the church of the Iewes is no pattern to the Christian church discussed and proved to be of no validity THis subject touching the identity or diversity of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall and civil among the Jewes well understood will decide the whole controversie which Mr. Gillespie well apprehendeth and therefore perceiving the strength of this plea that good reason it is that the ecclesiasticall power should be distinct or not distinct in the church of the Jewes as well as in that of the Christians since the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing of censuring excommunicating and making lawes authoritatively be the same in both churches and therefore that it cannot be supposed without great inconvenience that the jurisdictions were indistinct amongst the Jewes but distinct amongst the Christians this I say being considered by him makes him withall endeavour to lay hold on that opinion that maketh jurisdictions distinct in the Commonwealth of Israel for this supposition he takes to be the ground-work of the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction But I will not enter far into this matter having in the examen of the 30. chapter of the confession of the Rever Assembly taken off the main objection from Amariah and Zebadiah for I cannot think but Mr. Gillespie hath embraced this opinion for conveniency and more because it is subservient to the fabrick of his book then that it hath any great probability 1. because most of the learned Papists and others even his fellow-presbyters are of another judgement who if they had had never so little shew or likelinesse for a double jurisdiction among the Jewes specially the Papists and with them Amyraldus and others no doubt they would have made as much of this advantage to further their cause as Mr. Gillespie thinketh to prevail with it for himself 2. because Mr. Gillespie when he hath done what he can to assert a double jurisdiction in the church of the Jewes reaps very little benefit by it for he pulls down by his large concessions with one hand what he hath striven to set up with the other For the first it were an endlesse labour to produce the names of the authors that are for Erastus opinion in this particular and for one Constantinus l'Empereur which he pretends to be on his side twenty may be brought of a contrary opinion Not long since discoursing with Manasseh Ben Israel at the house of my noble friend Mr. Sadler about this same subject he told me he could not conceive how this opinion that there was a double jurisdiction among the Jewes was taken up by the Christians and that he held it altogether absurd against Scripture and reason Nothing can be added to what Grotius Selden and Cunaeus have written on this subject Amyraldus in his Theses de spiritu servitutis thes 28. saith that religion and policy were so straightly conjoyned among the Jewes that one being overthrown the other could not stand but must needs fall too and in his book of the government of the church p. 46. he saith the same man did judge Israel as a soveraign magistrate and was also over matters of religion Lud. Capellus parte 3. de ministerii verbi necessitate thes 18 19 c. doth not only conspire with Amyraldus but outgo him in asserting that the 70. judges or elders though lay-men and not of the tribe of Levi were not only to compose controversies and suits in law but also to instruct the people about the worship of God and to teach them the fear of the Lord so far that from the time of Ezra to Jesus Christ any in the synagogues which were known to be gifted might teach read and expound the Scripture which he proves by the example of Jesus Christ Luc. 4. 17. who though unknown was admitted to expound the Scripture and of St. Paul Act. 13. 15. My rever Father is of the same mind namely in the 19. chapter de Monarchia temporali where he saith that neither the Levites nor the chief Priests made use of any other law then that which was common and that they had no ecclesiasticall judges distinct from the civil Iudicious R. Hooker is very expresse for us in his 8. book of ecclesiasticall polity p. 144. Our state is according to the pattern of Gods own ancient elect people which people was not part of them the Commonwealth and part of them the Church of God but the self-same people whole and entire were both under one chief governour on whose supream authority they did all depend I have alledged elsewhere Mr. Lightfoot wholly concurring with Richard Hooker Mr. Herbert Thorndike a judicious writer and much versed in the antiquities of the Jewes is wholly for an identity of jurisdiction among the Jewes In 8. chapter he saith that when Moses was dead a President was chosen over and beside the seventy whom they called the Nasi to be in his stead from age to age as R. Moses writeth Which refuteth what some say that the President of the Sanedrim was alwayes a Priest and sheweth that the chief ruler of the Commonwealth was ruler over persons and causes of all kinds without any distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall In the 9. chapter we have these words The Sanedrim consisted of the chief of that people as well as of the Priests and Levites because the chief causes of that Commonwealth as well as of religion passed through their hands Tostatus a great Papist and writer upon Matth. 16. v. 19. will tell us the opinion of his party In the old Testament a
the sentence before he causeth it to be executed 3. that the magistrate having both the last judgement of approbation and of that they call imperative or command to yield obedience to the declarations and sentences of synods or consistories it is plain he is the soveraign judge of all ecclesiasticall judgements sentences and debates and that they are but counsells and advices till the magistrate approveth of them and commandeth them This single passage of Mr. Gillespie graunted unto him might serve for an answer to all his book would overthrow all ecclesiasticall jurisdiction And indeed all the controversie lieth in the narrow compasse of these few lines of his the matter of which by right should have been the main subject and bulk of his book and not have been so slightly passed over for this is the very hinge on which Gualterus and Maccovius conceive that the whole controversie betwixt Erastus and his opposites hung and which as it is stated by Maccovius will give a bone to pick till doomsday to the assertors of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction it is a Gordian knot which they will never disintangle but by cutting of it the truth of it being so undeniable that it was never answered by Walaeus Apollinus Triglandius nor by Mr. Gillespie who indeed in this paragraph alledgeth the substance of Maccovius positions but doth not answer them to any purpose The three positions of Maccovius are brought by severall in various terms but all to the same purpose and are these 1. It is the duty of the magistrate to look and take order that the word of God be preached with purity that the Sacraments and the discipline of the church be duely administred and to make a diligent enquiry into the ministers performing of these and to punish them if either they misse or do amisse in the dâ—scharge of their places Which words of Maccovius Rivetus upon the decalogue doth expresse in equivalent terms It is the duty of ministers to infuse doctrine to wound by censures to administer the sacraments immediatly and personally and as they speak ex officio by their office Now the magistrate under whose authority these things are to be done if ministers do not perform them by his grave and commanding power may and ought to force them and enjoâ—n them to do these things and to do them well and to punish them that do otherwise then they should do 2. The second position of Maccovius is Since no determinations or sentences of presbyteries and synods have any force of obligation in them to obedience without the sanction of the magistrate therefore not the presbyteries and synods but the magistrate is the supreme judge giver and maker of all constitutions sentences and determinations of consistories and synods 3. The third is The magistrate is either to put his seal of sanction and give his judgement of approbation to all the judgements sentences and definitions of synods with a blind judgement and stand without disputing within himself to what they agreed and decreed among themselves or he must disapprove those things that in his own apprehension are not good and convenient and approve what he conceiveth to be true just and fit Whatever the opposers chose they are at a stand for they make the magistrate either a soveraign judge and arbiter over all ecclesiasticall matters or a sergeant and blind executioner of the judgements and sentences of synods and presbyteries Mr. Gillespie being not able any way to make invalide the strength of these positions of Maccovius only saith that the magistrate in having the last view and cognizance of all ecclesiasticall determinations and giving his sanction to them does not judicem agree but judâ—care which I know not how to English but that in so doing he doth not the part of a judge and yet doth judge of the thing But what strength hath this That man doth the part of a judge in whose power and breast it is to make valid and currant or to disannull whatever is debated and determined by others Of much like strength is it when he saith that the magistrate judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his conscience Which if he may do the magistrate hath as much as Maccovius proveth to belong to him for in that he is not satisfied and doth not concur with the judgements of church-officers he maketh all their judgements void null of no force to oblige either actively or passively any man or assembly under his jurisdiction Had not the states of the low-countreys approved and ratified the synod of Dordrecht their decrees would have been but counsells advices and answers of prudent and wise men and had not put any obligation upon the ministers churches schools and academies within their dominions more then upon England or France to be conformable to their determinations Next in the conclusion Mr. Gillespie saith that this doth not make him supreme judge and governour in ecclesiasticall causes which is the prerogative of Iesus Christ nor yet doth it invest the magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forinsecall directive judgement in ecclesiasticall things or causes which belongeth to an ecclesiasticall not to a civil court I understand not wherefore he bringeth this for what he hath said before doth sufficiently evince the magistrate to be soveraign judge and governour over all persons and in all ecclesiasticall causes and censures so long as they are of no force and cannot be brought to execution except the magistrate approves of them and commands them It seemeth Mr. Gillespie by these words would put it to the vote who must be the supreme judge and governour in ecclesiasticall causes whether the ministers or the magistrate It is sure enough if we believe him the magistrate must not be It remains then that the ministers should be the supreme judges and governors for all M. Gillespies drift is to take from the magistrate that which he saith duly pertaineth to the ministers and in short to put as he conceiveth the saddle upon the right horse For to what end should he except against the magistrates being invested with the power of supreme judgement and government in ecclesiasticall causes but to reinvest the ministers into it and to declare that that usurpation in the magistrate was done to the prejudice and wrong of the ministers to whom it is due by right Here then Mr. Gillespie maketh the ministers of the Gospell supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes whereas he alwayes before declined those titles as belonging only to and being the prerogative of Jesus Christ But suppose ministers in synods and consistories had also the coercive power and were invested with that externall jurisdiction that giveth force and sanction to all their censures this I trow would not make them more or lesse supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes then the
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
where the words kahal or gnedah are taken sometimes for the whole congregation as Deuter. 31. v. 30. where Moses pronounced a canticle in the hearing of the whole church or congregation and yet the 28. verse sheweth that by the whole congregation the magistrates and elders are meant thus Levit. 4. v. 13 14 15 and 21. where if the people had trespassed ignorantly the church that is the assembly of magistrates and elders are commanded to offer atonement for the sin and Deut. 23. v. 1. the eunuch the bastard the Moabite and the Ammonite are barred from the congregation or the church that is from publick employment for a converted Moabite was not forbidden from the Jewish church Sometimes for a senat of judges and magistrates called Synedrium as Proverb 26. v. 26. and so it is interpreted by the LXX and there you have a plain exposition of the word church Matth. 18. for the like cause of wrong and injury is spoken of in both places and the like judicatory so Ecclesiasticus 23. v. 24. the adulteresse is convented before the church that is before the judicatory of judges and elders Which places manifestly declare that Christ meant such a judicatory amongst the Jewes whereof the words heathen and publican make further proof and that Jesus Christ spoke of the same kind of judicatory and men as ordinarily were found when he spoke the words but it is evident that neither in Christs time nor ever since his time the word church was taken for an assembly or senat of ecclesiasticalls or an assembly of pastors So that was there any such sentence of excommunication or censure inflicted by the church upon the party that did the wrong this judgement or sentence must needs be pronounced by such a Synedrium or senat of judges and elders endowed with judiciall authority as the word church was usually taken for among the Jews But suppose the word church was not used by Christ in that sense our brethren should shew us that Jesus Christ did speak it in a Scripture sense and as it was taken in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles namely as they would have it for an assembly of Christian church-officers invested with judiciall authority Here one controverted place of Scripture must be expounded by another and while there is very great likelyhood that Jesus Christ meant a senat ordinarily sitting amongst the Jewes to decide controversies of wrong betwixt brother and brother and which was not made up of officers distinct from the magistrate or men delegated by him if they will weaken our plea and exposition which is very rationall and naturall and make it as probable and likely that he spoke of a company of church-officers distinct from the magistrate they must look out some parallel place either in the old or new Testament where the word church is so understood which I am confident they will never find But to yield as much as I can though I find no where in the old Testament the words kahal and gnedah church signifying such an assembly of church-officers yet I find 1 Sam. 19. v. 20. the word lahakath mentioned where it is spoken of a company of Prophets which word our brethren might as well interpret a church but neither would this serve their turn for in that place of Samuel quoted those prophets were not sitting in a senat church or colledge nor were they about any church act but were travelling in the high-way and however our Lord Jesus Christ had no reference to such a church or assembly of prophets who as prophets were never endowed with a judiciall power Samuel indeed was over them as an Arch-prophet but as such he had no jurisdiction in Israel but as a Prince and Judge of the people CHAPTER XIX That a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place about the worship of God is the only true visible church mentioned in Scripture That that church considered as an assembly of Christians bringeth forth other kinds of acts then it doth considered as a society of men by which the nature and extent of the power of a private church is made clear and evident HAving mentioned the acceptions of the word Church in the new Testament there being not any visible assembly either according to the first or second acception it remaineth that a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place with one accord about the worship of God enjoying the same ordinances hath the true denomination of a church This church presbyterian particular church or congregationall is the true adequate subject of all church-right discipline and power which it enjoyes partly by a divine positive right as it is a congregation of Christians partly by a divine naturall civil politick right as it is a society of men endowed with wisedome prudence and liberty to govern themselves by such lawes as they find most convenient for their subsistence The first is a divine positive right for however men are so or otherwise commanded by some externall power yet the pastor is to look for a flock and people and the people for a pastor and both are to meet in as convenient a place and competent a number as they can to enjoy the ordinances of Christ by hearing the word praying and partaking of the Sacraments by a warrant and command from Christ By the same right warrant and command the pastor or pastors of the church are to perform all the pastorall acts as to preach to those that will hear not by constraint but willingly to command in the name of Christ to exhort to dehort to beseech men to be reconciled to God to lay out Christ in the promises of the Gospell to denounce the judgements of God to the impenitent and unbelievers to admit to the Eucharist all baptized persons and visibly professing Christianity who are not ignorant or publick infamous offenders ' or profane refusing none by any judiciall act of theirs denouncing sentence of excommunication or any other censure but by their generall duty as Christians by which they are bound not to have communion with such unfruitfull workers of darknesse Otherwise they are to impose nothing no injunction no censure or punishment but on such as without constraint and willingly undergo it and are contented so to do The other acts of a pastor out of the congregation are to offer himself sent or unsent to visit and comfort the sick the prisoner the widow the fatherlesse to see all persons and families that are of his flock to be the same at home as at church of the same Gospell-conversation and that all ranks be filled with the knowledge of the Lord to respect no mans degree or person in delivering his message from Christ saying even as John Baptist to Herod it is not for thee to keep thy brothers wife briefly to do the office of a faithfull minister in season and out of season The acts of the people in a society of church-members are double some do
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