against the common enemy and for keeping communion as of saints so of churches that those church judicatories were set up not for conscience sake or in obedience to any prescript of Christ but for orders sake as the reverend man wrote to me but a few weeks before he died CHAPTER XXIII The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magâ—strates power in ordering publick worship proved by the example of the Iewes that they had through all the land particular convocations synagogues or churches called also colledges or schools where the Prophets sons of the Prophets taught especially on the sabbath-day that they were independent from any church-judicatory How synagogues were altered from their first institution and that being converted into Christian churches they retained the same right power and way of government THe most convincing proof for the consistency of the right and power of particular churches with the magistrates power in ordering settling and commanding the publick Divine worship of the Nation is the example of the Commonwealth of the Jewes wherein we are informed of three main things which taken into consideration will clear all doubts about the right and power of particular churches and the magistrates jurisdiction in matters of religion and publick worship 1. That in the Commonwealth of Israel at their first institution there were particular churches throughout all the land near every families dwelling-place called synagogues 2. That these churches were independent both from any of their own of the Priests or Levites judicatories 3. That the while the magistrates power and jurisdiction remained whose entire and undivided over all persons and in all causes and matters particularly in ordering settling and commanding the publick nationall worship of God For the first that such churches were instituted in the land of Canaan we have a very expresse proof Leviticus 23. v. 1 2 and 3. Speak unto the children of Israel c. six dayes shall work be done but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest an holy convocation ye shall do no work therein it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations 1. We have here a convocation and an holy one every sabbath 2. near every families dwelling place at that distance which is called in the Gospell a sabbath-days journey and to travell a sabbath-days journey was equivalent to go as far as the house of convocation which was esteemed a fulfilling of the command Exod. 16. v. 29. abide every man in his place let no man go out of his place on the seventh day For he that went no further then the place of convocation or meeting to attend on the ordinances where they use to tarry from morning to evening obeyed that command let no man go out of his place on the seventh day For how could they keep a sabbath-day holy without an holy convocation and how could that be frequented and they not stir from their own place except by not going out of his place be meant not going any whither but to the place of convocation For they could not keep the sabbath without a holy convocation kept near every ones dwelling Now that this convocation cannot be meant of nationall and festivall meetings is evident for those were appointed but thrice in the year and far from every ones dwelling-place and after the building of the Temple they were celebrated either before the Tabernacle or in the fore-court of the Temple Now had they been bound to repair to Jerusalem every sabbath-day it would have been against the command not to stir from their own places on that day These convocations or synagogues were particular churches assembled in a temple or house called also schools or colledges where Prophets and their sons or scholars dwelt and taught daily but on the sabbath-day they had a more solemn meeting of all those that dwelt near for prayer expounding of the law exhortations conferences the main action being performed by the Rabbies yet the disciples were not silent but sate at their feet asking questions and hearing their answers and resolutions sometimes a new comer in might interpose as we see in the example of Jesus Christ Luke the fourth who being unknown had the priviledge to expound the Scripture and to ask questions and give answers so had St. Paul as we read in the Acts of the Apostles chap. 13 v 15. But to speak more particularly of the place the teachers and the matter and form of worship in those places of meeting or synagogues I say first one may trace the place in the old and new Testament In the 26. Psalm David saith he will blesse the Lord in the congregations and Psal 68. v. 26. blesse ye God in the congregation which doubtlesse ought to be understood of those convocations in temples which are called synagogues Psal 74. v. 8. they have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land Which texts make it good that such places for an holy convocation were erected through all the land Calvin upon the place saith that the people met in syngogues every sabbath-day to read and expound the Prophets and call upon God by prayer The 29. Psalme v. 9. doth not obscurely mention them for the Psalmist relates that while the works of God sounded by haile rain and thunder the faithfull not only under a shelter of stones and timber but of Gods gracious providence and protection did attend the service of God Of this House and Temple David also speaketh Psal 87. v. 2. The Lord loveth the gates of Sion more then all the dwellings or tents of Iacob The sense of which words paraphrastically I think to be this although God graced with his blessing and presence those convocations which at first were kept under tents in the wildernesse yet he is much more taken with that glorious manifestation of his between the cherubins whereby God setteth out the Lord Jesus Christ Also Salomon Ecclesiastes 5. v. 1. and 2. speaketh of these houses or meetings when he warneth men to be more ready to hear then to speak in the house of God intimating that there was a freedome for the faithfull in those convocations and synagogues more then one to speak and besides that there were no other sacrifices performed in them but those of preaching praying and thanksgiving This house of convocation was also a place to train up disciples called the sons of the Prophets which were indifferently of all tribes and therefore by the way the ministers of the Gospell that do not succeed the Priests and Levites but those Prophets who had neither ordination nor jurisdiction cannot pretend other call or power then such as these sons of the Prophets had So then these house or places for convocation were also colledges and schools and therefore Philo in the life of Moses calleth them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 houses of prayer and of learning of which you have mention 2 Kings 6. v. 1. where
Divines should draw an argâ—ment for ruling elders out of the 2 Chron. 19. see pag. 15. besides whereas it is the opinion of all Rabbins and most Dâ—vines that in that place 2 Chronic. 19 there is mention but of one Sanedrim which Iosaphat did â—…form Mr. Gillespie maintaineth that there is mention made of two one ecclesiasticall of which Amariah was president and anotheâ— civil in which Zeâ—adiah was Speaker for saith he where was it ever heard of that a Priest was President of a court and â—n sacred things and causes that a civil magistrate was president of a court and that in civil causes and yet not two courts but one court But where will he make good that distinction of power and Senat among the Iewes one ecclesiasticall the other civil For 1. he himself doth not deny but that the great Sanedrim was an intermixture of persons and preceedings what need then to have a partition of power 2. He takes for granted that the high Priest was the president of the great Sanedrim if he was no absurdity then he should be president of a civil court such as they cannot deny the great Sanedâ—im was 3. If he were president of a civil court and Priests and Levites sate with him in the same court what need we suppose another court called ecclesiasticall when the first court might supplie both 4. But that this was but one court it is plain by what he saith p. 29. and 33. and so that there is no place for his double jurisdiction and Senate or Sanedâ—im the one ecclesiasticall over which Amariah was the other civil whose speaker was Zebadiah for in these quoted places he saith that the government of the Iewes in Christs time was not as Iosephus thinks aristocraticall simply but was an ecclesiasticall aristocracy it was in the hands of the chief priests that they judged of all causes but only capitall because the judgement and the cognizance of them was taken from them after the 30. year of Christ which he proveth p. 33. out of Constantin l'Empereur 5. So then by these concessions as he cannot make a double Sanedrim in Christs time so neither in Iosaphats time 6. What need to call the Sanedrim in Christs time ecclesiasticall since it had the judgement of all causes and over all persons as usually the magistrates tribunall hath except in capitall causes 7. But could the judgement of capitall causes taken from them make the Sanedrim in Christs time more an ecclesiasticall assembly then when they had the judgement of the said capitall causes must a court be called ecclesiasticâ—… because it hath no power to punish by death were it so all court leets and court-Barons and the court of the Exchequer were ecclesiaâ—…icall courts because they have no power to punish a man by death 8 So then before the 30. year of Christ when the Iewes had the judgement of capâ—…all causes their Sanedrim if we believe Mr. Gillespâ—e was not an ecclesiasticall but a civil court and yet it was made up of Priests Levites and elders of the people and judged of all causes and persons which sheweth how weakly Mr. Gillespie proveth that there was an ecclesiasticall and a civil Sanedrim in Iosaphats time whenas he cannot so much as deduce them unto Christs time nor after Christs time but by one at a time stiling that one Sanedrim as it serves his turn sometimes civil sometimes ecclesiasticall hoping by this means to find his ecclesiasticall Sanedrim Matth. 18. to whom our Lord sends the party offended for a redresse in those words tell it unto the church CHAPTER XI A case propounded by Mr. Cesar Calandrin which he conceiveth to assert a double jurisdiction examined Of the two courts one of magistracy or externall the other of conscience or internall That ecclesiasticall jurisdiction must belong to one of them or to none MY noble and reverend friend Mr. Caesar Calandrin propoundeth a case which he hath often desired me by word of mouth and by letters to satisfie him in He is confident that by it a double jurisdiction is made good I will set it down in his own words A murtherer condemned to death if he be truely penitent the spirituall court doth absolve him and yet the civil magistrate shall punish him with death though he be never so penitent which evidently proveth that the civil and ecclesiasticall judicature do not enterfear but are of a quite different nature Else how can the magistrate punish him as guilty who is absolved by the Consistory or how can the Consistory absolve him whom the magistrate doth condemn The Consistory by absolving him in the spirituall court doth not thereby at all opposethe sentence of condemnation which the magistrate hath given against him in the civil court The condemnation in the civil court stands in force even then when in the spirituall court it is no longer a condemnation but is changed into absolution upon his repentance The magistrate doth not regard repentance because his office doth not extend to the care of souls the Consistory must absolve and comfort the penitent lest Satan should tempt him to dâ—spair The magistrate cannot take exceptions that the Consistory absolveth him whom the magistrate hath condâ—mned nor can the Consistory take exception that the magistrate puts him to death whom the Consistory hath absolved I adde for further illustration if the absolution given by the Consistory were upon grounds of his being innocent or that his crime did not deserve death this I confesse would thwart the sentence of the civil mag strate but the Consistory meddleth not with the sâ—ntence of the magistrate nor with his civil punishment but labours to keep his soul being penitent in a right posture and to strengthen it against temptations The argument holds as well on the other side The magistrate may absolve a man after he hath satisfied for his crime in the civil court though the same man should stand condemned in the spirituall court When the sentences are so directly contrary and yet the judicatures do not enterfear nor at all meddle nor make one with another these must be acknowledged courts of a different nature The case propounded maketh nothing against me nor for a jurisdiction of presbyteries classes and synods to depose excommunicate and make lawes authoritatively independent and distinct from the magistrate which is the hinge of all our controversie 1. Properly ministers do not absolve or pardon neither are they otherwise pardoners then saviours but only upon the demonstrations of repentance they do declare pardon of sins and remission either past or to come For I do not enter into a controversy betwixt Rever and learned Mr. Baxter whom I give thanks for his kind usage and civilities and my self whether repentance goeth before remission or followeth it but however the minister doth no further forgive then in declaring that God either hath forgiven sins already or will forgive them So that he neither pardoning nor sealing forgivenesse of sins
prescribed how far some rites of Moses were dispensable We have then three expositions of the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunication but contrarily they destroy it for all these three expositions are sutable to the literall and mysticall meaning which is absolute and without condition Christ promising to bind and loose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth whereas those that expound that place of binding and loosing of excommunication are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ telling us that they must be understood clave non errante in case there is no errour in him that excommunicates And therefore Beza against Erastus and some others fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literall sense that Gods binding and loosing in heaven should steer according to the binding and loosing on earth by excommunication and absolution expounds the words of Christ as if he had said whatsoever shall be bound and loosed in heaven shall also be bound and loosed on earth that is the minister excommunicating on earth doth but declare what God hath already done in heaven which is the opinion of some schoolmen namely of Dominicus à Soto lib. 4. dist 14. qu. 1. art 3. saying that the words ego te ligo I excommunicate thee are equivalent to these I declare that God hath already excommunicated thee But I think this exposition is cumbered with more absurdities then the vulgar 1. Who knoweth the mind of God 2. and whether he hath excommunicated from the inward or from the outward communion surely not from the inward for then excommunication should not be a soul-saving ordinance as the Rever Assembly tell us nor from the outward this being an act of man not of God except one say that the minister outwardly acted what in his secret counsell he hath decreed but still the difficulty will be how the minister is acquainted with Gods secret and not revealed will and if he be acquainted with it how can an outward action in which the pastor may erre be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God But however the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is to be understood the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church and of ruling and rulers and it enjoyneth the faithfull to obey those that rule over them and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to receive lightly an accusation against an elder So farre then the word of God alloweth a government distinct from that of the magistrate and endoweth the ministers of the Gospell with a power of ruling and governing But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power nor of that they call ecclesiasticall which we have proved to be wholly the same with the magistrates power This power of the ministers ruling and governing is something like that power that Princes and masters of heathen schools had over their disciples scholars and auditors as Plato Zeno Aristotle who had a great power over their minds but no jurisdiction over their bodies estates and outward liberties it is true they kept them in awe respect and obedience but it was a voluntary submission to their precepts like that of Alexander the great to the commands of the Physitians This being the ministeriall power in a shadow it is more expressely set down in the Scripture and no doubt that power is the noblest power and greatest power in the universe next to that of creating and redeeming the world a power that the Son of God had and managed in this world none have such warrant of authority as to be Ambassadours from Christ none have such an errand there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands But still this ministeriall power commands and authority and the obedience due to them are not of the nature of the power and obedience observed in churches or magistrates judicatories For 1. The magistrates and churches judicatories do not only enjoyn the commands of God but also their own but the ministers of the Gospells power is only to deliver what they have received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. even Moses Deut. 4. v. 5. acknowledgeth that he taught nothing but what God enjoyned him 2. Accordingly a member of a church doth not obey the word of his Pastor but of God Col. 2. v. 22. Marc. 7. v. 7. 1 John 3. v. 24. chap. 5. v. 3. When the pastor hath no command of the Lord as 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. then he delivers his own judgement and counsell and that counsell a church-member hath no command to obey though he ought to have discretion and condescension enough to follow it if he conceiveth it tends to mutuall edification Yet in a church constituted there being need of a power of magistracy either delegated or assumed by a confederate discipline and a magistrate-like jurisdiction being set up in his congregation he ought as every church-member even when he apprehendeth no tye to obey the pastors command as Gods command to obey by an obedience either active or passive the commands of that magistrate which himself hath elected when by a joint consent they all agreed upon a form of discipline 3. Church-judicatories if they make any lawes decrees or resolve upon a censure to be inflicted upon a church-member they require obedience and submission without arguing or disputing the case or having the liberty either to yield to them or to decline them if they list But the true pastorall power commandeth only understanding free and wise men that are able to judge 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea who so hearkened to the voice of St. Paul that ere they obeyed it they consulted the Scripture to know whether it were so as he taught them 4. The ecclesiasticall presbyteriall power like that of the magistrate requireth obedience to its lawes ordinances and decrees not because they are good just and equitable but because it so pleased the law-givers for a man excommunicated never so unjustly is to submit to the validity of the sentence not to the equity which as our brethren and Mr. Gillespie teach us is not in the breast of the party judged but of the judge But the true ministeriall power requireth no obedience to its commands but of such as are perswaded or convinced of the goodnesse truth and equity of the law and sentence The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both to believe be perswaded to obey which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastorall commands who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus for this is the main commandement of Christ as the next is that we should love one another Such commands are not obeyed by the motion of the body but by that of the heart and affections The power of magistracy commandeth the hand to give almes to the poor but the power of the minister commandeth to give them with a ready mind one
him Here one may see as the law of God and the law of the King may stand together so the power of the magistrate may very well consist with the power right and liberty of a private church And the like he doth by many passages of Scripture which he urgeth namely Isa 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers c. and Esa 60. 10. Revel 21. v. 24. the Kings of the earth shall bring their honour to the church and Rom. 13. 4. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. He addes since the Scripture speaks thus generally for thy good for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well we must not distinguish where the Scripture doth not Now let us go to New-England where none will deny but a power and right of churches is maintained sutably to the sense of the dissenting brethren in old England and yet they ascribe no lesse to the magistrate in matters of religion then Mr. Burroughs Witnesse the result of a synod at Cambridge in new England published an 1646. They say magistrates must and may command matters of religion that are commanded in the Word and forbid things therein forbidden by the Word meaning the whole Word both in the new and old Testament In short they hold for substance what I said before of the two kinds of acts performed in every private church one looking immediately at the externall act of the body and the duties and sins which appear in the carriage of the outward man and this they say the magistrate looketh at and commandeth or forbiddeth in church and out of church see pag. 15. and therefore they say pag. 40. every church considered as a civil society needeth a coercive power They say further that this power is needfull in churches to curb the obstinate and restrain the spreading of errours Pag. 49. they invalid the example of Uzziah often alledged by the Romanists and the presbyterians though Mr. Gillespie as I remember never maketh use of it in his great book and say that this act of Azariah thrusting out Uzziah was an act of coercion and so of magistracy and a civil act which priests and Levites were allowed to do and which they made subservient to that command of God that none should burn incense but the sons of Aaron For I believe any officer under the soveraign magistrate might do the like in case this later should go about to violate a command of such a high nature for being an under-magistrate and invested with power of coercion he obeyeth the greater master and maketh use of his power to hinder a notable breach of Gods expresse command Having thus made good that there is a fair correspondency and concurrence of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power over them I do not see but my principles and those of the dissenting brethren are very agreeable consonant in the main It may be a few of them will call that power in every particular church ecclesiasticall which I call a power of magistracy and they will call excommunication an act of the ecclesiasticall power which I conceive to be rather an effect of the power of magistracy settled in every particular church But the difference is not great since we both make that church-power call it what you will a power of jurisdiction and coercion which must needs be subordinace to the power of the magistrate since both are of the same kind and upon that account excommunication is a law of the power of coercion so of magistracy In short whereas some of them will say of all church-censures that they are the product of a positive divine power I say they are the result of a naturall civil power subservient to the divine power in the exercise of the first kind of acts of church-members as such sure Mr. Burroughs and the result of the synod in New-England come very near if not altogether to my sense For Mr. Burroughs pag. 27. maketh but two powers residing in a private church one of admonishing perswading desiring seeking to convince the other a power restraining This latter power I call a power of magistracy because by the first power men are not outwardly restrained nor rought to outward conformity and accordingly excommunication must needs be a product of that restraining power So that the difference is not at all reall but nominall I find in Musculus in his common-places concerning magistrates the same power of magistracy in churches The passage hath been alledged above there he saith that that power exercised in churches is notecclesiasticall but the power of the magistrate CHAPTER 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. VVE are brought insensibly to know the nature of a Christian church instituted by Christ which as I said is a particular visible one meeting in one place to celebrate the same ordinances whereof mention is made 1 Cor. 11. v. 18. and chap. 14. v. 23. and Act. 13. v. 42. and 44. In this church the Lord Jesus Christ hath properly instituted the ministry for Christ hath not instituted a catholick visible church much lesse a nationall church under one presbytery but this appellation of church is like the word man which denotes a nature common to many singulars and yet is properly said of John or Peter For as many fountains are not a fountain and many schools are not a school and many families are not a family so many private churches are not properly a church We shall find below Amyraldus saying most truly and very pertinently to our argument that the appellation of church doth not properly belong either to the catholick visible church or to a nationall church such as are the English French Helvetian churches which are rather a knot or collection of churches then a church That such a church made up of many private churches under one presbytery is not of the institution of Christ nor ex necessitate praecepti but of the free pleasure of each private church who without any violation of the command of Christ may either remain single or aggregate it self to other churches under such a presbytery may be proved by severall arguments 1. I begin with the testimony of the Rev. Assembly in their humble advice who lay no greater stresse of necessity upon it then that it is lawfull and agreeable to the word of God that such a thing be 2. If the Lord Jesus Christ had instituted such a presbyterian church it were fit it should be told us what is a competent number of churches requisite to be under a presbytery whether only three or four or more it may be two thousand If so many why may not a hundred thousand churches be under one presbytery If so many why not all private orthodox churches that are dispersed through the world If a presbytery may be over all the catholick
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
all that is bound on earth by excommunication is not alwaies ratified and approved of in Heaven for were not as they say a modification put to the words of Christ all the judgements and sentences on earth had need be infallible It is true that parallel places of Scripture may admit various senses as it may be these very words of Christ or that something more may be implyed in one place then in the other But yet whether both places or either of them be meant of the operation of the word or of the miraculous power granted unto the Apostles and particularly as Mr. Lightfoot expoundeth them of a power to dispense with the Christian church in something that was to be retained or quitted of the Mosaicall laws and rites yet it must be acknowledged that both places are alike to be understood absolutely and without condition that whatever should be bound or loosed by them on earth should also infallibly be either bound or loosed in Heaven For to understand one place absolutely and the other conditionally and clave non errante when no errour can intervene I conceive ought not to be admitted in Divinity In short either the words Matth. 16. absolutely spoken must be false and admit some exception which cannot be said without blasphemy or the same words repeated in the 18. chapter must not be understood of excommunication nor of any church-censure 2. Since it is evident that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing are equivalent expressions and those both equally committed to ministers if by the keyes are not meant the power of excommunicating absolving neither can the power of binding and loosing mean excommunication For sure these keyes cannot be understood of an outward admission or exclusion but only of the conversion of a sinner by the preaching of the word But suppose that these keyes were also to admit into the visible church yet they can not be employed to put out of the church a key being an instrument either to let in or keep out but not to expell those that are in 3. Who can conceive that those words Matth. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind c. being uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ with such a prefatory asseveration verily I say unto you should not be true without a condition and an exception put to them and yet that the same words Matth. 16. without such a preface should be perpetually absolutely true And who would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had pronounced in such an emphaticall way vertily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind c. only to signify an externall admission or exclusion in the doing of which acts ministers may erre out of ignorance either of right or of fact if not out of hatred or too much indulgence and favour 4. Since they say that a man by excommunication is delivered to Satan what an uncharitable act do they commit against any one be he never so wicked by putting him into such a condition as they know is worse then his former when they are not sure whether occasionally it may better him neither is it in their power to drive away Satan again from the man as it was in St. Paul Besides no man would punish a child a servant or a malefactour with a punishment that shall last to his lifes end as to torture him till death or to whip him as long as he liveth or put him in a prison that may prove perpetuall for still the earthly father or judge reserveth to himself the liberty to give over correcting when it pleaseth him But those that deliver a man to Satan by excommunication do inflict a penalty which it is not in their power to take off again being not able when they list to recover a man out of the Devils pawes 5. Most school-men and Divines hold that the sentence of excommunication is of a quite different nature from the lawes and sentences of men which have the force and validity of law be they never so unjust and must be obeyed either actively or passively for if no law were valid but that which is just and righteous then should no law be obeyed by any but those that could see equity and justice in it Which sheweth the nullity of excommunication for whosoever doubts whether such an excommunication was pronounced upon right grounds and good information or whether excommunication in it self is lawfull may well count the excommunication null and of no weight yea if the party excommunicated doth but say that he was wrongfully excommunicated and clave errante or that those that did it had no power so to do he may disannull as to himself and so to all others the excommunication For as long as the knowledge of a valid excommunication is grounded upon matter of fact which is known but to few most men may still question that which they are not concerned to believe and whereof they have no certain knowledge 6. Some to avoid that inconvenience that God should be made to ratify what the pastor acts in excommunicating say and it is the opinion of Beza that excommunication is rather a declaration of what God hath already done in Heaven then an act preceding Gods in approving or disapproving the ministers sentence But one and the same inconvenience followeth thereupon whether excommunication be taken for an act preceding the act of God or subsequent to it For if excommunication be a declaration of what God hath already done or decreed to be done it would follow that all the acts of pastors in excommunicating were infallible for if they were fallible it were not possible to know when excommunication ought to be received for a valid act untill the mind and counsell of God were revealed and it were known to be agreeable with the censure of excommunication And therefore Wicliff thought all excommunications void and null except he that excommunicateth were first informed that the party whom he was to excommunicate was excommunicated by God and this was held one of his errours in the councill of Constance Art 11. 7. Calvin in the 3. book of his Institutions chap. 4. § 14. saith that excommunication is no farther valid then as binding in heaven answereth to that on earth for he hath no stronger argument to make void the Romish excommunication then by retorting that many among them are either bound or loosed on earth unworthily which notwithstanding are not bound or loosed in Heaven If this exception against all Romish excommunication is good in Calvins mouth why should it loose its strength in my mouth for by the same argument I disannull all excommunication because all sentences of God in Heaven do not alwayes correspond to those that are pronounced upon earth 8. The same Calvin upon Matth. 18. pleading for the nullity of Romish excommunication useth this argument that the power of the keyes and of binding loosing belong only to those that have received the holy Ghost
be introduced there was a great clamour and complaining amongst them as if Luther had a mind to lay again upon their shoulders that yoak which they had shaken off from their necks Some few years after having again propounded that his intent was not to put excommunication into the hands of the ministers alone but to make it an act of the jurisdiction of the whole church some seemed to consent to it but most being against it we do not read that either it was settled at all or that it was done quietly in his life time We read indeed that Luther did commend it to other churches and even at the conference or reconciliation that was made betwixt Luther Bucer and Capito he did much urge how necessary the use of excommunication might be and that Bucer declining to deliver his opinion concerning the same lest he should crosse Luther and thereby retard the main work that they were met about did only say 1. that many cities in lieu of excommunication had strict lawes to punish those that were unruly and wicked 2. that he professeth in the name of his collegues of the churches of Switzerland that they did not intend to give the Eucharist to those whom they should know to be wicked and to live in impenitency Bucer in that did but deliver the sense and practise of the Helvetian churches who at their first reformation received excommunication no otherwise then as a law of the magistrate and not either as an ecclesiasticall censure or an exclusion from the Lords Supper For so sayes Gualterus in his Homilies upon the 1 Cor. 5. The lawes of our city punish by excommunication those that are negligent in hearing of the word or in coming to the Lords Supper and those besides that by their wicked lives offend the church such they expell from their tribes lest they should keep company with others Let other towns do what they please since one discipline will not fit every place we do not envy them their felicity who receive any benefit by the use of their excommunication or rather exclusion from the Lords Supper As in the first reformation at Zurich they had not a presbyterian excommunication so neither had they a presbytery or ecclesiasticall senat distinct in jurisdiction from that of the magistrate For the same Gualterus upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians ch 12. v. 28. speaking of governments which he saith are those whereof St. Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 6. v. 12. hath these words At this day there is no need of such governours being under a magistrate let none therefore overturn the order instituted by God and trample under their feet the authority of Princes and magistrates by instituting a new senat that assumeth power empire over them But I must tarry a little longer in Germany and see what the attempt of Luther for introducing excommunication did produce after his death Matthaeus Flaccius Illyricus did yet with more eagernesse endeavour to establish excommunication and for that was perpetually at discord with Melanchthon who did not so much dislike the retaining of the Romish excommunication as the introducing of a new one for Melanchthon was such a lover of peace that he would willingly have endured the Romish Bishops should have kept their jurisdiction still so that they had parted with other abuses and practises I could make a volume if I should rehearse all the journeys and removes that Illyricus made from place to place urging every where the necessity of receiving excommunication and for that very reason was he alwayes expell'd either by the Prince or the magistrate of the place who lookt upon Illyricus as a man aiming at setting himself up under a specious pretence of setting up the government of Christ and one who continually jingled the keyes not of Gods but of his own Kingdom which he endeavoured to set up wheresoever he set footing At length partly by his much clamouring being a very eloquent and learned man and the workings of his emissaries partly for the respect that most men bore to the memory of Luther who first went about the same business there was a kind of excommunication received in many Lutheran churches agreeable as they thought to the mind of Luther as he propounded it to them and as he speaketh in his comment upon Joel ch 4. where he maketh two sorts of excommunication the one internall when God excludeth men from the assembly of the faithfull the other externall and politick like an act of magistracy placed in the whole body of the church and not in the ministers and from that excommunication they do not forbid appeals neither do they ground it upon the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. as Chemnitius and Gerhardus the best expositors of Luthers mind tell us But excommunication had not the same entertainment in Switzerland where Zwinglius begun the reformation almost as soon as Luther did in high Germany For Bullinger in an Epistle to Dathenus relates that in a conference that Zwinglius had with an Anabaptist in the year 1531. this was his opinion concerning excommunication That because churches under a heathen magistrate had no coercive power to punish wickednesse they in lieu of it took up excommunication but once having a Christian magistrate who punisheth and restraineth vices and enormities the use of excommunication ceaseth In the same Epistle Bullinger saith a church may be true that wanteth this excommunication again we maintain that there ought to be a discipline in the church but it is enough if it be administred by the magistrate Beza acknowledgeth that this was also the opinion of Musculus as we have alledged before when he saith that St. Paul would not have delivered the incestuous person to Satan if the magistrate at that time had been a Christian and a favourer of churches Gualterus as we have said but now was of the same mind with his father in law Bullinger for which Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are very angry So then excommunication finding no good entertainment in Switzerland is carried to Geneva by the great man Calvin whom God permitted to be deceived in that particular lest the reformed world should have taken him for infallible There excommunication grew into a great tree that spread its branches far near into France England Scotland the Palatinat and the low-Countreys but before it could shoot out it had many rubbs and oppositions For some years before Calvin was settled in Geneva the reformation had been happily begun by Farell and Viret and yet no excommunication was thought on or practised At the first proposall he made of it many of the town flocked to the Syndics and the other magistrates as he confesseth in an Epistle to Myconius beseeching them not to part with the power and sword which God had committed to them lest it should cause seditions and indeed they proved true Prophets as we shall see by and by Beza in the life of Calvin in the year