head of the Church WE proceed to examine what the Rever Assembly say that Jesus Christ hath instituted this ecclesiasticall â—…sdiction as King and head of his Church Mr. Gillespie one of their body and therefore the best interpreter of their meaning saith in his 2. book chap. 5. that Jesus Christ hath two Kingdoms 1. a generall as he is the eternall Son of God the head of all principalities powers raigning over all creatures 2. a particular Kingdom as he is mediatour raigning over the church only by which church he understandeth a visible church of saints combined in such a body as is the church of Scotland enjoying the ordinances and the discipline of Christ And of this Kingdom he understandeth Matth. 16. v. 28. There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom So doth Beza against Erastus who with Mr. Gillespie out of those words of Christ my Kingdom is not of this world concludeth two things 1. that the ecclesiasticall government is distinct from the civill or that of the magistrate 2. that that Kingdom is an aggregation of many churches under one presbytery In the 6. chap. of the same book he is very prolix to prove that Jesus Christ as mediatour and head of the Church hath not appointed the magistrate to be his viceregent in the government of the church in the second acception I confesse that the holy Scripture mentioneth two Kingdoms but that both these be visible ones I deny flatly particularly that Jesus Christ is called King and head of the church in reference to the visible congregations of Christians or that by the body of Christ is meant the visible assembly of those that make outward profession of the Christian religion Let us then consider in this Kingdom of Jesus Christ as mediatour the nature of the King and head of his scepter sword power weapons keyes fullnesse that so we may see if all these qualifications yea if any one of these are proper to any visible church particular and nationall Both Rivet and Reynolds in their comments upon the 110. Psalme make this Kingdom wholly spirituall not of this world much lesse seen in this world though known to be in this world It is that Kingdom which is many times mentioned in the Gospell but never once taken for a visible government of men professing outwardly the name of Christ but for the Kingdom of grace and that government which Christ hath over those whom he ruleth by his spirit of adoption The keyes of this Kingdom are the door of utterance in the ministery whereby men have entrance these keyes keep out from coming in those that are without doors but never put out any that are once in and therefore most absurd it is to ground the power of excommunication upon the power of the keyes committed by Jesus Christ to the Apostles if the Kingdom of which Christ speaketh is the Kingdom of heaven or of grace will they say that an excommunicated person is put oâ— of the Kingdom of grace The scepter and sword of this Kingdom is the word of God The weapons are not carnall nor are they used to the putting a man out by excommunication but to the pulling down the strong holds of sin not by tying a man with church-censures but bringing into captivity his imaginations to the obedience of Christ This truth broke through the darknesse of popery and was acknowledged by those that were oppressed by the Popes tyrannie so in the year 1080. the advocate of the Emperour confut 9. saith that the preaching of Gregory the 7. was new since the church had no other sword then that of the spirit which was the word of God This language was acknowledged by the canonists to be in the mouths of the Popes adversaries who yet kept within the communion of Rome never dreaming of a Wicleff or a Luther as can inter 33. quest 3. Ecclesia non habet gladium nisi spiritualem qui non occidit sed vivisificat The law of this Kingdom is not the discipline or censure of the church but the law both of the Gospell and of faith called also the law of the spirit For by the power of that Kingdom described by the holy Ghost in the new Testament and mentioned in 50. places is not in any of them understood the ecclesiasticall power or any such thing as the power of ministers presbyteries synods to make decrees canons to determine authoritatively to suspend excommunicate and absolve but alwayes is meant that power that translateth from darknesse to light and from the power of satan unto God by which we are made sons of God Ioh. 1. v. 12. by which we are enlightened Act. 26. v. 18. and raised unto newnesse of life The fullnesse of that Kingdom is the saving gifts and graces given to the members The head of this Kingdom is Jesus Christ our King Priest and Prophet ruling by his spirit his subjects which are his members offering satisfying and interceding only for them teaching none savingly but them There is no governour or viceregent of this church but the spirit of God working in the heart by the word preached or read and guiding into all truth Though God hath no visible governours of this Kingdom yet he hath externally many subservient instruments and ministers for the advancing of that Kingdom as magistrates by their jurisdiction pastors by their function all godly people by their generall calling and dutie their persecutions afflictions maladies and particularly the ministers of the Gospell are main agents in Gods hands for the building up of that Kingdom What they know they do is the least part of their ministery they themselves being ignorant what and how they work by it in mens hearts Gods chief minister is Christ in the word the power is the efficacious working of the word the keyes are the openings of the heart to the word or rather the openings of the word to the heart and the receiving of the person into the heavenly fellowship This power is not placed in the ministers but the word which though it is delivered by them not only in a way of beseeching and exhorting but also of commanding yet that jurisdiction is only effectuall on those that of unwilling are rendred willing so that it is rather the jurisdiction of the word then of the minister for the ministers operation in the ministery is like to that of the artists in their chymicall operations where they are rather spectators then actors admovendo agentia passivis for nature and fire are the main agents They are like an husbandman in a vintage who maketh not the wine but ordereth it powring it from one vessel to another This being the nature of the Kingdom and church of God of which Christ is the head and King it remaineth to enquire who is the viceregent of God in governing the visible congregations of Christians meeting about the worship of God Properly
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
for succession is Romanish Ministers are no successours in their ministery to the Iudaicall Priests but to the Prophets 133 Chap. XIII The nature of the ministers power and of that of binding and loosing the power of the keyes Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and loosing The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiasticall contended for Mr. Gillespies arguments answered 142 Chap. XIV That the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are not committed to all church-officers but to the ministers of the Gospell only 155 Chap. XV. That God hath not given to the church-officers of the Gospell a certain platform of government and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution and therefore not to be administred by a power distinct from the humane 161 Chap. XVI The 31. chapter of the confession made by the Rever Assembly examined The use of synods Two things are humbly represented first that for a re-union of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes a convocation made up of ministers only be re-established during the sitting of Parliament the second is that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of free-born people to sit and vote in Parliaments Of the power of synods and that of the magistrate in calling of them The synod of the Apostles was extraordinary not exemplary The exception of the brethren of Scotland against the 2. article of the 31. chapter of the confession examined The uses and abuses of synods that they are not the way to compose differences in matters of religion if their canons are beyond counsells and advices 166 Chap. 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 192 Chap. 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 Matth. 18. v. 17. 206 Chap. 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 213 Chap. 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 222 Chap. XXI That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judiciall power over them is not of the institution of Christ 234 Chap. XXII That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren namely Salmasius Amyraldus and others have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches and so confuted rather their own fancies then invalidated the tenets of the brethren The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved That Amesius and Iohn Mestrezat late minister of Paris in their writings have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory 242 Chap. XXIII The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates 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 and 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 251 Chap. XXIV That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline or a power of magistracy as the synagogues were appointing men which Ambrose calls elders to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance This practise is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1 2 c. and confirmed by Origen Iustin Martyr Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperours with some alteration they erecting in lieu of them Episcopall courts That all church-power was the Emperours power That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them 267 Chap. XXV That ecclesiasticall jurisdiction as it is held by the Romish church better agreeth with reason and the letter of the Scripture then that of the presbyterian brethren That some Romanists have ascribed more power to the magistrate in sacred things then the presbyterian brethren 287 Chap. XXVI The description of excommunication in terms received by most of our opposites though otherwise variously defined by them That for four thousand years no such excommunication was in use either among the heathens or the Iewes An answer to some objections That the legall uncleannesse was no type of the morall That the Priests judging of the leprosy is no plea for excommunication nor for ecclesiasticall jurisdiction 298 Chap. 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 307 Chap. XXVIII That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15 16 17 and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication neither Iudas non-admission if granted to the Eucharist nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11. 316 Chap. XXIX That excommunication is contrary to common sense and reason 326 Chap. XXX That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication 337 Chap. XXXI The History of excommunication from the first reformation from Popery how it was received in Geneva but not settled without disputes and clashings betwixt the consistory and the magistrate 342 Chap. XXXII A continuation of the History of excommunication in France the Low-Countreys Scotland the Palatinate How it came to pass that amongst reformed states the Scottish ecclesiasticall jurisdiction ascended to such a height What plea the reformed churches in France have for excommunication That it is more justifiable among them then in churches under an orthodox magistrate 353 Chap. XXXIII The judgement of some
not trouble the reader with many quotations Yet to shew that this is no new doctrine I might produce some famous Romish authors who thought no lesse in the darkest times of ignorance for so Claude Fauchet hath left written a famous Historian and a Papist in his book of the liberties of the Gallicane church who out of Gregorie of Tours and the practise of his time proveth that the Kings of France were reputed heads of the church a title which many 100. years after was much found fault with in the Kings of England by the Romanists yea by some reformers He concludes his discourse thus which sheweth that the Bishops of that time did hold the King assisted by his counsell of State to be under God head on earth of the church in his Kingdom and not the Pope whom if they had looked on as the head they would have sent unto him the conclusion of the councill of Orleans and not to King Clovis So speaketh the author of the Review of the councill of Trent lib. 6. cap. 5. The ecclesiasticks in France do not hold their ecclesiastick jurisdiction from the Pope but from the King though the Iesuits teach otherwise CHAPTER VII The strength of Mr. Gillespies reasons to disprove that the magistrate is not chief governour of the church under Christ examined ALl that I have said doth sufficiently overthrow what Mr. Gillespie alledgeth for a double jurisdiction and against the magistrates being the chief governour of the church under Christ To make good that in a hundred places he doth much under value the magistrates power in sacred things namely p. 187. that the magistrate though Christian and godly doth not exnatura rei and in regard of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as mediator and King of the church In the next page The glory of Iesus Christ as mediatour and King of the church is not the end of magistracy And in the same page he saith that the end of magistracy is not godlinesse honesty but peace and quietnesse Pag. 235. he saith the magistrate is not to rule in the name of Christ Pag. 250. he saith the magistrate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate but as a Christian In the 294. page the civil magistrate is Gods viceregent not Christs and ibid. If the magistrate be supreme head and governour of the church under Christ then the ministers of the church are the magistrates ministers as well as Christs and must act in the magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the magistrate shall be Christs minister and act in Christs name By all this he declareth his opinion more then he proveth it But to elude whatever strength this carries I further adde that God maketh use of two main instruments to promote and advance the Kingdom of Christ as mediatour 1. The first is the sacred function wholly set a part by God to preach the glad tidings of God reconciled to the world which function was first laid on Christ and then on the Apostles and the ministers of the Gospell who are embassadors and messengers of from Christ In this function there is no jurisdiction annexed but what the spirit in the word hath upon mens hearts for their conviction and conversion In the exercise of this function there is no law made by him that bears it but the law of the spirit no censure inflicted but on such as either willingly and not by constraint undergo it and chose whether they will or no or when it pleaseth God in judgement to afflict the despisers of Gods ministers ordinances This function I grant is not exercised in the magistrates name but Christs nor is it subordinate to him 2. The second thing servient if I may so speak and subservient to the promoting of the Kingdom of Christ is the magistrate and magistracy in as much as which I said before it cannot be that ministers and people assemble synods be called an outward government settled lawes published good men rewarded bad men punished heresies and hereticks rejected ministers maintained union preserved except ministers people synods be invested with a power of magistrate and magistracy These two as I suppose being undeniably true all Mr. Gillespies assertions above-mentioned will be found built upon the sand The magistrate having not the sacred function on him is no minister nor ambassadour of and from Christ neither doth the inward operative jurisdiction annexed to the sacred function arise from magistracy ex natura rei In that regard the minister preaching the Gospell and exercising his pastorall function is not the magistrates minister but Christs But as magistracy is the second necessary instrument which God employeth to promote the Kingdom of his Son in the world and for as much as it cannot be so much as imagined that magistracy is inherent in all pastors and assemblies of churches and synods no doubt but the ministers in that consideration may be called the magistrates ministers as both in the same respect are Christs ministers If Christs Kingdom cannot be nor ever was promoted without magistracy actually present and acting then the magistrate is a main minister of Christ in those acts Reverend and learned Mr. Lightfoot in his Harmony of the New Testament upon the 1 Cor. 5. clearly evinceth that church-officers cannot be so much as conceived to govern the churches without magistracy either assumed or delegated for having told us that every synagogue of the Jewes had magistracy within their own body judging betwixt party and party in matters of money Health damage yea inflicting corporall punishments he addeth all things well considered it may not be so monstrons as it seems to some to say it might very well be so in those times of Christian congregations for since as it might be shewed Christ and his Apostles in platforming the modell of Christian churches in those times did keep very close to the platform of synagogues and since the Romans in those times made no difference betwixt Iewes Iudaizing and Iewes that were turned Christians for as yet there was no persecution raised against Christianity why might not Christian congregations have and exercise their double function of ministry and magistracy in them as well as the Iewish synagogues and if that much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. should be interpreted according to such a rule it were neither irrationall nor improbable Here by the way one may see that in synagogues there were severall functions but one Imperium and jurisdiction which was that of magistracy 2. that the churches of Christians were modelled according to Iewish synagogues 3. that every church had both ministery and magistracy By this likewise down goeth what he saith that the magistrate though Christian and godly doth not in regard of his particular vocation intend the glory of Jesus Christ as mediatour and King of the church The main end as well as duty of magistracy is the care of religion and so of
publick judgement he had been a publican and a heathen not only to the offended party but to all others But Jesus Christ seemeth to a private offence and a private way of proceeding to give a private counsell how the party wronged ought to behave himself to wards the offender Learned Mr. Lightfoot thinketh that in all the context there is nothing intended either of Jewish or Christian excommunication that there was no judiciall sentence pronounced nor constraint put upon the offending party but only shame and that not publick but only within the walls of the synagogue or of the school As if a man would not provide for his family after a first and second admonition he was put to shame in the synagogue by these or like words Such a one is cruell and will not nourish his children 2. This makes way to know both what power that church in the Text had and what is meant by it Calvin upon the place hath some remarkable concessions much to our purpose 1. That Jesus Christ alluded to the custom of the Jewes and had respect to the form of discipline among them 2. That the power of excommunication belonged to the elders of the people who represented the church Which concessions are convincing arguments to prove 1. that Iesus Christ by the word Church did not mean an assembly of men whose power was distinct from that of the magistrate since no such thing as was called Church Kahal Gnedah in the old Testament was ever taken for an assembly of churchmen invested with jurisdiction and distinct from those of the Commonwealth 2. Since the elders of the Iewes were no more elders of the church then of the Commonwealth and that they had the sole power of excommunicating it followeth that the act of excommunicating was not more an act of church then of state and therefore if Christ speaking of the Christian excommunication alluded and had a regard to the custome of the Iewes that likewise their excommunication must be like that of the Iewes and be as well an act of magistracy as an act of the church Which is confirmed by what he faith upon the 18. verse speaking of the government of the church where he makes two kinds of elders in the Christian church answerable to two kinds of elders in the Iewish church Now as these were not invested with a power called ecclesiasticall distinct from the civil so may we conclude of the elders in the Christian church These be his words Legitimam Ecclesiae gubernationem presbyteris injunctam fulsse non tantum verbi ministris sed qui ex plebe morum censores illis adjunctierant But above all he is expresse upon the 17. verse where he saith that the Lord Iesus Christ in modelling the churches discipline sendeth them to the institution under the law admonuit in ecclesia sua tenendum esse ordinem qui pridem sub lege sancta institutus fuerat If we all stand to Calvin the quarrell is ended and the church Matth. 18. will prove such a church as was in Moses Ioshua and Davids time by which is never meant a congregation of Priests or church-elders distinct from the commonwealths elders So then we see even according to Calvin if Iesus Christ spoke in the context of a church Christian as I do not believe he did it must be a church of the same nature with the Iewish in which excommunication being an act of magistracy so must it also be in the Christian church But I do not believe that in this whole context there is any thing meant either of the Iewes or Christians excommunication or of such a church as our opposites would have to be understood by the word church viz. an ecclesiasticall senat or presbytery being certain that neither in the old nor in the new Testament the word church in Greek or Hebrew is taken in that sense Is it likely that Iesus Christ would mention a church that was never recorded in all the old Testament and whereof neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles speak Doubtlesse Christ speaketh here of such a church or assembly of men who were as Calvin saith Morum Censores censors of manners much used among the Iewes and Romans not invested with any judiciall power but yet of such authority and gravity that whoever did reject their wholesome advice and counsell was as much discredited as if he had suffered corporall punishment It may be those censors of manners were rectors and teachers of schools men who for their gravity and learning were highly esteemed among the people and such a school some say Christ and his Apostles made up much like those schools of the Prophets in use in Samuels time in which the scholars or young Prophets did sit at the feet of the Rabbies as Mary at the feet of Iesus who for that was called Rabbi-However those words if he neglect to hear the church do argue that the church spoken of in this context was not invested with a power of censuring the offender as Bilson and Sutliffe do judiciously conclude from the words For thus speaketh Dr. Sutliffe in his 9. chapter de presbyterio Christ speaketh of a church that had no power to constrain and which one might despise without insurring punishment for if it had had power to constrain in vain had he added if he will not hear the church for the church would have constrained him In short these words tell it unto the church are made like regula Lesbia a nose of wax by Papists Episcopall men and presbyterians it is to them a wood which if a thousand men go into none will fail to shape himself a stick a mallet or a hammer Bellarmin will tell us that tell it unto the church signifieth tell it unto the Romish church or tell it the Pope Mr. Gillespie will expound it tell it unto the presbytery Dr. Hammond tell it to the Bishops called by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not urge much the words let him be to thee an heat hen or a publican which if they do not make void excommunication I am sure they do not help it much seeing that neither a publican nor a heathen were the object or subject of excommunication I conceive that the true pataphrase of these words may be this and that this was the meaning of the Lord Jesus If the offender refusech all honest wayes to right thee then prosecute him in the court of the magistrate where heathens and publicans have their own judges deal with thy brother as if he were and as thou wouldst do with an heathen or a publican for since thou must now repute thy brother as to thee as an heathen or a publican and since thou wouldst not scruple to implead an heathen or a publican so neither must thou scruple to sue thy brother For sure neither Jesus Christ in this place nor St. Paul in the 1 Cor. ch 6. forbiddeth Saints to go to law against an heathen before an heathen
division of lawes into civil and ecclesiasticall and tells us how far lawes are to be called ecclesiasticall though they be in truth the magistrates lawes only because they are made by him for the good of the church for as properly saith he lawes may be called scholasticall and Academicall because they were made for the good and benefit of schools or Universities and so far and no further can it be allowed that lawes should be ecclesiasticall CHAPTER IV. Of the nature of judgement what judgement every private man hath what the magistrate and what ministers synods and church-judicatories They have no definitive judgement as Mr. Rutherfurd asserts but the magistrate hath the greatest share in de finitive judgements which is proved by some passages of Mr. Rutherfurd and of Pareus and Rivetus Who is the judge of controversies NOt to run over all the acceptions of judgement which I have handled in my Paraenesis I will mention but one that serveth to decide the whole controversie which lieth in a narrow room whether the magistrate or pastors assembled in a presbytery and synod or even private men be judges of controversies about faith and discipline Iudgement is an act by which every man endowed with reason or pretending to have any upon debating within himself and weighing things to be done or to be believed at length resolveth peremptorily what either he will do himself or will have others to do about things he conceiveth to be true just and usefull For to the nature of judgement it is not required that the thing that a man will do himself or will have others to do be true just and good it being enough that he apprehendeth them to be so I make two judgements one private the other publick The private I call judgement of discretion by which every one having weighed and debated within himself the truth equity goodnesse or â—sefulnesse of counsels advices commands doctrine and persons at length choseth and pitcheth rather upon this then that this judgement may be called judgement of knowledge and apprehension The publick judgement is the delivery of ones private judgement so far as concerneth others by which a man uttereth what he conceiveth fitting for others to do or believe This judgement in ministers presbyteries synods wise men counsellors physitians and others not invested with any jurisdiction and who have more authority then power is called advice counsell declaration when they deliver their sense meaning and opinion upon any debated subject concluding something which they conceive others are to embrace believe or practise In magistrates and men invested with jurisdiction both this publick judgement and the private have the same operation as in ministers synods counsellors and the like but over and above it causeth them to command what they conceived fitting to be received and practised By the publick judgement Pastors do what St. Austin saith Epist 48. to Vincentius pastoris est persuadere ad veritatem persuadendo pastors are to bring to truth by persuasion sed magistratus est cogendo but magistrates are to bring to it by constraint and by commanding From these publick judgements every private man is to appeal to his private judgement of discretion not yielding and giving his assent to the declarations canons sentences of ministers any further then by his judgement of discretion he conceiveth them to be true just and usefull not obeying actively the commands of the magistrate in case he conceiveth them by the same judgement of discretion to be against faith and good manners The staring thus and dividing of judgement decideth as I conceive all the questions and doubts arising about this subject and answereth all Mr. Râ—therfurds and Gillespies definitions and objections concerning judgement They make a fourfold judgement apprehensive discretive definitive and infallible which belongeth only to Jesus Christ The definitive they say is proper to ministers and church-judicatories But they forget the main judgement which giveth life and force to all the rest and is the magistrates when he bringeth to execution things well debated by the judgement of declaration and approved of by the judgement of discretion In that division of theirs they also commit two great errors 1. That they make of one judgement two for to the judgement of discretion they adde a judgement of apprehension which differs only in degrees from the other and were these judgements distinct yet they go alwaies together and are alwaies in the same person and do belong to the private judgement 2. They ascribe a definitive judgement to pastors and church-judicatories which they themselves had need to explain what they mean by for 1. must every private man stand to it and not appeal from it to his judgement of discretion 2. if they do not stand to it what inconvenience harm or danger or worse consequence can befall him then any one that despiseth good counsell or advice which put no obligation except they be reduced into lawes and commands by the magistrate 3. must the magistrate adhere to that definitive judgement and command them without debating within himself whether those definitions be agreable with his own publick or private judgement which indeed is to make of him an executioner If he must not stand to the definitions of pastors and synods but rather they must stand to what he conceiveth most fitting then it is evident that that judgement of pastors called by them definitive is of no validity and hath need to take another name since neither magistrate nor private men are obliged to stand to it except they be convinced that it is reasonable and that its definitions are true just and usefull The evidence of this truth about judgement is so clear that Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are unwares carried sometimes to deliver the substance of what we said before I will alledge but two passages out of Mr. Rutherfurds book of the divine right of church-government for there he overthroweth his definitive judgement of pastors or church-judicatories and setteth above it not only the judgement of the magistrate but also that of every private man for sure that definitive judgement that may be reversed and rejected without any redresse by the ministers cannot be of any weight or validity The first passage is ch 25. quest 21. p. 668. The magistrate is not more tyed to the judgement of a synod or church then any private man is tyed to his practise The tye in discipline and in all synodicall acts and determinations is here as it is in preaching the word the tye is secondary conditionall with limitation so far forth as it agreeth with the word not absolutely obliging not Papal qua nor because commanded or because determined by the church and such as magistrates and all Christians may reject when contrary to or not warranted by the word of God If such words had faln from Grotius or Mr. Coleman they would have been branded for rank Erastianisme If all the presbyterians will but put their names with
Christian religion his aime is and ought to be not so much peace and quietnesse as godlinesse and honesty Must a magistrate hide his power which is his talent in a napkin were not Adam Abraham Isaac and Jacob by their paternall magistraticall power tyed to promote Gods true worship It is very strange doctrine when he saith p. 189. that the end of an ecclesiasticall sentence as delivering to Satan is that men may learn not to blaspheme but the end of the magistrate in punishing blasphemers is only that justice may be done according to law and that peace and good order may be maintained A rank papist could hardly speak more crudely Ought not this to be the end of the magistrate in punishing transgressours if it be not by death that they may change their lives and be better then they were Were not reformation of life the end for which a blasphemer is punished but only peace and quietnesse the magistrate might as well let him go unpunished if he can but obtain his end which as Mr. Gillespie saith is peace and quietnesse which hath been often obtained when no blasphemers were punished It is observed that in Augustus time there was for 12. years through all the Roman Empire peace and quietnesse though the life of all his subjects were a perpetuall blasphemy against God But I pray how can Christs church be ruled by magistracy except it be in the name of Christ promote the interest of Jesus Christ and ayme at the glory of Jesus Christ When he saith that the magiâ—…rate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate but as a Christian and that he governs not as a Christian but as a magistrate I confesse I understand not why I may not say as well that a pastor is not a member of a church as pastor but as a Christian for there be in the church as well Balaams and false teachers as persecuting magistrates Why may I not say that a father is not to teach the fear of the Lord to his son as a father but as a Christian for the magistrate is not to rule and order affairs of the church as a Christian but as a magistrate otherwise a Christian without the office of magistracy might do the like How can the duty about the exercise of a power be divided from the power it self as that a magistrate should be by his duty of magistracy keeper of both tables and yet should have no power given from God for the keeping of these tables But which is most al surd how can the keeping of the two tables under the Gospell be separate from the keeping of the doctrine and discipline of the Gospell as that the magistrate should be keeper of one and the pastors of the other If the magistrate under the old Testament was keeper not only of the decalogue but also of the covenant of grace by which the people of Israel was distinguished from the rest of the world what hinders but he should be under the Gospells administration a keeper both of the law and Gospell except Mr. Gillespie say that the priests were keepers of the law whereof David speaketh in the 19 Psalme and the magistrate keeper of the two tables given in mount Sinai As for the magistrates being a member of the church and therefore no head or governour of the church I believe he is as much lyable to submit and stoup his will to the commands of Christ in the ministery as the lowest in the congregation he must acknowledge his minister the better man as honoured with the highest function that ever was and which the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ took upon him But were all the ministers of the Gospell as many Jesus Christs I would yield unto them all alike jurisdiction over the wills and minds of men but deny them an externall coercive judiciall power over their bodies estates liberties c. CHAPTER VIII Mr. Gillespies manifest contradictions in stating the magistrates power in matters of Religion BUt I will plainly shew that in this matter Mr. Gillespie doth manifestly contradict himself and stands on no sure ground for what he hath taken from the magistrate in some places in others he restoreth to him In some he grants as much to the magistrate as if he had been another Erastus in others he gives him nothing at all and makes ecclesiasticall and civil jurisdiction to be res disparatae or things as much different as wisedome and a candlestick being of severall classes and predicaments so that one hath nothing to meddle with the other Thus pag. 253. these be his words We deny that in a well-constituted church it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the magistrate either to receive appeals properly so called from the sentence of an ecclesiasticall court or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by that party censured so as by his authority upon such a complaint to nullify or make void the ecclesiasticall censure This indeed is imperium in imperio a jurisdiction within a jurisdiction and independent from it Mr. Gillespie would not have a man to appeal from the presbytery or synod or make complaints to the magistrate nor a magistrate to receive the complaints but he is contented that the magistrate should act the part of an executioner in compelling the party censured to submit to the church-censure which indeed is a most ungodly and tyrannicall proceeding like that of Pope Julius the 2. who would have King Lewis the 12. to execute the sentence against the Waldenses by destroying them by the sword and burning their cities without taking any cognizance of the fact And since all church-censures do signify just nothing without a power of magistracy giving its sanction for effectuating the sentence of the church here if we believe Mr. Gillespie the pastor is like the intellect and the magistrate the will this following with a blind obedience the dictates of that But who shall judge when the church is well constituted that then the magistrate may not receive complaints and appeals and may not sometimes wrong proceedings und unjust sentences passe in a well-constituted church so long as a church never so pure is not infallible and on the contrary may not an unsettled church be very just in their censures why then should it be more agreeable to the will of Christ to receive appeals from a just sentence in an unsettled church then from an unjust one when the church is well-constituted But when was ever such a well-constituted church unerring in their judgement as all appeals from their judgement to another should be unlawfull was or is that church well-constituted that either ever clashed with magistracy or was divided in it self as now it is Now we shall find Mr. Gillespie playing two other parts under the one he ascribeth to the magistrate as much as ever they challenged under the other vizard he chalks a middle way of magistrates power in sacred things
handled in a forinsecall court as well as buying and selling which are no forinsecall acts as excommunicating is Thus Mr. Calandrin sees 1. that it is very consistent that a thing or action be done in the forum externum and yet not be an act or action of that forum 2. that preaching need not to be an action of that forum for that it is performed outwardly as well as excommunication It may be for I have not now my Paraenesis by me I referred the preaching of the Gospell to the forum internum or the court of conscience which I did not in regard of the outward act but of the preaching to the heart and of the operation of outward preaching as believing loving trusting all which are performed in the court of conscience This serves for answer to what he saith next If the key of the word for all it hath externall acts may neverthelesse belong to the forum internum why may not the key of censure as well since both are alike in relation to the soul and the inward man The handling of the key of the word as it is outwardly pronounced is an act not of jurisdiction but of function performed in the forum externum but as it is a preaching to the heart it is an act performed in the forum internum or the court of conscience but the handling of the key of censure is an act of jurisdiction over the outward man however the inward man be affected and compelling to an outward obedience and therefore belongeth not to the forum internum in which such acts as preaching to the heart loving believing denying ones self are performed What he saith that both the key of the word and of censure have relation to the soul and the inward man proveth not that excommunication is not an externall act of an externall jurisdiction For an act of outward jurisdiction in the forum externum may produce a good effect in the forum internum even in the soul of a man such effect may excommunicationbring forth though it be an act of magistracy and outward jurisdiction so may the laying hold of a malefactour and the sentence of the magistrate pass't upon him be a soveraign remedy for the salvation of his soul and be neverthelesse an act of magistracy of the forum externum In short there being but two courts conceivable one externall the other internall this of the conscience the other of magistracy I know no medium between them two no more then betwixt command and counsell and betwixt the power of the word and the power of the sword CHAPTER XII Of the nature of calling to the ministery Ministers are not called by men but by God by a succession not of ordination but providence The plea for succession is Romanish Ministers are no successours in their ministery to the Iudaicall Priests but to the Prophets SInce no religion can stand without a church and meetings of Christians about Divine worship and no church without government and no government without governours which the Rever Assembly calls church-officers and no governours without a commanding power and a rule to govern others by it will be requisite to enquire into four things 1. the calling of the church-officers 2. the extent of their power and of the obedience due to them 3. whether all church-officers are invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing as the Rever Assembly seemeth to say 4. by what rule and discipline they are to govern For the calling of ministers I have handled that subject at large in my Paraenesis I make the calling to be as much of divine authority as the reverend Ministers of London do in their jus Divinum of the ministery yea more holding that they have no call from men but from God immediatly that their mission is from Christ and the Apostles that all the acts of church-ministers people and magistrate about receiving a minister are not to send him but to acknowledge Gods call and mission and publickly to declare their willingnesse and readinesse to accept of his ministery among them for all these following acts are necessarily to be supposed before a man be acknowledged a Minister of the Gospell and set apart by God for the great work of saving souls 1. The acts of his internall calling or rather his disposition which are a strong desire and resolution to consecrate his life time and studies that he may be a minister of the Gospell and a persuasion that he is by God thereunto called 2. The acts which doe make up his externall calling and by which men acknowledge Gods call are 1. an examen by a competent number of grave pious and learned ministers of him that intends to take the ministery upon himself of his parts abilities learning doctrine also of his life and conversation which they must testifie publickly whereby it may appear to all that they hold him every way fit to labour in the word and doctrine 2. The election of a particular church requiring his pains amongst them and desiring him to be their ordinary pastor and teacher to administer unto them the ordinances of the word and sacraments This act though it hath much of humane right and seemeth to depend on mans will and choice yet in a right-constituted church and in an assembly of good men met in the name of Christ there is much of Gods call concurring with the choice made by men Thus Ezech. 33. at the beginning God declareth by his Prophet that whatever watchman the people should chuse he would repute that choice to be his act in that he would punish those that should slight the admonitions of the watchman and did not take them for Gods warnings and would take an account of the watchman for his failing in the care of mens souls Which place of Ezechiel doth much confirm what I have said chapt 2. of the nature of right where I shewed that things that are of Divine right may be said also to be of humane right and things that are of humane right to be also of Divine right This observation I have from my precious and learned friend Mr. Sadler and much might a man say upon it to shew that as in the administration of the church of the Jewes so in that of the Christians Divine and humane right government lawes injunctions commands go along together without needing to be parted into two coordinate distinct classes of jurisdiction the one ecclesiasticall distinct and independent from the other which they call civil One may also thereby see that much labour is lost in asserting the jus Divinum of the ministery as if it had nothing of humane right or as if a call from men were not also a Divine call For if magistrate and people should chuse themselves a watchman over their own souls to divide the word unto them why should not this act be reputed a Divine choice and a Divine installing in the call as well as the choice of the
commandeth the gift the other charity and a disposition sutable to the giver The magistrate setteth a day of humiliation but the pastor commandeth the setting of the heart apart from the world All this serves to answer all the arguments of Mr. Gillespie drawn from one and twenty places of Scripture in the belief of his ecclesiasticall jurisdiction The place 1 Tim. 5. v. 19. against an elder c. he much urgeth but the following verse sheweth that in that context there is no mention of a church-judicatory where men are convented witnesses confronted and heard and a judiciall sentence pronounced It is the duty of pastors to reprove sin and sinners privately if the offence be private and publickly and in an open assembly if the sin be committed in the face of the church and to the scandall of all and yet S. Paul giveth a good caveat that the pastor of the church should not lightly ayme at and point at any man specially an elder and give credit to rumours but be throughly informed This rebuke is no excommunication nor a denouncing of church censure but of the judgements of God But were there any such thing in St. Pauls time as a church-judicatory judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot will tell Mr. Gillespie that it were no inconveniency to say that even in St. Pauls time Christian churches being modelled after the platform of Jewish synagogues besides ministery in them had also magistracy and that it were neither improbable nor irrationall to interpret the place 1 Tim. 5. v. 17. according to that rule See him on the 5. of the 1. Cor. in his Harmony Which being granted the 19. verse will very well admit the same interpretation But let us take a generall view of all the 21. arguments of Mr. Gillespie If it be possible for any man to make something of nothing Mr. Gillespie hath that art for he thinks all is fish that comes to his net like the Papists who if they do but read of fire of a pot of a valley of a ditch it is enough for them there to find purgatory Thus Mr. Gillespie where he findeth the words reject rebuke beware take heed flee note put away withdraw weapon sword there he will be sure to have presbyteriall jurisdiction and power of excommunicating Who would think that Galat. 5. v. 12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you could serve his turn and yet he bestows three pages in striking excommunication out of this flint That noble passage 2 Cor. 10. 4 c. where the spirituall weapons are lively set out he understandeth of excommunication p. 292. and in verse 6. and having in readinesse to revenge all disobedience he findeth ecclesiasticall power and censure no lesse then that of excommunication But of all places I much wonder he can paraphrase 2 Cor. 2. 8. for ecclesiasticall power and excommunication I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him that is as Mr. Gillespie expoundeth p. 290. I beseech you to shew your judiciall power in absolving the incestuous man from the sentence of excommunication Of the same weight is that proof of ecclesiasticall power and excommunication out of Revel 2. v. 14. and 20. where he saith the church of Pergamus is censured for not censuring that is for not excommunicating the woman Jezebel T is a wonder he doth not make the very censuring of the church of Pergamus to be excommunication Such proofs sometimes fall from the most eminent of them as when the Rever Assembly to prove a government of church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate alledgeth in the margin Esaias 9. v. 6 7. meerly because the word government is there mentioned for without that the place that speaketh of Gog and Magog had been as valid an argument for a church-government and for excommunication as that of Esaias where it is meerly intended to describe the Godhead of Christ the assumption of humane nature and 〈◊〉 gloriousnesse and strength of his spirituall and mysticall kingdom Yet trust I needs say thus much of the reverend Assembly that in grounding the government of church-officers upon that place of Esaias they have followed the sense of all their presbyterian brethren who making two powers of the keyes one of science of which Jesus Christ speaks Luc. 11. v. 52. and another of authority under which they comprehend the power of censuring excommunicating and making lawes authoritatively they have no other authority for it then this place of Esaias and another Apocaly p. 3. 7. where Christ is said to have the key of David with which as he openeth no man shutteth so he shutteth no man openeth which place in my opinion is no stronger a plea for an ecclesiasticall and externall government placed in the hands of church officers then the place of Esaias alledged by the Rever Assembly for this place as well as the other as Beza noteth upon Revel 3. 7. speaketh of the mysticall Kingdom of Christ that hath no end of which Luc. 1. v. 32. 33. but of this power in the hands of church-officers we are to speak in the ensuing chapter CHAPTER XIV That the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are not committed to all church-officers but to the ministers of the Gospell only IN the third place we are to take notice that the Rever Assembly doth not declare nor Mr. Gillespie what they mean by church-officers whether the dispencers of the word and Sacraments only or with them the lay-elders deacons for they invest them promiscuously with the power of the keyes of binding and loosing and of remitting and retaining sins against the opinion of Amyraldus Walaeus Apollonius and most of the presbyterians who attribute the power of the keyes only to ministers ordained as indeed it doth not belong to any others to preach and to administer the sacraments Therefore one would have expected the assembly should make some distinction both of officers and power It may be by the word respectively they meant that a part of the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing doth belong to lay-elders as far as concerneth governing and censuring but to the ministers belongeth not only the same portion of power common to lay-elders but over and above the power of preaching administring the sacraments voting in synods and determining authoritatively of controversies of faith But how can they make good by the Scripture that lay-elders are invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing since this power was bequeathed only to Peter and with him to all the ministers of the Gospell as ambassadors from Christ to whom God hath committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. v. 19 20 Is there any mention in the Scripture of church-officers that have a power of the keyes and of binding and loosing and yet have not the word of reconciliation committed to them I cannot deny but that God sometimes maketh use of private men to bind and to loose
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
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
respect the pastor others the fellow-members Those that respect the pastor or pastors are to maintain observe respect and honour them first for their callings sake looking upon them as Ambassadours from Christ and then for their work and the word that they bear to receive their commands as commands of Christ and yet not with a blind obedience but first being perswaded and convinced yea judging them by the judgement of spirituall men and by a judgement of discretion and approbation proving the pastors doctrine though it came out of another St. Pauls mouth The acts and duties of church-members as such one towards another are to love edifie forbear and submit one to another But a main act of a church-member as such is not to submit his own reason to the number of his fellow-members in assenting to or dissenting from such a doctrine act or law made by them but to the weight and to what he by his reason inlightened by the word conceiveth to be most good true just and reasonable yet for conformity sake and mutuall edification yielding as far as he may The acts of the power of the church by a naturall divine politick civil right not as they are Christians or church-members but as they are a society of men endowed with humane prudence freedom of body and mind and have discretion as to govern themselves and their private families so to contribute their advice and help towards the government of any society of men whereof they are members these acts I say are common to all other societies as to a company a hall a corporation a colledge or school these acts are to do all things orderly to chuse their own church-officers that orders made by the major part of the society shall oblige the minor dissenting part to chuse time and place of meeting to admit or reject such officers or members as the major part of the members shall think fit that each member shall stand to any order of the discipline once consented unto by him till the order be reversed by the consent of the major part All these acts are to be guided not only by the light of reason and common prudence but chiefly by that measure of light of grace or faith that God hath imparted to every church-member which light being not known but to him that hath received it and the springs and motives which induce each member of a church-society rather to be of this then of that judgement in ordering and governing the society being unknown to the universality of the society therefore church-members are to be governed as the members of any other society by the dictate of men as men and not as Christians submitting either actively or passively to an order and law because it is an order and law not because it is good and reasonable It is better in such things as they say that a mischief should happen then an inconvenience for if one member though alone in the right should dissent from the rest of his fellow-members no man but will judge that it is much better that this one dissenting member should submit to that which is wrong either by acting or suffering then that all proceedings for order and discipline should be stayed Were no law valid but to him that thinketh it so the world would be in a strange confusion So then an assembly of Christians being a society of men and a Christian having the face like a lawyer a physitian or a merchant and nothing being seen but the out-side they must be all governed by the same dictate which appeareth prima fronte to be reason to a man considered as a man and not as he is a Christian lawyer or physitian And as Dionysius governed his Kingdom and school by the same dictates of reason so must a society of merchants a colledge of physitians a family and so a society of Christians Of these two kinds of acts as every society hath one proper to it self as it is a society of merchants physitians lawyers Christians so one kind of these acts is common to all as they are equally a society of men that must have a government and magistracy set up within themselves and so must a society of Christians meeting about the worship of God have But to make it evident that all church-acts are not acts of men as church-members but as members of a society and not as Christians but as invested with magistracy either assumed by a confederate discipline or delegated I might instance the like necessity of two kinds of acts in all societies of men that can be imagined not considered as Christians For example these two kinds of acts will be found in a colledge of physitians who as physitians joyn in consultation upon a case propounded to them send bills to their apothecaries examine and judge of the worth of those that are candidates or have license to practise physick discourse of their art either asunder or in a body as in a consultation but as a society of men invested with jurisdiction and magistracy they chuse a president censors and officers they make choise of time and place to sit they do all things orderly they admit or expell members they give authority and license to practise physick they bind themselves to stand to those orders that are made by the major part of their fellows which act is no act of physitians as physitians but a dictate of any other society who usually take that for a law of the society that hath passed by the major part of their members By this by the way we see what plea synods except they be infallible as the synod of the Apostles was can have for making decrees and canons by an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction it being in truth no other then what is assumed by all societies whose orders do passe for lawes as to themselves if made by the major part of their members But some of our brethren will interpose and say that if the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed a set rule for governing of particular churches as some of them are of opinion and this rule be not arbitrary nor left to the dictate of mens common reason prudence then it followeth that those acts for taking care that those set rules of Christ for government be according to the mind of Christ are duties of church-members as such and not as members of a society To this I answer were it so that the Lord Jesus Christ had appointed an exact and expresse rule for government in particular churches I confess that those acts to see the mind of Christ fulfilled are acts of church-members as such so far as both pastor and members do act in obedience to God and not unto men not by constraint but willingly for so the preaching and hearing of the word are to be performed by church-members as such but these same acts specially about government as far as they are commanded and imposed and require externall obedience and that the
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
visible church since this presbytery must have a president and overseer why may not this overseer be called Bishop if Bishop why not Pope who in reference to his cardinall-consistory is the same as this Arch-president is related to his presbytery both being over the whole catholick church 3. The Lord Jesus Christ hath stated what number may constitute a private church for where two or three are gathered in his name he hath promised to be in the midst of them and whatever number of men shall meet in one place with one accord in a church-way to hear the word it may be denominated a church and have warrant from Christ to be so called But our brethren cannot shew us that all the private churches of Scotland under one presbytery can be called properly a church being rather a politicall and prudentiall consociation and could they shew us that such an aggregation is of the institution of Christ how can they disprove but that all the private churches in the world may be likewise by the institution of Christ under one presbytery 4. It being then equally the institution of Christ that 100000. yea all the churches of the world as well as four or five thousand for so many may be in Scotland should be under one presbytery were such a presbytery not over all the churches of the world but only over all the churches of France Scotland and Holland and invested with judiciall power from Christ to make lawes authoritatively to excommunicate to exauctorate and inflict censures without any appeal then this would be such an Imperium in imperto a jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of others as our brethren the Scots have raised within the dominion and jurisdiction of the magist rate of Scotland Such a presbytery no doubt might excommunicate as well one of the States of the United Provinces as once the presbytery of Scotland did the Marquesse of Huntley who 8. years after viz. in the year 1616. was released from that excommunication by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England for which I believe he had as good warrant from Jesus Christ as the presbytery of Scotland had when they excommunicated him and so both might by the like warrant excommunicate or absolve any man sentenced in the church of the Abyssins And therefore it cannot be thought so monstrous a thing in the Pope and his Conclave to excommunicate the Emperour of Germany and the King of France as they often have done it being certain that a presbytery in Scotland hath no greater jurisdiction over one of the subjects of the magistrate of Scotland then the Pope hath over the King of the Romans 5. A thing very considerable it is that the holy Scripture as it often by the word church understandeth a particular church so sometimes as 1 Corinth 11. v. 22. it meaneth the place where a particular church is assembled but the Scripture as it never means by the word church the place that containeth a nationall presbyterian church so neither the nationall church it self 6. It is no lesse considerable that a true visible church is not circumscribed by the jurisdiction of the magistrate except that church be also the Commonwealth and that he that is head of the church be also head of the Commonwealth as it was with the people of Israel for members of a particular church need not be dwellers in the same jurisdiction it being ordinary beyond seas for particular churches to be made up of members dwelling in severall dominions in the confines of Geneva Savoy Burgundie France 7. But is there any command or institution of Christ that no more churches or so many churches as are within one magistrates jurisdiction should be united under one presbytery and that that presbytery power of the keyes and of binding and loosing should be bounded by the limits of the magistrates territory If their power doth extend as far as heaven no doubt it cannot be bounded by the limits of any earthly Prince 8. This aggregation of many private churches under one presbytery is either voluntary or commanded by God If commanded let our brethren bring us any passage of Scripture prescribing a certain measure of judiciary power of the presbytery over private churches If it be free and voluntary and every private church may without violation of divine prescript either associate or not associate then those churches cannot be blamed if they forbear to associate under one presbytery and in case they should associate if they be their own carvers and do not enstive their liberty to a power that is not of their own tempering and moulding It is true a woman hath no tye to marry no more then a private church to associate she hath that liberty either to subject her self to the power of a husband or remain single but she cannot either before or after she is married put what condition she pleaseth to the power of a husband It is not so with private churches who have no set rule of obedience due to the power of an ecclesiasticall judicatory 8. That this power of presbytery over many particular churches is a power of magistracy either assumed by common consent or delegated from the civil magistrate may be proved in that under the heathen Emperours it was a power of consent every particular church reserving to it self such a measure of power as they thought fit and that it was so we shall see God willing when we come to the history of the nature of the power that the Christian churches had under the heathen Emperours But under Christian Emperours no church-judicatory ever had any power but by commission from the magistrate as we shall likewise shew afterwards And the diversity of rites and customes of churches as in fasting keeping Easter using divers formes of liturgies forbidding of appeals from Africa to Rome though all these churches were under the magistrates jurisdiction doth shew that as the supreme magistrate permitted many countreys to enjoy their customs municipall lawes so did he the like for rites and ceremonies which every church took up as they liked best Which is an argument that there was not such a power as an ecclesiasticall presbytery binding all private churches to their constitutions and that every church was independent there being amongst them no other consociation but only that which consisted in a communion of the same faith and doctrine 9. As the intensivenesse of the power of a nationall church hath ever been and ought to be still so much as private churches were willing to yield for they alwayes reserved to themselves a full church-power taking the decrees and constitutions of other churches rather as examples and friendly advises so the extensivenesse of that power hath been alwayes limited by the bounds of the magistrate so that each church was more or lesse independent as the magistrate over them had a larger or narrower territory If so many Kings as Moses Josua did subdue should turn Christians so many independent
churches would there be even 33. for so many were overcome but should all these 33. Kings be subdued these 33. Churches would cease to be independent on each other and in stead of 33. churches depending each on their magistrate one nationall church should be moulded of the same extent of power as the magistrate that ruleth over them CHAPTER XXII That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren namely Salmasius Amyraldus and others have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches and so confuted rather their own fancies then invalidated the tenets of the brethren The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved That Amesius and Iohn Mestrezat late minister of Paris in their writings have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory THe spirits of men are now a little more calm and not so eager either at home or abroad and the quarrell not so fierce with the independents as it bath been these 15. years I having my self been a poor instrument to disabuse some of my country-men who partly by their misunderstanding paitly by the false reports and ill will of the common enemy to all goodness good men were possessed of very harsh opinions and conceits of them passed a strange censure upon them as enemies to all order and discipline and men of dangerous and pernicious tenets to all humane societies The very children amongst them did question whether they were shaped like other men Amyraldus made a great book of Invectives against them and turned them into Sodomites franticks and enemies of all order and discipline Salmasiâ—s and Maiesius were no lesse bitter against them A nationall synod net at Charenton where Amyraldus had a standing but no vote condemned them But as this synod condemned them as the councill of Trent did the Lutherans before they heard them so did all these authouâ—s I have named fall upon them without mercy before they had any particular knowledge of them or any certain information of their supposed pernicious manners Yet for all that those very men that wrote so much against them as they refuted rather their own fancies then any thing those they call independents believed so they did handle this matter of the nature and power of the church and that of the magistrate over it much to the advantage of those that they made as black as they could namely Amyraldus in declaring both his own sense and that of the ancient church next to the Apostles hath laid the same ground-work for the parity and independency of churches as the reverend brethren dissenting from the assembly of Divines have done He alledgeth Vignier a French authour writing above 70. years agone highly valued as the truest historiographer that ever put pen to paper by the most learned and pious Prelat Dr. Usher in his ecclesiasticall history relating the opinion of Irenaeus Eusebius and Nicephorus concerning the state of the government of the church soon after the Apostles The form of the government in this age was almost democraticall for every church had equall power to teach the word of God to administer the sacraments to absolve and excommunicate hereticks and those that led a d'ssolute life to elect to call and to ordain ministers to depose them when occasion required to erect schools to call synods to ask the opinion of others upon doubts and controver sies I find the centuriators of Magdeburg cent â— cap 7. to have these or equivalent words with little difference but that they wrote in Latin and Vignier in French Here then we may see our brethrens sense 1. that every particular church is independent free to govern it self and to exercise all church acts not rejecting a consociation with other churches but such as equals have among themselves 2. for the power of synods they acknowledge none nor judiciall authority only a liberty to admonish advise and counsell In the 8. chapter he hath a long passage whereof the drift is 1. that particular churches are no lesse free asunder then provinces and towns before they join in a confederation 2. that all aggregation and consociation is as free for churches as for free towns or cities 3. that a particular church for example that of Saumur considered as not united by any voluntary confederacy to other churches oweth the same duty of respect to the orders and constitutions of the churches of Leyden Heydelberg and Basil as to to those of Paris or Rouen 4. that the power of synods over churches is of the same humane and civil right with the power of a judiciall senatover cities and towns Pag. 144. he hath these words The Church and the Commonwealth have some things that seem common and they may be almost alâ—ke managed both by ecclesiast call assemblâ—es and by the powâ—r of the magistrate How doth this agree with what we have heard him say that it were an horrible confusion for the church and state to be governed by the same men Pag. 198. and 199. he speaketh of the authority of synods in the language of our brethren It is true that the meer authority of councils ought not to move us to receive a point of religion the knowledge of the truth of the thing ought to be the chief motive and ground But we have him very expresly teaching his scholars and auditors at Saumur that the appellation of a true visible church doth properly belong to a particular church I shall cite his words Disp de ecclesiae nomine definitione thes 28. in English I know that a communion and as it were a confederation of many the like societies which are associated either by the same use of tongue or the same form of Commonwealth or else by the same government and discipline is called a particular church thus we speak of the French English and German churches as of particular churches to distinguish them from that universall society of Christians which comprehends all nations that bear the name of Christians but as we said before the word church is not proper to the society of all Christians as it is to the particular assemblies of Christians so that consequently we say that the word church is not to be said in the like manner of a consociation of many particular churches Let then that communion which is between the churches of France be said to be a church and that the church is a confederation of many churches for if taken according to the use of the holy Scripture St. Paul calleth the severall particular churches which were in Achaia not by the name of the church of Achaia or the Achaian church but of the churches of Achaia A passage very considerable which force of turth hath drawn from the mouth of the greatest enemy to the brethren for their greatest advocate could not say more in justification of what they have alwayes urged about the nature of the church but could never be heard till of late viz.
crime to appeal or repair about any matter to Jerusalem or attend at those solemn meetings enjoyned by the law of Moses three times in the year and every seventh year and therefore to keep themselves free from idolatry they frequented as much as they could those places of convocation as appeareth by a notable example 2 Kings 4. v. 22. For when the Sunamitish woman desired an asse to ride on to Elisha her husband told her wherefore will you go to him to day it is neither new moon nor sabbath The greatest part of these houses of convocation for some of them did not much alter from their first institution but remained schools and nothing else in processe of time did not properly degenerate but changed their nature and lasted longer thus then in their first institution and that begun from the time that they were led into captivity and so continued under the Babylonians Persians Grecians and then the Romans for whereas at first they needed no other discipline then the law of their nation which received vigour strength and protection from their own magistrate who was a friend and protectour of their law religion and liberty when afterwards they lived under those that were no good friends to their lawes and religion and yet were suffered to enjoy them both being dispersed they were fain to alter the frame of their assemblies and convocations and make of them so many little Commonwealths endowed with judiciall authority yet retaining still some prime face of a church or convocation and besides more mixture of ranks of men for not only Prophets were governours and members but also Priests Levites and elders of the people and all matters were handled as in a court of magistracy and yet reading and expounding of the law was not forgot as we see Act. 13. v. 27. and ch 15. v. 21. Nor was it grown out of use for scholars or young Prophets to sit at the feet of the Rabbins and receive instructions as St. Paul at the feet of Gamaliel Act. 22. v. 3. and Marie at the feet of the Lord Jesus or for the young Prophets to ask questions of the old as 1 Cor. 14. v. 29. And as the form and matter handled did alter so also the Prophets and teachers did change their names and were called Doctours Rabbies Lawyers Masters Scribes and Wise among the Jews And such were the synagogues in the time of Christ which Mr. Gillespie is not certain whether he ought to call churches or civil courts yet he is rather of opinion that before the 30. year of Christ when they had power to judge of capitall matters they were rather civil courts then churches but after the 30. year of Christ this judgement of causes for life and death being taken from them then they were to be called churches or ecclesiasticall assemblies Which is a very frivolous exception as ever was devised and sheweth the weaknesse of his cause For is a court more or lesse civil because it hath or hath not the judgement of capitall causes By that reason most courts in England should be ecclesiasticall as the court of Exchequer court Baron and court Let. But the nature of those convocations synagogues or particular churches of the Jews having been for many hundred years since they were carried first into captivity such that they were invested not only with a faculty to perform duties and acts of worship to God but also with a power of magistracy when a great many of them from synagogues of the Jewes were after turned into churches of Christians they retained the same constitution and qualification in performing church-duties and exercising power of magistracy which sometimes was assumed by the consent of the members sometimes delegated by the Emperours For as the Jewes began to be the first professours of Christian religion so the first churches were synagogues of the Jewes converted to Christian religion but yet before the conversion of an entire synagogue those that were Christians concealed themselves for fear of the rest and yet did not depart but when they were persecuted or thrust out of the synagogue So that some synagogues for some Christians that were among them were called churches as we may see if we compare Gal. 1. v. 13. with Act. 22. v. 19 for in one place St. Paul saith that he persecuted in every synagogue those that professed the name of Christ in the other that he did persecute the church And Act. 18. v. 19. it is like that either the greatest part or the whole synagogue was a Christian church though it retained still the name of a synagogue And no doubt at Antioch the whole synagogue professed Christ since they durst openly take the name of Christians But the words of Christ Iohn 16. v. 2. they shall put you out of the synagogue shew that syâ—agogues of the Iewes should become Christian churches and that those that professed the name of Christ or at least believed in him secretly for fear of the Iewes were not to depart that by their means the whole synagogue might be wonne and therefore the Lord Iesus Christ takes this expulsion for an injury done to them in the foregoing verse These things have I spoken to you that ye be not offended Had not the Lord Iesus a mind to make of these synagogues churches he would have bidden those that were Christians amongst them to flee from them and go from them as he biddes his people flee out of Babylon And indeed we do not read that Crispus chief ruler of the synagogue and other believing Iewes did forsake the synagogue or that when the whole synagogue was converted it did presently loose the name of a synagogue but kept it as we see Iames 2. v. 2. If there come into the synagogue and Hebr. 10. v. 22. The very heathens did not put a distinction for a good while betwixt Iewes Christians for Suetonius saith that Claudins did restrain the Iewes who by the impulsion of Christ did raise tumults So that in expelling the Iews the Christians were comprehended for it is said Act. 18. v. 2. that Aquila and Priscilla though Christians were commanded to depart from Rome And as the Christians suffered as Iewes so what priviledges they enjoyed it was a grant unto the Iewes and as in the 9. of Claudius the Iewes and with them the Christians were banished so in the first year of his Empire the same liberty that was granted unto the Iews did also belong to the Christians So then the synagogues were the first origine and platform of Christian churches and after those synagogues the gentils converted did modell their churches retaining the same power of magistracy as the synagogues had as Mr. Lightfoot doth very well observe yea in their way of teaching following the Prophets in their synagogues which were also schools of learning as namely when they spoke by turns and the younger Prophets submitted to the judgements of the elder 1 Cor. 14. v. 29 30 c.
Therefore since the churches of the Christians were but synagogues changing somewhat the doctrine but not at all the discipline we must conceive of all churches and their acts of power as of synagogues and of church-excommunication as of Jewish excommunication or putting out of the synagogue that of Christians being no more a law or ordinance of Christ then that of the Iews was a law and ordinance of Moses for neither of them was For it never came to be in use among the Iewes till they took it up upon the want of their own judges and magistrates by consent and by a confederate discipline in â—eâ— of magistracy The Christians imitatours of the Iewes and who had the law and the covenants yea the Lord Iesus Christ from them did also take up excommunication upon the same grounds as they did Bullingerus in an Epistle to Dathenus an 1531. tells us it was thought so by Zwinglius the Apostles lived under a heathenish magistrate who yet did not punish wicked actions but that the church might inflâ—ct some kind of penalty they took up admonâ—tion and exclusion because they could not make use of the sword which was not committed to them and this was the cause of bringing in excommunication Now that the Christian magistrate may punish wicked deeds there is no further need of excommunication CHAPTER XXIV That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline or a power of magistracy as the synagogues were appointing men which Ambrose calls elders to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance This practise is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1 2 c. and confirmed by Origen Iustin Martyr Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperours with some alteration they erecting in lieu of them Episcopall courts That all church-power was the Emperours power That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them HAving hitherto made good that there is no such thing as a government in the hands of church-officeâ—s distinct from that of the magistâ—…e and proved the nullity of that distinction 〈…〉 â—…call civil jurisdiction by reason Scripture and the example of the Iewes it followeth we should prove that since the time that the 〈◊〉 church began whether under the hâ—… the â—or under Christian â—mperours it was not governed by a jurisdiction distinct from that of magiâ—…acy and that neither â—he hâ—…hen noâ— the Christian Emperours ever knew any 〈…〉 as an ecclesiasticall power not sub 〈…〉 to the magistrates power yea that the 〈…〉 did but in words challenge a power 〈…〉 from that of the magistrate and that 〈…〉 they made but one of two and acknowledged that it could not be so much as 〈◊〉 they should be exercised asunder and 〈…〉 reason that the learned of thâ—m as 〈◊〉 and others maintain that one of them 〈…〉 subordinate to the other erâ—ing onâ—… 〈◊〉 that they subordinate â—…e civil to the 〈…〉 〈…〉 then being converted into 〈…〉 churches and also turned over to 〈…〉 same jurisdiction of confederate 〈…〉 power of magistracy assumed by 〈…〉 the members of each synagogue yet 〈…〉 â—ewish synagogues had been alwayes 〈…〉 â—ccuted and had enjoyed their confeâ—… dâ—…cipline for the most part by edicts from 〈…〉 magistrate under which they lived that was the reason that they bad a greater measure of freedom to exâ—… their confedâ—… are â—…cipline and acts of coercive a◠〈…〉 dicall â—…wer over all persons of their own body and religion and in all causes except in causes capitall and the medling with any thing whereby to free themselves from paying taxes 〈◊〉 But the Christian churches though moâ—…ed after the pattern of the Iewish synagegues being continually either under perseâ—…oâ—… or in rear of it could not put forth those acts of coercive â—…risdiction unlesse it were a putting â—ut of the congregation which thing may be done without much noise but inflicting bâ—dly or pâ—cuâ—iaâ—y punishment could not â—e wâ—…l made use of without discovering too much and laying themselves open to persecution Besides that the members of Christian churches being not members of the same notion and therefore led by the only interest of and love to religion a coercâ—…e jurisdiction was nothing so necessary nor was it any thing so frequent to put out of churches as out of synagogues so that the differences between church members being rather differences in their judgements then any want of chariâ—… that magistracy assunted at first by the syâ—agogues when afterwards it was devolved to the Christian churches looked rather like an aâ—…trators judgement and counsell Yet still by that modified magistracy they decided and composed not only matters of faith but also all differences in matter of wrong either in goods mony or good name between brother and brother setting over besides the most eminent that laboured in the word and doctrine some of lesse eminency among them to decide differences and controversies of another nature And no doubt but St. Paul points at this practise 1 Cor. 6. vers 1 2 3 4 5 6. and 7. a notable place which yet was never pressed to the utmost meaning For 1. St. Paul there enjoyneth the Corinthians rather then to go to law to appoint some men besides those that labour in the word to decide all matters that one man might have against another 2. He giveth the same measure of power in settling matters of religion or faith and in composing differences that are usually judged in the magistrates court for learned Diodati by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 matter or businesse saith we must understand civil businesse and the Dutch Annotations say that this matter is worldly businesse So that St. Paul makes the church-power no more ecclesiasticall then civil for the same confederate discipline gave power to ministers to preach and administer the sacraments as did to chosen men of their body to compose friendly by their wisdome and authority such differences as are usually the matter of all courts of magistracy 3. The words of the Apostle Do ye not know that the saâ—nts shall judge the world I conceive to be equivalent to these Seeing ye do now live under a heathen and persecuting magistrate and yet there arise such contentions and debates amongst you as are judged for the most part in secular courts with the breach of charity and losse of time and mony specially the judges being no friends to your persons and religion your best way is to have them taken up friendly by Christian arbitrators of your own churches untill God at length after you have long suffered be pleased to set over you a Christian magistrate to whom you may repair when such differences arise amongst you It is observable that the holy Apostle when he saith is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you c. and set them to judge who are least esteemed speaketh ironically implying that were there no
wise men amongst you such as you must appoint yet the matter they are set over is not so knotty and hard but that men the least esteemed amongst you so that they were honest men might well understand and decide it Reverend Mr. Lightfoot upon the closure of the fifth chapter and the beginning of the sixth of the first to the Corinthians is of opinion that this is the meaning of that place these be his words Afterwards to take the Corinthians off from going to infidel judges he requireth them to decide the matter themselves till the time come that the saints shall judge the world that is till the time come that there shall be a Christian magistracy Origen upon the 21. of Exodus Homil. 11. makes it clear that this is the meaning of the Apostle by telling us the practise of churches in his time Principes populi presbyteri plebis debent omni hora populum judicarc semper sine intermissione sedere in judicio dirimere lites reconciliare dissidentes in gratiam recordare discordes The heads and elders of the people ought every hour to judge the people alwayes and without intermission to sit in judgement decide controversies reconcile those that have differences and make those friends that are at variance Here is magistracy assumed by church-members when by their consent elders and wise men are appointed to take up such differences in a friendly way and such controversies betwixt brother brother as otherwise were to be adjudged before secular judges I should ask here our presbyterian brethren by what power ecclesiasticall or civil were from metters decided and judged in Origens time and in case by that assumed power of magâ—…acy any one had been either put by from the communion or put out of the assembly what needed he to have recourse to the ecclesiasticall power when the other power was sufficient to have doâ—… it yea when the ecclesiasticall power could never do it without a power of magistracy These be the words of Anton. de Dominis lib. 5. cap. 2. without a lay-power we can doe nothing we cannot by our ecclesiasticall power put out take off and expell The same Origen in his 1. book against Celsus speaketh of that magistracy assumed by consent and mutuall agreement called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be some appointed to enquire into the manners and wayes of their living who frequent churches that so they may keep those off from coming into their assembly that stain their lives by foul and unworthy actions and admit with all readiness those that are otherwise and make them daily better Though by their power of magistracy assumed by consent they might put out any one that was already a church-member yet it seemeth it was not the settled practise in Origens time but only as to admit good men so not to receive into their society those that they did not know to be such No excommunication was then in use with him for as the admitting a good man into church-fellowship is no absolution so the not receiving a bad man into the church is no excommunication This is confirmed by Justin Martyr in his 2. Apologie where he saith No man else is permitted to receive that aliment called with us the Eucharist but he that believes our doctrine is true and hath been washed by the washing for remission of sins For there Justin speaketh not of church-members only he saith that heathens and unbaptised men are not to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist or to have any part in those mysteries Of the custome of excluding church-members I confesse we read in Tertullian and Cyprian answerable to the Niddui and Cherem of the Jewes Tertullian in the 2. chapter of his Apologetick speaketh of the like confederate discipline or power of magistracy taken up by consent and in the 39. chapter he maketh an enumeration of all the parts of that discipline I should now have done with Origen intending next to alledge Ambrose confirming what Origen saith concerning the practise of the church agreeable to the counsell and command of St. Paul only I will take notice farther from Origen of the face of the church in his time and of the power assumed then by the Christians Celsus a great Philosopher and enemy to the Christians did accuse them that they had a discipline quite different from the lawes of the Romans that they kept private conventicles and there had a particular secret covenant law and discipline no lesse repugnant to the lawes of the Emperour then if they had been in open rebellion And indeed even among the Grecians these private meetings were sometimes forbidden although the state were nothing concerned in them they being to no other end but to perform some religious service For Cornelius Nepos that Alcibiades was condemned to dye for performing some religious worship it may be sacrifice at his own house Origen answereth by alledging an example very fit to our purpose and applyable to the nature of the power that Christians and private churches do exercise under a persecuting magistrate He bringeth an example of a stranger living among the Scythians who must either conform himself to the ungodly lawes of that nation or be a law unto himself This same stranger saith Origen cannot be said to violate the lawes of the Scythians if he doth not worship Statues but doth privately worship the true God and in a right manner and if he be a law unto himself This is the case about the nature of the power exercised by churches and an answer to that so much urged objection that the Christian churches have been long without a magistrate therefore governed by a power distinct from that of the magistrate For 1. Origen implyeth that if the lawes of the Scythians had been good and tolerable that then this stranger had been obliged to obey them 2. The lawes of the magistrate being ungodly this stranger living in his dominion must do his best that he his family and adherents be a law and a magistrate unto themselves and perform by a dictate of conscience what the magistrate was to enjoin and command Here none will say that this stranger living among the Scythians governeth himself by a power distinct from that of the magistrate for so Philosophers and Mathematicians who were often forbidden in Rome and banished yet lurking in corners and having private conventicles might likewise be said to be governed by a power Philosophicall Mathematicall distinct from that of the magistrate and a sonne to whom God hath given the grace not to hearken to a bad father must not be said to govern himself by a power distinct from the paternall for indeed such a son is a father to himself The like may we say of private churches under a persecuting magistrate who are fain to settle a magistracy by consent of all the members of the churches as the synagogues were faign to be used when they lived under a magistrate that was
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
every society though never so much kept under and in awe can viz. expell any member of their society without giving an account of what they do herein to the magistrate And upon that account might the Corinthians very well expell the incestuous person which act should I hold to have been of the same nature with casting out of the synagogue I see not how any of my opposites could alledge any thing to the contrary But I believe the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles had no need to have recourse to that power of magistracy like that of the synagogues assumed by confederation of discipline For 1. In the first preaching of the Gospell there was lesse need of discipline because the number of pastors was greater then of church-members the great work of the ministery being laid upon every man and women converted were to strive to convert others 2. The Apostles and the disciples as Timothy Titus and others who were looked upon as secundary Apostles being conceived to be led by an infallible spirit the people in all controversies arising needed not go far to be resolved or take much time in discussing of them by overseers or elders set a part for that purpose 3. The gift of miracles striking a terrour supplied the place of a discipline therefore Bucer on the 16. of Matth. giveth us this reason why no externall power and jurisdiction was used in the time of Christ which serves also for the time of the Apostles these be his words No commonwealth can be governed without inflicting punishment upon the wicked What was wanting to the church in externall power the Lord Iesus did supply it by a miraculous and singular power and by speciall weapons and a sword called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. v. 10. But that extraordinary way of striking terrour into new converts by the power of miracles ceasing Christians being grown numerous and confirmed in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus it was now convenient they should settle churches which they did following the example of the Jewes under a magistrate of a contrary religion for indeed at first Christian assemblies were but synagogues turned into churches so that they needed not to look out for other manner of power and discipline then that which was exercised by the Jewish synagogues Were it granted that excommunication is to be proved by those words Matth. 18. tell it unto the church or by the example of the incestuous person put out of the church of Corinth or by the eleventh chapter of the same Epistle yet this act of exclusion could not be made good not to be such an act of magistracy assumed by confederate discipline as was the casting out of the synagogue Beza in his preface to his book against Erastus alledgeth the opinion of Musculus and Bullinger to be the same with what we now speak of that the first Christians wanting the power of magistracy to restrain them that walked disorderly and wickedly assumed such a power of magistracy to themselves and devised excommunication and that if there had been a power of magistracy in Corinth to punish the incestuous person there had then been no need either of excommunication or of delivering the man to Satan And so far we allow excommunication as it is an act of magistracy assumed by a confederate discipline by the first Christians in imitation of the Jewes for want of a Christian magistrate and not upon any commission granted to the ministers of the Gospell independently from the magistrate or grounded upon the power of the keyes of binding loosing for it were a lesse matter to discard and keep off the magistrate from concurring in acts of exclusion if for the placing it in the ministers the Scripture were not so grossely abused and made to speak what it never intended and that which hath as much strength for upholding the Romish hierarchie as the presbyterian ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Before therefore we come to speak how excommunication from a law of the confederate discipline became to be the main engine to advance the mystery of iniquity we will examine all the places of the new Testament usually alledged by the advocates of the presbyterian jurisdiction to prove that excommunication is a law of Christ and a church-ordinance as well as the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments which are a like committed to the ministers of the Gospell only CHAPTER XXVIII That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15 16 17 and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication neither Iudas non-admission if granted to the Eucharist nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11. THe first place is taken from the context in Matthew 18. v. 15 16 17 18. a place clear enough had it not been handled by men of prejudiced judgements I wil not loose so much paper time as Mr. Rutherfurd Gillespie have done to make it difficult nor throw so much dust in the eyes of the readers nor repeat all I have said upon this subject in another book I will chiefly restrain my self to Calvins authority to evince that the whole context maketh nothing at all for such an excommunication as is a judiciall act pronounced independently from the Christian magistrate by the ministers of the Gospell 1. Calvin in the fourth book of his institutions chap. 12. § 3. and more expressely in an Epistle to the Neocomenses saith that the offence Matth. 18 15. If thy brother c. ought to be understood of private offences and known only to the party offending and offended These be his words We understand the words of Christ of concealed offences as the words sound therefore if thy brother hath trespassed against thee and it be known to thy self only and there be no witnesse Christ commandeth that thou shouldst repair to him privately And a little lower here it is not meant that hidden sins should be brought to light thereby to shame our brother So that this offence not breaking forth into an open scandall it is not like that the wronged party would have taken a way to put his brother to an open shame or that the Lord Jesus Christ had wished him so to do but rather to make first one or two privy to it and then some more trusty secret friends it may be a colledge of three called a church amongst the Jewes appointed to reconcile disterences between brother and brother which were like the Morum Censores censors of manners or it may be such as are mentioned 1 Cor. chap. 6. who were like the elders spoken of by Ambrose which were not invested with any authority to constrain censure or punish the offender for the words in the 17. verse let him be to thee shew both that the offence was private that the offended party was not to take any other course but only to have no further converse with him For if he offender had been excommunicated by a