RIght, in Latine jus, differs from law, as rule from juſtice: for law is the rule it ſelf, but right is the juſtice of the rule. Sometimes it ſignifieth that vertue called in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equity, which abates of the rigour of the law. But right in generall that comprehendeth all rights, is that which is due to every one by either equity, that is by the law of nature and of nations, or by an inſtituted law. Sometimes right is ſo ſtiled, by thoſe that will call it ſo, becauſe they have the better ſword: thus Arioviſtus anſwered Caeſar, that right of war was, that the victor ſhould give law to the vanquiſhed. By naturall right we underſtand that which is conſonant to right reaſon.

Commonly right is divided into private and publick. Private right is the ſame with perſonall right; which is had either independently from maſters, parents, husbands; thoſe that have it are called ſui juris: or dependently upon maſters and parents. The publick right is either naturall, as when St. Paul ſaith that the Gentils do naturally the things of the law; or inſtituted, and is called poſitive right, having a poſitive rule, which is given either by God or by men. God giveth it 1. to certain perſons, as to Abraham, Iſaac, Iacob, Moſes, &c. 2. to a certain people, as to Iſrael: 3. to all men, either for a time, as the law of not eating bloud; or for ever, as the Sacraments, and the preaching of the Goſpell.

It is not poſſible to give an exact diviſion of right. Many things that are of naturall right are alſo of divine and inſtituted right; ſo, many divine precepts, as is the decalogue, are of humane inſtitution: but cuſtome hath prevailed, that theſe precepts ſhould be of poſitive right, that have no footſtep in nature, as is the obſervation of a ſeventh day, the forbidding of eating the tree of death and life. We ſay things to be of naturall right, in which we are rather born then brought up, and which are naturally imprinted in us; as is the law defined by Tullius 1. leg. law is a ſoveraign way imbred in nature, commanding things to be done, and forbidding things contrary. By that law we know many things inſtituted and delivered in Scripture: as that obedience is due by children to parents, by ſervants to maſters, by wives to husbands; that theft, murder is to be avoided; and, to come nearer to our purpoſe, that there is one God; that he muſt be worſhipped; that he cannot be worſhipped except it be in meetings and aſſemblies in one place; that in thoſe aſſemblies all muſt be done in order; that the whole aſſembly, if it be numerous, muſt be governed by ſome choice men choſen out of the whole body, and deputed from them; likewiſe the law of nature and of nations teacheth us, that what is agreed on by the major part of thoſe deputies, muſt ſtand for a law; that that law muſt be obeyed under penalties: albeit if we be ruled by the poſitive law of God, we are not ſo much to follow the number of ſuffrages and votes in carrying of a law, as the ſoundneſſe and goodneſſe of the law. This alſo is a law of nature, practiſed even by all nations, that ſoveraign command about ſacred things, yea the chief ſacerdotall function, belongeth to the ſoveraign power; of which law a part hath been abrogated by the revealed law of the Scripture, which did ſo ſever the ſacerdotall function from the regall, that the regall ſtill kept the ſoveraign juriſdiction about ſacred things. This is alſo a law of nature and nations, that every aſſembly and convention of men ſhould have power to chuſe, admit, and exclude members of their own ſociety, and to perform all acts conducing to their ſubſiſtence.

2. All lawes deviſed by men, whatever ſubject and matter they are about, are civil, politick, and lawes of that power that giveth them force and vigour of lawes: ſuch are all the conſtitutions about diſcipline of the church, which in vain they call eccleſiaſticall.

3. If a law were to be called eccleſiaſticall, becauſe it handleth lawes for the government of the church, we ſhould need as many kinds of lawes as there be ſocieties in the world, and we ſhould have one peculiar claſſis for lawes to govern ſchools and Univerſities, another to govern ſocieties of merchants, a third for ſocieties of drapers. I do not deny but that a law may be as properly called eccleſiaſticall, as a law is called nauticall, military, teſtamentary, matrimoniall, either becauſe they are about matters of churches, armies, wills, husbands, wives; or becauſe they were invented for the benefit of churches, ſouldiers, married people, and the like: but in vain do they think to call a law eccleſiaſticall becauſe not only it is of church-matters, but alſo becauſe it muſt be made by eccleſiaſticall men, and receive form and ſanction from them, and becauſe all cauſes & matters which they call eccleſiaſticall muſt be judged by eccleſiaſticall men. For

1. As eccleſiaſticall power (if there be any ſuch thing) muſt be ſubordinate to the civil, as we have proved before; ſo eccleſiaſticall lawes to the civil lawes.

That of Pareus is on the 13. Rom. All faithfull, even private men, ought to judge of faith and of religion; not only with an apprehenſive judgement, that by it they may understand the true religion; but alſo with a judgement of diſcretion, that they may diſtinguiſh the true from the falſe, hold to one and reject the other: much more ought the Chriſtian magiſtrate to judge of the religion, not only apprehenſively and diſcretively, but alſo definitively. Here we have a definitive judgement proper to magiſtrates as well as to miniſters and church-judicatories. In the ſame place; A Prince ought to defend the true religion, ſuppreſſe the falſe, baniſh blaſphemies and hereſies: he ought then to know of all theſe ſingly, and by his office judge of them: for if he were only to draw the ſword at the beck of the priests, without knowledge and judgement, and without making any question whether the judgements of the paſtors are right or no; what would he be but a ſergeant and an executioner, as the Iewes made of Pilate, ſaving to him, If he had not been a malefactour, we would not have delivered him to thee?

Rivet on the decalogue hath theſe words: We joyn thoſe two together: that the magiſtrate ſhould not only act by others prejudice, but alſo by his own judgement; not that he ſhould trust ſo much to his, but alſo let miniſters of the Goſpell have their parts; not relying on his fancy, but being counſelled by the pastors of churches, calling ſynods, and there hearing godly and learned men diſcourſing out of the word of God, of controverſies of religion, and of articles of faith; then what he hath himſelf approved of to be the truth, let him embrace it and ſpread it. There he maketh no more of ſynods, then a Prince of his ſtate-counſellors, or a ſick man of his phyſitians, whoſe judgements they take for counſells and advices, and not for definitive ſentences. And ſo ſpeaketh Mareſius Coll. Theol. loc. 16. theſ. 77. Miniſters of churches do not ſo much repreſent judges in a ſenat, as prudent doctors and learned, gathered to give counſell; and their reſult is like the advice of phyſitians about the health of the body.

By what I have ſaid of judgement, and alledged out of Mr. Rutherfurd, that queſtion ſo much debated betwixt the Romaniſts and the Proteſtants, who is the judge of controverſies in matters of faith, is eaſily decided: for doubtleſſe the miniſters of the Goſpell have by their education, function and miniſteriall duty, that publick judgement to declare either in churches or ſynods, what by the judgement of diſcretion they conceive to be the mind and the ordinance of Chriſt; but this judgement inforceth and obligeth no man to aſſent to it, except they alſo by their private judgement of diſcretion apprehend it to be ſuch. So ought neither magiſtrates, nor the power of magiſtracy ſeated in churches, to command or enjoyn it as a law to be obeyed, or a doctrine to be believed, except apprehended by the judgement of diſcretion to be the mind or an ordinance of Chriſt. Miniſters in divinity, phyſitians in phyſick, each profeſſour of art in his art, not only becauſe they are more verſed in that thing they profeſſe, but alſo ex officio, have a judgement that carrieth and giveth more authority; but it being fallible, and therefore ſubject to the reviſall of others, whether magiſtrates or ſubjects, and not attended with command obliging to obedience, either active or paſſive, it is only authentick to them that are perſwaded and convinced to yield to it.

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 the magiſtrate is not head of the church, more then of other ſocieties: for as the callings of a phyſitian, merchant, ſmith, ſeaman, ſo of a Chriſtian, as Chriſtian and churchmember, are not ſubordinate to magiſtracy; but only under the notion of, and as they are members of families, ſocieties, corporations and commonwealths: in all which magiſtracy is virtually and eminently reſident; in regard that no ſociety of men can be imagined to be governed either without a power delegate from the magiſtrate, or without aſſuming magiſtracy within it ſelf.

In that ſenſe the magiſtrate may be ſaid, for theſe three or four reaſons, to be head of a viſible nationall church. 1. Becauſe the matter, manner and extent of the power exerciſed by that church, being wholly the ſame with that of the magiſtrate, it is needleſſe to make of one power two; and therefore the magiſtrate being the ſupreme governour in the managing of that power exerciſed alike in all kinds of ſocieties within his dominion, he may very properly be the ſupreme governour as well of churches, as of all other ſocieties.

2. The magiſtrate may be ſaid to be head of the viſible church, becauſe there is no man, of what place, function, calling, dignity ſo ever he be, that in an externall viſible way can ſo much promote the intereſt of Jeſus Chriſt, and the building up of his Kingdom, as the ſupreme magiſtrate; not ſo much conſidered as Chriſtian, but as magiſtrate, and by vertue of his magiſtracy. None doth doubt but that one ſingle woman, namely Queen Elizabeth, being a magiſtrate, did contribute more for eſtabliſhing and ſpreading the Goſpell of Chriſt in England, then all the godly miniſters put together in the dayes of Queen Mary.

Let but one ſingle magiſtrate countenance religion, this will avail more then thouſands of Greenhams or Bradfords under a magiſtrate of a contrary religion. Sure, where God hath given more ability and power to do good, he alſo hath placed there more right & duty to promote that good. I think there was more ſtreſſe of duty laid upon Queen Elizabeth to advance Chriſts Kingdom in England, then on 100. Bradfords, Latimers and Ridleys in Queen Maries dayes.

A 3. ground may be added, why the ſovereign magiſtrate may be called the head of the church, (and which is much preſſed by Reynolds, Martyr, Muſculus, Bullingerus, Gualterus, Zanchius, Pareus,) is, becauſe all the deciſions of miniſters about matters of faith or diſcipline, are but mere counſels, advices and directions; not binding externally, that is actively or paſſively, any church, ſociety or corporation, except they receive a ſanction from the magiſtrate: and beſides that theſe ſanctions are not to be made by him caeco judicio, with a blind judgement, ſtanding to their determination, without examination, and doing as much as thoſe of Beroea, who ere they believed St. Paul, ſearched the Scriptures, to know whether it was ſo as he preached. As no obedience is to be rendred by any perſon, ſociety or corporation, without they duly weigh in their judgement of diſcretion whether the command be juſt or no: ſo a command is not to be made by the perſon whoſe duty and part it is to command, untill he firſt underſtandeth and apprehendeth by his judgement of diſcretion the thing to be a good and a fitting rule of obedience. So that ſince presbyteries and • ynods cannot enforce obligation of obedience to their declarations and deciſions, without the injunction and command of the magiſtrate; ſince alſo he is not to enjoin or command any thing repugnant to his own judgement; it doth conſequently follow, that good reaſon it is, that he who laſt is to judge and command any thing, propounded and debated in whatever aſſembly of men, ſhould be ſtiled the ſovereign judge, head, ruler, and governour of thoſe things that are ſolely in his own power.

Fourthly, he may be ſaid to be head of the church, becauſe of three main duties which are annexed to his office of magiſtracy, which comprehend what is requiſite for life, godlineſſe and happineſſe. The 1. is proviſio mediorum conducentium ad finem optimum, proviſion of the means conducing to the beſt end: 2. remotio impedientium, the removing of hinderances: 3. actualis directio in illum finem, an actuall direction & ordering things to that end.

Theſe 3. conditions Javellus a Romiſh Biſhop layes down to aſſert the ſoveraign power of the magiſtrate, in judging, providing, ordering, and removing, in order to obtaining the beſt end, which he ſaith is the main felicity of man.

Laſtly, he may be well called head of the church, that receiveth appeals from all church-judicatories, and diſannuls or ratifies their judgements and ſentences. But Mr. Rutherfurd denieth thoſe acts to be appeals, being not in eadem ſerie, from a lower eccleſiaſticall court to a ſuperiour eccleſiaſticall court; and ſaith, that from an eccleſiaſticall court to a civil, as to the magiſtrate, there is no appeal, but a removall by a declinator, a complaint, a refuge. But we having proved that ſynods, presbyteries, &c. have no juriſdiction but what they have from the magiſtrate; therefore all appeals from a church-judicatorie to the magiſtrate, are but from an inſeriour court of the magiſtrate to a ſuperiour of the ſame magiſtrate. Rivet on the decalogue had not learned ſuch ſquibs of diſtinctions betwixt appeals and refuges, complaints and declinators; for by any means he would have men to appeal to the magiſtrate from church-ſentences: Miniſters as miniſters are the ſubjects of the ſoveraign magiſtrate, and why may it not be lawfull for ſubjects to appeal from the judgements of ſubjects to the ſupreme magiſtrate? and why may it not be lawfull to the ſupreme magiſtrate to review the judgements of his ſubjects, to ratifie them, if they be good, and aboliſh them, if they be bad? For call thoſe removals what you will, ſo that the thing be ſtill the ſame: for he that from an unjuſt ſentence of a church-judicatorie hath his recourſe to the magiſtrate, both declines the ſentence of that court, appeals to a higher court, and makes his complaint to him that can redreſſe him, help him, and diſannull the firſt ſentence. I confeſſe, if a man be condemned in England, he may have his refuge to ſome neighbour Prince: but this Prince can but protect him from the execution of the ſentence againſt him; but cannot diſannull the ſentence againſt him, nor reſtore him in statu quo prius. Such are the examples of Chryſoſtomus, Flavianus and Athanaſius, which are to no purpoſe: for they repaired to the Biſhop of Rome, deſiring indeed to be judged by him; but they did not look upon him as their ſuperiour that could relieve them, and quaſh the ſentence againſt them; they repaired to him only as to a mediatour and interceſſour.

Authorities ſhould now make good what I have proved to be conſonant to reaſon, ſuch as might be brought out of the beſt reformers, as Martyr, Reynolds, Pareus, Chamier; who make no other ſupreme viſible governour of the church then the ſoveraign magiſtrate: but I will 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.

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.

THus we ſee that even Eraſtus could ſay no more then Mr. Gilleſpie and the confeſſion of Scotland. But Mr. Gilleſpie hath many evaſions of modalities, cauſalities, and diſtinctions of power, by which he ſeems ſometimes to make large conceſſions to the magiſtrate; but which, when he pleaſeth, and it ſerves his turn, he can elude and bring to nothing, throwing in the eyes diſtinctions in great ſtore, to confound the judgement; which is a ſtrong argument of weakneſſe & unſoundneſſe, as of a houſe, ſo of a cauſe, when they need ſo many ſupporters: whereas thoſe that plead for the magiſtrates power in ſacred things, have need but of one only rule, to ſtate and define the whole controverſy about the magiſtrates power, and the meaſure of obedience which all Chriſtian churches, ſynods and presbyteries are to yield to them; and that rule is, that all men, either ſingle, or convened and met in a ſociety, under whatever name or title, do ſubmit to and obey the magistrate in all things that are not againſt faith and good manners. And theſe two things, 1. the internall power in the miniſtery, 2. and the externall power of the magiſtrate, nakedly underſtood, make ſhort work, and rid us of that army of cauſes, kinds and diſtinctions of power and operations, which M. Gilleſpie oppoſeth to a ſingle combatant; who notwithſtanding is much ſtronger with his one only weapon, then Mr. Gil • eſpie with his thouſands; as the fable ſaith of the cat, whoſe one only caveat and ſhift to avoid 〈◊〉 , by climbing up the firſt tree or houſe, did more avail for her preſervation, then the whole bag-full of wiles and policies of the fox.

It were an endleſſe labour, to bring into a body all the diviſions, diſtinctions, cauſalities, modalities, forms and objects of powers, diſperſed in Mr. Gilleſpies book. Pag. 191. he maketh two objects about which eccleſiaſticall power is converſant: firſt, the object of the magiſtrates care of religion, and the object of the operation of that care. Thus he and others make a power which he calls a care of the religion, and another a care about religion.

As for the power itſelf conſidered generally, they make it double, eccleſiaſticall and civil: this is wholly the magiſtrates; in the other the magiſtrate hath alſo a ſhare: for they ſay, this eccieſiaſticall power is exerciſed either in a politick way, or in an eccleſiaſticall way: thus they make an eccleſiaſticall civil power reſiding in the magiſtrate.

Next, they divide eccleſiaſticall power into intrinſecall and extrinſecall, into direct and indirect; the extrinſecall and indirect they yield to the magiſtrate: thus you have again an eccleſiaſticall power belonging to the magiſtrate. Again, they have an objective and formall eccleſiaſticall power, which needeth a further ſubdiviſion to be underſtood: for they make an objective eccleſiaſticall power converſant about perſons and things; and this, they ſay, belongeth only to the magiſtrate; and a formall eccleſiaſticall power, in which the magiſtrate hath his ſhare with the miniſters: ſo that of theſe two eccleſiaſticall powers, objective and formall, it will prove that the magiſtrate hath 3. parts, and the miniſters but one: for this eccleſiaſticall formall power is again divided by them, into a power exerciſed ratione objecti objective-way, about things and perſons, which kind of power, ſay they, belongs to the ſole magiſtrate; and into a power exerciſed in an eccleſiaſticall way, which they ſay is the miniſters portion.

Pag. 261. he hath an eccleſiaſticall power, which he divides into perfect and imperfect, which he calls pro tanto: of this ſtamp is this diviſion of eccleſiaſticall power into the power of every way, and the power more ſuo: which diſtinctions are ſo ſubtile, that they are beyond Scotus apprehenſion. He hath alſo a diviſion of eccleſiaſticall power into imperative and elicitive; this is proper to miniſters, that to magiſtrates: and then an eccleſiaſticall power and juriſdiction properly ſo called, and another improperly ſo called. The juriſdiction improperly ſo called he and all his brethren aſcribe to the miniſters: but the juriſdiction properly ſo called to the magiſtrate. Which thing no way agreeth with the diviſion of eccleſiaſticall power into perfect and imperfect above-mentioned: for whereas they make the perfect eccleſiaſticall power to belong to the miniſters, and the imperfect to the magiſtrate; here they make the eccleſiaſticall power properly ſo called to pertain to the magiſtrate, and the power improperly ſo called to the miniſters: ſo that, if we believe them, the power properly ſo called ſhall be the imperfect power, as on the contrary, the power improperly ſo called ſhall be the perfect power; which is againſt any mans common ſenſe and logick.

By the help of theſe diſtinctions, the Popes and their advocates have defended the power of excommunicating and depoſing Kings, yea of diſpoſing of their tempora • ties, ſaying, that the Pope hath not a direct power over them, but an indirect; but yet cauſing to be ſeized, or ſeizing directly of their dominions; as Julius the II. the Kingdom of Navarre: per indirectam poteſtatem, & in caſu neceſſitatis in ordine ad ſpiritualia, poteſt ſummus pontifex manum imponere regnis & imperiis cum pleniſſima potestate.

I have not done yet ranking in files the ſeverall eccleſiaſticall powers. They further divide it into elicitive and coercive; into primary and ſecondary power; into the power managed directly, and ex conſequenti; into a power of reforming abuſes under the notion of formality of ſcandall, and a power under the notion of formality of crime. And, to draw to an end of dividing, they have more diviſions of eccleſiaſticall powers, as into directive and coercive; cumulative and privative; auxiliary and deſtructive; declarative and executive; authoritative & conſtitutive: the auxiliary they derive from Charles the great, capitulari Car. mag. Volumus vos ſcire voluntatem nostram, quod nos parati ſumus vos adjuvare ubicunque neceſſe eſt, ut miniſterium veſtrum adimplere valeatis; we will have you to know, that we are ready to help you in the miniſterie. Now of all theſe diviſions of eccleſiaſticall powers, the magiſtrate hath alwayes one half; the miniſters ſometimes none, except they take for themſelves the deſtructive and privative powers, which indeed ſignify juſt nothing, and are • nt • arationis; except alſo they content themſelves with a power and juriſdiction improperly ſo called, leaving to the magiſtrate the oppoſite member of power properly ſo called, which is a ſilent confeſſion that they have none at all, ſince they can yet find no name for it.

I have one diviſion more of eccleſiaſticall power, brought by Amyraldus and ſome others, quite different from the reſt, being not a dichotomie, but a trichotomie; not a diviſion into two, but three coordinate powers; the one belonging to the magiſtrate, the ſecond to layelders and deputies of the church, and the third appertaining to miniſters. Theſe three eccleſiaſticall powers he maketh to be conſpicuous in all eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies and ſynods: where the magiſtrate hath his eccleſiaſticall indirect extrinſecall power, as they call it, the miniſters have their intrin •… call direct eccleſiaſticall power, and the lay-elders have a leſſe intrinſecall direct eccleſiaſticall power, for it hath not found a name yet; for it is (ſay they) neither of the nature of eccleſiaſticall power belonging to the magiſtrate, nor of that which is proper to miniſters, but a mungrell eccleſiaſticall power, in regard they cannot perform by their power thoſe acts that belong either to magiſtracy or miniſtery. For beſides that they cannot preach and adminiſter the Sacraments, Amyraldus will not allow them any voice, but conſultative, not deliberative, and only in matters of diſcipline and eccleſiaſticall policy: and that power, they ſay, they have common with the magiſtrate, who over and above hath his eccleſiaſticall power, which neither the miniſters nor lay-elders have any thing to do with. Laſtly, the miniſters have their eccleſiaſticall power diſtinct from the eccleſiaſticall power of both.

The bare relating of theſe diviſions of power and modifications of eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, is ſufficient to confute them; ſo that there is little need of authority to witneſſe their nullity and vanity. Yet three grave and learned divines, namely Martyr, Muſculus and Gualterus, would have the name and the thing to be aboliſhed. Martyr loc. com. 13. claſſ. 4. § 9. ſheweth the little need of multiplying powers, whenas that of the magiſtrate is ſufficient; and that David, Salomon, Ioſias, being civil magiſtrates, did think that religion belonged to their care; and Conſtantinus, Theodoſius, Iustinianus, had no greater thought then to conſtitute the true church of God.

Muſculus is yet more pregnant, loc. com. de magiſtratibus: what hinders, I pray, but that this may be eccleſiaſticall, which is done neither by the church it ſelf, nor in the name and by the power of the church, but is done, commanded and enjoyned by the magiſtrate within the church, in the name and power of God, and to procure the good of the church, and repreſſe the evils committed in the church? A little lower he hath theſe expreſſe and golden words: the way and nature of government cannot bear, that in the ſame people there be two authentick powers, two diverſe legiſlations and dominations, except it be by ſubordination; as there is no place for two heads in one body.

Gualterus Homil. in 1 Cor. 5. is no leſſe expreſſe: They distinguiſh betwixt eccleſiaſticall and politicall juriſdiction: but this diſtinction is taken out of the ſhop of the papiſts, for it is not to be had in the Scripture; for it is plain that the ſame way muſt be obſerved in the New as in the old Teſtament. And a little lower: The ſame then muſt be obſerved in the new Teſtament, and no need there is that the miniſters of the word ſhould have a peculiar ſenate, taking upon them what belongeth to the magiſtrate: they may be cenſors of manners, ſuch as are needfull in a greater commonwealth, where ordinary magiſtrates cannot attend all buſineſſes; but theſe are created by the magiſtrates authority, and ought to do all by his command, and not ly a peculiar power of their own, diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate. Such paſſages, and many more, I alledge in my Paraeneſis p. 16. and 17. No marvell if thoſe that recede from the plainneſſe of the Scripture, have knit themſelves ſuch nets and windings of powers, in which while they think to be ſafe • they loſe themſelves.

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 d • ſpair. The magistrate cannot take exceptions, that the Conſistory abſolveth him whom the magiſtrate hath cond • 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 ſ • 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, can have no judicatorie or judgement.

2. I never denied the two courts diſtinctly ſet down Rom. 13. one is the power of the magiſtrate, to which we are ſubject for wrath, the other that to which we are ſubject for conſcience ſake. In this latter God hath ſet up a tribunall, wherein the conſcience paſſeth ſentence either of condemnation or of abſolution. The ſentences paſſed in theſe two courts have no conflict; which cannot be ſaid of the ſentences paſſed in presbyteries, which many times are oppoſed and reverſed by the magiſtrate: but the magiſtrates condemning is no hinderance to the conſcience from paſſing a ſentence of abſolution, either for the fact committed, or for other ſins.

3. Neither is the miniſter a judge whether the condemned perſon is penitent or no, but the conſcience of the man is, which more properly is the judge that abſolveth or condemneth: only the miniſter furniſheth evidences, helping the man to plead guilty or not guilty.

4. The paſtor comforting or rowzing up the priſoner, doth diſcharge the part of a meſſenger, and not the part of a judge in a court: for he is no judge of a man, who leaveth him to the judgement of another, as doth the miniſter.

5. The nature of a court is, not to condemn upon ſuppoſition that the priſoner knoweth himſelf guilty; but abſolutely to condemn that perſon whom the judge and jury have a particular knowledge to be guilty: and ſuch is the nature of the court of conſcience, when it juſtifieth only where it knoweth it ſelf clear, and condemneth where it is conſcious of its guiltineſſe. But no paſtour hath a particular knowledge of any perſons evidences for heaven, but what he gathereth by outward ſignes; and ſo all acts of his, either of abſolution or of condemnation, are meerly upon ſuppoſition, and no acts of a judge, and therefore no acts of a court. In ſhort, both a court of magiſtrates and a court of conſcience, in abſolving or condemning, know what they do; but the paſtor knoweth not, God only knowing it.

6. The action of a paſtour abſolving is no act of court, but an act of the ſame nature with the preaching of the Goſpell, by which pardon is pronounced to all that truly repent, and lay hold on Chriſt by faith.

7. The party arraigned in a true court, (ſuch is the court of the magiſtrate and that of conſcience) is diſmiſſed clear or guilty, as the judge of the court ſhall pronounce: but none can be guilty or not guilty, and ſtand or fall, as the miniſter ſhall verbally pronounce; there being here no concurrence of any act of his, but that of the ſpirit in the word by his miniſtery.

8. This arraigned perſon, who is neceſſitated to under go the ſentence of the magiſtrate either for abſolution or condemnation, hath no ſuch neceſſity to go to the church or paſtour, except he hath perſonally offended ſome of them, or oweth them mony: in which caſe his reconciliation is no appearance in any court; only a brother or a creditour may pardon him his debt or offence, that is, pray God to forgive him. Here there is no footſtep of juriſdiction of either party on the other: but in caſe the party arraigned ſeeks to be reconciled to God, none being able to make his peace with God but God himſelf, nor to declare peace, but the teſtimony of his conſcience; the paſtour may help to clear his evidences, and ſo may any godly gifted brother, and well read in the Scripture; but neither of them properly judgeth him, or maketh his peace, neither is here any juriſdiction.

9. The nature of a court is to have power and juriſdiction over thoſe that are unwilling, as Jeſus Chriſt ſaith to St. Peter. Were it free for a thref to appear or not appear before the court, and go to priſon or to the gellows if he liſted, ſuch a coure were a name and not a thing: but we paſtor 〈◊〉 in no court that hath power over the priſoner, except he be perſwaded to call him, or to admit him, and be convinced by him for if be let the miniſter alone, the miniſter •… th neither power nor court to convene him to.

10. What he ſaith, that the magiſtrate cannot take exceptions that the Conſiſtory abſol •… whom the magiſtrate condemneth, as if it would not concerne the magiſtrate to take an account of the fact of the miniſter in abſolving 〈◊〉 priſoner, and as if the paſtour were not •… ged to give an account of it to him, may be queſtioned: for the magiſtrate is bound to take •… re that his priſoner make his peace with God before he die, and to uſe all means towards it; to that end he muſt appoint miniſters; and if they will not be employed about that work, or in caſe they do it amiſſe, I ſay, he may interpoſe his power and authority: and ſo ſay moſt of the Divines, that if the miniſter do not diſcharge his place in all its functions and acts, that the magiſtrate ought to enjoyn him to do it. And thus far the externall acts of the miniſter, viſiting the priſoners and comforting them, are ſubordinate to the juriſdiction of the magiſtrate.

11. What he alſo ſaith, that the magiſtrates office doth not extend to the care of ſouls, may likewiſe be queſtioned: for the contrary is proved by Scripture, and the authority of moſt Fathers and Divines. St. Auſtin againſt Creſconius lib. 5. cap. 51. ſaith, that Kings are Gods ministers, not only in things that pertain to humane ſociety, but alſo to Divine religion. Rivetus on the decalogue ſaith, that the • eſſer care of the magiſtrate is the adminiſtration of the Commonwealth • , but the firſt and chief care is the government of the church. How can the magiſtrates be nurſing fathers, ke •… ers of both tables, bound to reform, ſettle and preſerve the true religion, and promote the intereſt of Jeſus Chriſt as magiſtrates, except they ayme at the ſaving of ſouls? But though the office of the magiſtrate ſhould not extend to the care of ſouls, yet this doth not conclude a church-judicature diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate: for neither doth the magiſtrate meddle with the phyſitians office in curing diſeaſes, or look to the health of horſes and other cattle: every office hath its ſeverall care, but not its ſeverall juriſdiction.

12. This may be alſo queſtioned, that the Conſiſtory is not to meddle with the ſentence of the magiſtrate: for if he cleareth the nocent, and condemneth the innocent, he hath as much to do with him as with the pooreſt wretch condemned to die; he muſt tell him, as John told Herod, it is not lawfull for thee to do that, and cry abomination to him. There is no action of the magiſtrate, no ſentence or judgement of his, wherein there is either right or wrong, but falls within the cognizance and reprehenſion of the miniſter.

13. Briefly, in the caſe propounded, there is not the leaſt footſtep of juriſdiction or court, no citing, no witneſſes, no plaintiff, no defendant, ſentence, condemnation, abſolution, ſergeant, gaole, executioner, all conditions neceſſarie in every judicatorie; not ſo much as one of them is found in the court of Mr. Calandrin. 1. They do not cite the party; they entreat him to come: if he will not come, they have no remedy, they cannot compell him. 2. They have no witneſſes, nor evidences of the caſe, and therefore cannot pronounce ſentence. 3. The abſolution muſt be null, when they do not know whether it ſhall ſtand. 4. Neither do they know whether God will not abſolve whom they condemn. 5. They cannot put their ſentence in execution. 6. This can be no court, which the arraigned can diſmiſſe when he pleaſeth.

14. I ſhall willingly admit two courts, whereof I have ſpoken largely in my Paraeneſis, one called forum externum, the externall court or the court of magiſtracy, which is to be found in ſome meaſure of power in all aſſemblies and ſocieties of men, as churches, ſynods, presbyteries, families, ſchools, colledges, corporations, &c. and the other called forum internum, or the court of the conſcience. 1. In this God hath ſet a tribunall, a judge, a witneſſe, a plaintiff and defendant. 2. In that all is carried by outward evidences, whether in a ſynod, presbyterie, or any other court. 3. In that there is an obligation of active or paſſive obedience to the laws, decrees and ordinances that have the ſanction of a law, whether juſt or unjuſt. 4. In this obedience is due for conſcience ſake, and in obedience to God, to lawes, ordinances, and commands, either of God or of men, that are by the judgement of approbation & diſcretion apprehended to be good, juſt and holy. 5. In this there is a ſtronger ſtreſſe of obligation laid then in that; ſo that, as we ought rather to obey God then men, a man is obliged notwithſtanding all the ſanction of the magiſtrate, to appeal from the court of the magiſtrate to that of the conſcience, and to yield no obedience to any lawes, injunctions or commands of magiſtrates, paſtours, ſynods, presbyteries, churches, till after they have been there reviewed and approved of. There being but theſe two courts and juriſdictions, in the caſe propounded by Mr. Calandrin, the miniſter cannot be judge in another mans court or conſcience; and in that court I do not conceive he would put a greater tye, then the magiſtrate doth upon any man, as to bind him not to appeal from his judgement to the court of his own conſcience, or at leaſt not to remove the cauſe & judgement of the miniſters court to his own court. Neither is the miniſter judge in the other court, except by a delegated power from the magiſtrate, or by an aſſirmed power of magiſtracy, binding either to active or paſſive obedience; neither from that court, do I think that Mr. Calandrin would bind a man not to appeal to the court of his conſcience.

15. To draw to a concluſion; in the caſe propounded by Mr. Calandrin, we have acts of function, but none otherwiſe of juriſdiction then in the function of a phyſitian; whom in relation to his ſick patient, either being alone, or ſitting in a colledge among his brethren, I might make to exerciſe a juriſdiction diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, and parallel the phyſitian with the paſtor, the patient with the penitent, the colledge of phyſitians with the conſiſtory, the curing of the patient with the abſolving of the penitent, and ſo make the caſe propounded in the behalf of eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction applyable to the medicall juriſdiction, changing only the perſons. Yes I might ſhew, that a parallel being made, the medicall would outvie the eccleſiaſticall, as being leſſe inconſiſtent with the nature of juriſdiction, and more diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate. For 1. the magiſtrates office extendeth more to the care of ſouls then to that of bodies: 2. Phyſitians more properly cure diſeaſes, then miniſters pardon ſins: 3. Phyſitians judgements of the nature of diſeaſes are more certain and evident, then the miniſters judgements of grace and repentance; and therefore their ſentences are more peremptory. I might inſtance in more particulars; at leaſt I could ſo match both juriſdictions, as to make them alike diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate.

Mr. Calandrin in a poſtſcript giveth ſeverall exceptions againſt what I have ſaid in my Paraeneſis, of the two courts. He ſaith, I do not deny that conſcience may be called a court improperly: neither do I ſay that it hath all the properties of a court of magiſtracy; but it hath the neceſſary conditions required in a court: and that name it hath by the common conſent of all Divines, Philoſophers, ſchool-men, heathens, Papiſts and Proteſtants, none doubting of it; whereas many have queſtioned whether there be any ſuch thing as forum eccleſiaſticum; and none of thoſe that admitted ſuch a forum or eccleſiaſticall court, but, as they have confeſſed that eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction is improperly ſo called, ſo have they thought no leſſe of an eccleſiaſticall court.

He alſo findeth fault with me for ſaying, that excommunication was no act of eccleſiaſticall power, becauſe exerciſed in the court of man; and ſaith, Is not preaching as much an act of the externall court as excommunication, when both are done alike with words outwardly? I grant that the preaching of the word is an externall act, performed by outward moving of the lips, and lifting up the voice; and ſo all outward actions of men, as buying, ſelling, walking, ſtriking with a hammer, eating, drinking, and the like; which are ſaid to be performed in the court of man, not becauſe they are juridicall acts, but becauſe they are the ſubject and matter not only of ſuits and controverſies depending on the court of man, but alſo of lawes and orders made in the ſame court: as if a man preached not at all, or preached amiſſe, and erroneouſly or ſeditiouſly, that act of his may create an action in the externall court of man; ſo may all other actions I have named; as if one ſell another mans wares unknown to him, if he walks in an undue place, and time, if he ſtrikes his neighbour with a hammer; and ſo one may make an induction of all actions of men, which otherwiſe are no forinſecall acts, but are either naturall, morall actions, or acts of function, and not of juriſdiction: as in a phyſitian, to cure the ſick, in a ſea-man, to ſet his ſhip to ſail, in a merchant, to vend his wares, and ſo in a Divine, to do the acts of his function; all which are actions performed outwardly in the court of man, albeit they be not forinſecall. And by reaſon that excommunication is an outward act, it is done in the court of man, as well as buying, ſelling and walking; and beſides it is a forinſecall and juridicall act, binding men to outward obedience, either actively or paſſively, and of the ſame nature with other juridicall acts in the courts of men: but ſuch an act preaching of the word is not, binding none to outward obedience, except he be firſt inwardly convinced, though it may fall out to be the ſubject and matter 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.

NExt we are to conſider the nature and extent of the power of the miniſters of the Goſpell, wholly the ſame with that the Prophets under the old Teſtament had; a power not forcing the body, but enlightening the underſtanding, and convincing the heart, ruling the affections, and bringing them captive to the obedience of the croſſe. A power which the new Teſtament mentions in a hundred places, either in the ſame words, or in equivalent terms, and yet never ſo much as once underſtandeth by it a presbyterian ſynodicall or eccleſiaſticall power, of depoſing, excommunicating, and of making lawes and canons authoritatively; but alwayes meaneth the vertue and efficacy of the ſpirit of God in the word and miniſtery, called the power of God Rom. 1. v. 16. 1 Cor. 1. v. 14. and chap. 2. v. 5. and chap. 4. v. 19, 20. Epheſ. 3. v. 20. 1 Pet. 1. v. 5. A power by excellency called POWER, 1 Cor. 2. 4. by which we are the ſons of God, Joh. 1. v. 12, 13. which no man can withſtand, Act. 6. v. 10. by which the eyes are enlightened, and men turned from darkneſſe to light, Act. 26. v. 18. pricking, burning and affecting the heart with ſorrow, hope, joy, Act. 2. v. 7. Luc. 24. v. 32. diving into the ſecrets of the heart, Hebr. 4. v. 16. where we have a deſcription of the powerfull effects of the words, except by the word we are to underſtand the word incarnate, before whom all things created are ſaid to be naked. It is a power which is called the power of the reſurrection, Philipp. 3. v. 10. alſo the power and demonſtration of the ſpirit, 1 Cor. 2. v. 4. a power of the wiſdome and ſalvation of God, and oppoſed to the power of Sathan and darkneſſe, Act. 26. 18. Col. 1. v. 13. a power deſcribed in magnificent terms and mightily emphaticall, 2 Corinth. 10. v. 6. &c. This is the power called otherwiſe the power of the keyes, and of binding and looſing, by which the ſlaves to ſin and Satan are looſed, and the deſpiſers of the word by reſiſting the holy Ghoſt become more hard and bound.

I know of no other power of binding and looſing, no other keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to the church-officers: though properly ſpeaking, the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and looſing, are not committed to miniſters as the word is, but as the ſpirit is in the word; ſo that it is not the miniſters, but the word that bears the keyes; the opening of the heart with thoſe keyes as it is only the work of the ſpirit, ſo is it known only to the ſpirit of God in the heart of man convinced and converted, and not to the miniſter himſelf, who only apprehendeth his office of being the word-bearer, but is not ſenſible of its efficacy and workings.

Amyraldus theſ. 10. de 5. falſo dictis ſacramentis ſaith, that the power of binding and looſing did only belong to the Apoſtles, and that that power conſiſted in three particulars: 1. that being led by an unerring ſpirit, whatſoever in revealing the myſtery of the Goſpell they preached, and approved for ſound doctrine, was to be received with like credit as if it had been delivered by Chriſt himſelf, and whatever they ſaid was amiſs or falſe, was likewiſe to be taken as if it had been pronounced ſo in Heaven: & this, ſaith he, is according to the Hebrew Idiome, to bind and to looſe: 2. in inflicting corporall puniſhments and vexation by Satan upon thoſe that diſhonoured Chriſtianity: 3. in freeing thoſe that were delivered to Satan upon their repentance, and forgiving their ſins. He is yet much more expreſſe and diffuſe upon this ſubject; but I ſtudy brevity, which makes me I do not here inſert his own words in Latin; but however he ſaith enough to undermine the foundation upon which the presbyterians build their excommunication, which hitherto being mainly ſupported by that power of binding and looſing, and the two chief ſtayes, namely this place of Matth. 18. of binding and looſing, and that of the inceſtuous perſon 1 Cor. 5. failing, there now remaineth but a poor ſingle crutch to draw along excommunication, cut out of theſe words, tell it unto the church.

Mr. Lightfoot, an exceeding learned and reverend Divine, giveth a very probable expoſition of the power of looſing and binding, in his Harmony Matth. 16. which doubtleſſe doth carry in it more ſolidity and weight then the vulgar explication given by the Reverend Aſſembly and others, of the power of cenſuring, excommunicating and abſolving. He ſaith, that the power of binding and looſing was given only to the Apoſtles, as far as ſome part of Moſes law was to ſtand in practiſe, and ſome to be laid aſide; ſome things under the law prohibited were now to be permitted, and ſome things permitted to be now prohibited: ſo that in theſe words, whatſoever, &c. Chriſt promiſeth to the Apoſtles ſuch an aſſiſtance of his ſpirit, and giveth them ſuch a power, that what they allowed to ſtand in practiſe ſhould ſtand, and what to fall, ſhould fall; in ſhort, what they bound on earth ſhould be bound in heaven. And that expoſition is the more receivable, becauſe the Greek text ſpeaks not of binding or looſing perſons, but things, ſaying, not, whomſoever you ſhall bind, but whatſoever things ye ſhall bind, &c. that is, whatſoever things ye ſhall diſpenſe with or oblige unto.

He alſo on the 1 Cor. 5. parallels this place of binding and looſing to Joh. 20. v. 22. whoſe ſins yea retain, they are retained, &c. and ſaith, that that power was a peculiar gift to the Apoſtles, when Chriſt breathed on them, by which they ſpoke ſtrange tongues, healed diſeaſes, killed and made alive, delivered up to Satan, and beſtowed the holy Ghoſt, or the power to work the ſame miracles. Which expoſition ſtrengtheneth the precedent, which is but a branch and an effect of that miraculous power conferred on the Apoſtles. For by the ſame power of miracles, or of binding and looſing, whereby they delivered to Satan, and healed diſeaſes, they alſo 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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. Tis 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.

It is the opinion both of the rever. diſſenting brethren, and of the Rever. Aſſembly, (in a book called reaſons of the diſſenting, &c. p. 6. and 58.) that both keyes are given together, and not one without the other; though, as the Rever. Aſſembly ſaith, one may be abler to exerciſe one then the other: which ſheweth that no church-officer can (albeit abler to rule then to preach) be endowed with a power of ruling without the power of preaching. But the Rever. Aſſembly ſaith, both keyes are given together, but neither to be exerciſed without a call, and ſometimes one may be called to exerciſe the one and not the other. It is not poſſible for me to apprehend what weight this hath: for ſince they acknowledge that no church-officer doth receive one key without the other, it is not poſſible he can be called to the handling of one key only, except they will ſay he is called to keep the other key idle, hung by his ſide.

It being thus made evident, that the power of the keyes and of binding and looſing are committed ſolely to the miniſters of the Goſpell, who are entruſted with the word of reconciliation; it is likewiſe of neceſſary conſequence, if there be any ſuch thing as a power of excommunication and inflicting church-cenſures, as a conſequent of binding and looſing, that this ſaid power ſhould appertain to the miniſters of the Goſpell only, and that neither lay-elders, deacons nor members of churches, be enabled to excommunicate by any warrant of binding and looſing from Chriſt.

None of theſe things being, as I hope, deniable, and the power of excommunication being thus reſtrained to the miniſters of the Goſpell alone; if it be made good that excommunication is no law of Chriſt, it will follow neceſſarily, either that excommunication is not an act of the power of the keyes, and of binding and looſing, committed to the miniſters of the Goſpell, or that their power is none of the power of the keyes, but exorbitant, tranſcending the limits ſet by Chriſt, and bringing forth acts which are none of Chriſts.

3. That likewiſe if the church of the Jewes never knew nor exerciſed in their ſynagogues a juriſdiction diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, neither now are the Chriſtian ſynagogues or churches to know, or exerciſe ſuch a diſtinct power.

4. But ſtrange it is that, ſince God giving ſuch very exact lawes as he did to the church of the Jewes, yet he gave not to that church a juriſdiction diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, it ſhould now be quite otherwiſe; and that God that gave no expreſſe lawes, diſcipline or rule for the government of the Chriſtian church, yet ſhould inveſt them with a power diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate.

5. It ſeems altogether incongruous that that power and juriſdiction, as is the eccleſiaſticall, which mainly is converſant about lawes, conſtitutions and rules which are inſtituted and ratified by men, and do not oblige either actively or paſſively, but as they are commanded by men, I ſay, it is altogether unreaſonable, that ſuch a juriſdiction ſhould not be placed in the magiſtrate; he being the fountain and ſpring from whom all humane juriſdictions, lawes and conſtitutions do flow. And it is ſo much the more abſurd and unreaſonable that conſtitutions, decrees, canons, diſcipline, meerly of humane inſtitution, ſhould be ordered and commanded by a power and juriſdiction meerly Divine, and diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate; when as all conſtitutions, lawes and ordinances given to the Jewes, and all being of Divine inſtitution, were notwithſtanding ordered and commanded by the magiſtrate, & not by the keepers of an eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction diſtinct from the civil.

HAving examined what plea the Rever. Aſſembly can have in the 30. chapter of their confeſſion for a government diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, the 31. chapter, which is of ſynods and councells, is more ſuperficially to be handled: for what we have ſaid before of the juriſdiction of churches, plainly ſheweth that the juriſdiction of ſynods is no otherwiſe diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate; for ſince ſynods muſt be made up of church-officers, it is not poſſible they ſhould impart to ſynods what they have not in churches, and that thoſe that have not a juriſdiction in churches diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, ſhould delegate to themſelves a power which they never had.

I admit willingly the neceſſity of ſynods, as the firſt ſection doth: ſynods being neceſſary whether magiſtrates be orthodox or not, 1. for preſerving and reſtoring truth, 2. for uniting churches in one judgement, 3. for keeping an externall communion of Saints. And it were to be wiſhed, as the magiſtrate of England hath ſet up again the Lords houſe, ſo they would re-eſtabliſh a houſe of convocation, or an aſſembly of miniſters meeting at the ſame time that the Parliament ſits, treating ſuch queſtions in matters of religion as ſhould be propounded to them by the Parliament, or they themſelves ſhould petition the Parliament to be handled; not being inveſted with more judiciall power then a company of merchants or ſea-men, called by the Parliament to give their advice about trade and navigation; in which convocation the major part of votes ſhould not be ſo much regarded by the Parliament, as the weight of their opinions and reaſons: and therefore, as it was in the laſt aſſembly, where 20. did not prevail againſt one diſſenting brother; ſo this convocation ſhould return to the Parliament, not the reſult of the whole aſſembly, becauſe carried by the major part of the members, but the names of parties aſſenting and diſſenting.

This convocation I humbly conceive ought to be made up only of miniſters of the Goſpell, that have wholly ſet apart themſelves for the work of the miniſtery and ſtudy of Divinity. For as the ſupreme magiſtrate uſually calls men of that calling and profeſſion about which he is to make lawes, as being the moſt fit to give counſell in the thing they are called for; ſo doubtleſſe none are ſo fit to be adviſed with in matters concerning religion, as thoſe that are moſt learned and verſed in it: for I hold them not only the fitter members in an aſſembly convened to treat of matters concerning religion, but alſo not unfit, yea as fit as any other men, to ſit and vote in Parliaments. For this opinion of a double juriſdiction, eccleſiaſticall and civil, that lay-men muſt be judges in civil courts, and miniſters in eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies, as it hath barred lay-men from ſitting, at leaſt from voting in ſynods and councels, ſo hath it removed clergy-men from ſitting and being judges in civil courts and Parliaments: which opinion hath out-gone the Papiſts in ſome things; for though they do not permit lay-men to have votes, yea hardly to ſit in ſynods, yet do the popiſh magiſtrates admit eccleſiaſticall men in their courts and judicatories: thus lately Biſhops in England ſate in Parliament. I confeſſe that Popes, to advance the building of their empire within the empires of magiſtrates, Kings and Emperours, would be ſure to have an oare in every boat, yea more, for though they have members of their own in civil courts, yet they permit no members of civil courts to ſit and vote in ſynods and councels. But ſome Proteſtant magiſtrates in reforming popery, as they have not ſo much relinquiſht and parted with their own right as popiſh magiſtrates, to looſe their right in calling and voting in ſynods, ſo have they more wronged the clergy, debarring them from ſitting and voting in their courts; which I humbly conceive to be a loſſe to the magiſtrate, and a wrong and injury done to the miniſters: and thereupon I propound theſe conſiderations.

1. Debarting of the miniſters from ſitting and voting in Parliament hath occaſioned and confirmed mens minds, ſpecially of miniſters, in that opinion, that there is ſuch a thing in Scripture and reaſon as a government in the hands of church-officers diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, and that there is a double juriſdiction, & two judicatories, one civil, whereof the magiſtrates and laity are members and judges, and another eccleſiaſticall, in which miniſters only muſt ſit and vote: for miniſters think it but reaſonable, that ſince they are kept off by the laity from being members in Parliament and in all civil judicatories, ſo likewiſe the magiſtrate and the laity ſhould not be admitted to ſit and vote in ſynods: whereas it being certain, that there is no ground in Scripture or reaſon for a double juriſdiction, & a government diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, and all judiciall proceedings in whatſoever court, aſſembly, Parliament, ſynods, presbyteries, being acts of the magiſtrates juriſdiction, the miniſter now conſidered as as member of a Chriſtian commonwealth, ought to enjoy the ſame priviledge as the other members of it. All which make me conceive, that it was more heat then reaſon that made ſo many write againſt the Biſhops voting in Parliament; beſides it was no good work to divide juriſdictions, which by the miniſters ſitting and voting in Parliament, like other ranks of men, were re-united.

2. There being in a Parliament men of all ſorts and ranks, gentlemen, lawyers, phyſitians, apothecaries, merchants, and they all having an equall intereſt to maintain religion, lands, liberty, lawes, wife and children of their own; it is altogether unreaſonable, that miniſters, that are alike concerned in all theſe, and are as well members of the Commonwealth as the beſt of them, ſhould notwithſtanding as it were be culled out from having that priviledge that others of their fellow-citizens enjoy.

3. It is known that men do not ſit and vote in Parliament as merchants, phyſitians, ſilk-men or drapers, and that if there be new lawes to make, or old to alter, ſuppoſe about ſome manufacture, as cloth-working, a member of Parliament being profeſſour of that craft which is in agitation, is the moſt able to diſcourſe upon that ſubject, and to ſtate how the thing may be regulated; and this he doth as a profeſſour of the craft about which the law is to be made: but when the thing debated is to be carried by vote, & receive the ſtamp of law, & of publick authority, then, I ſay, none of the members give their votes as profeſſours of the art and ſcience which they exerciſe in the Commonwealth, and which is debated in Parliament, no not if a member were a chief juſtice of England; but all ſit and vote as men inveſted with power of legiſlation, and at that time a phyſitian voteth not in the quality and capacity of a phyſitian, no not when lawes are made for phyſitians and apothecaries, although when they are in debate, a phyſitian may diſcourſe pertinently of phyſick, as a phyſitian and skilfull in his art. This is the very caſe of miniſters of the Goſpell, who for that reaſon, that men do not ſit and vote in Parliament conſidered as men of ſuch a calling or profeſſion in the Commonwealth, ought likewiſe to vote & ſit in Parliament: for as the profeſſion of phyſick or manufacture doth not deveſt a man from being a good and underſtanding Commonwealths-man, ſo neither doth the paſtorall calling.

4. It ſeems to me very unreaſonable, yea unconſcionable, that any mans profeſſion or habit, how high or low ſoever, ſhould lay an incapacity upon the perſon of one, though never ſo much capable and ſufficient, to contribute his wit and counſell towards the common-weal; as if the magiſtrate would not take a loan of money of 100000 l. of one that had a long cloak, but would be willing to take it of one that had a ſhort cloak; or a man in danger of drowning would not take his neighbour by the cloak or by his hair, for fear of ſpoiling or diſordering of them: for thus do thoſe which will not admit the advice of a miniſter in publick deliberations, were he never ſo able to ſerve the Commonwealth by his wit, wiſedome and induſtrie, and the need never ſo great, meerly becauſe of his habit, and his profeſſion of the miniſtery. Which calling I am ſo far from thinking that it doth diſinable him from ſitting and voting in Parliament, that not only it renders him the fitter, but alſo that he is not thereby hindred from attempting any noble action which might turn to ſome great publick benefit. A miniſter having the valour of Caeſar, & ability to ſubdue Rome, or a ſecret to burn all the ſhips of the King of Spain in his ports, I conceive that his miniſtery ought not to keep him off from being employed to uſe all his induſtry to ſerve the Church of God or his countrey in ſuch a way. But why is not a phyſitian diſinabled by his profeſſion to ſit in Parliament, and a Divine is? whenas there is a great deal more affinity betwixt the profeſſion of a Divine and the debates in Parliament, then betwixt them and the profeſſion of phyſick.

5. Although men do not uſually fit and vote in Parliament by the right of the calling and profeſſion they are of in the Commonwealth, except they ſit by their birth; yet it were to be wiſht that men that are generally more skilled in moſt profeſſions, and beſt able to judge what is right or wrong, and are not ignorant of affairs of the world, ſhould be called: ſuch as I conceive are univerſity-men, and miniſters of the Goſpell.

6. Since the greateſt end of magiſtracy is to advance the Kingdom of the Lord Jeſus, and that for obtaining of that end it is needfull to make lawes and conſtitutions ſubſervient to it, why ſhould miniſters of all men be left out, whoſe education and profeſſion renders them more capable to adviſe for the obtaining of that great end?

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 ſelfſame 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 diſtinction of juriſdiction was not neceſſary, becauſe it was one people & one nation, and one temple whereto all the Iewes did gather together: and therefore ſince they could conveniently be governed, the unity of juriſdiction ſtanding, there ought not to have been a diſtinction: yea it was very convenient that there ſhould be an identity of juriſdiction, that it might be believed that it was the ſame God to whom they all miniſtred. There was the ſame reaſon for the temple, for it was his will that there ſhould be one place in which they ſhould offer ſacrifice unto him; leſt if that had been done in many places, they might have thought there had been many gods. Stapleton de Prin. doctrin. 197. acknowledgeth the ſame indentity of juriſdiction among the Jewes.

I come to the ſecond, viz. to Mr. Gilleſpies conceſſions; which are as large as I can wiſh: that the church & ſtate were the ſame materially; that the ſame man was both high Prieſt and chief judge of the nation; that elders of ſynagogues did exerciſe coercive juriſdiction; that the Jewiſh Senat after the thirtieth year of Chriſt was eccleſiaſticall, and yet was over all perſons and cauſes, except capitall; and that there was not then any other ſenat extant; but that before the thirtieth year, the ſame ſenat having the judgement of capitall cauſes, was civil. All theſe being granted, I ſee not what further can be required in the behalf of unity of juriſdiction; ſince 1. the ſame men that were members of the eccleſiaſticall ſenat, were alſo members of the civil ſenat: 2. that the ſynagogues were inveſted with magiſtracy, ſince the elders had a coercive power; ſo that in the very ſynagogues there is by his confeſſion a coalition of powers and juriſd ctions: 3. making but one ſenate both before and after the 30. year, which judged of all cauſes and matters, and over all perſons, the civil before the 30. of Chriſt judging of eccleſiaſticall cauſes, and the eccleſiaſticall after the 30. judging of civil.

But I could never underſtand why he calls the ſenate after the 30. year of Chriſt meerly eccleſiaſticall, becauſe it did not judge of capitall cauſes, though it had cognizance and judgement of all other matters Can the judging or not judging of capitall and criminall cauſes alter the conſtitution and name of an aſſembly or court, ſo as that when it judgeth of capitall cauſes it muſt be called civil, otherwiſe it muſt be called eccleſiaſticall?

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.

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 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.

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. • . 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 al • ke managed, both by eccleſiaſt call aſſembl • es and by the pow • 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. that there was no true proper church but a particular church; that therefore a presbyterian nationall church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery, is not properly ſaid to be a church. I am of opinion that the Roman church upon that account is very improperly called a church, but moſt improperly a t • ue church: for if it hardly deſerveth the name of a church, how can it be called a true one, at leaſt morally, though it may be metaphyſically; it being a conſociation of erroneous and hereticall churches? for if every priva • e church within the Roman communion is ſo disfigured, that I do not think it deſerveth the name of a church; how improperly then is a ſyſtern made up of thoſe particular churches ſtiled a church? And ſo I conceive that the queſtion about the trueneſſe of the Romiſh church, which hath ſo puzzled men, may be eaſily reſolved.

I have but one paſſage more of Amyraldus to alledge, which a man could hardly believe to be the language of a profeſſed enemy to the cauſe of the brethren. For if they ſhould ſtate their own opinion, of the power and independency of churches, they cannot uſe more ſignificant words then thoſe of Amyraldus, who in his diſputation de concil. author. theſ. 28. ſaith, that private churches ought to retain their full right, li • erty and power untoucht, ſpecially in matters of great concernment, as points of faith, not ſubmitting ſlaviſhly their own judgements to ſynods, but expecting that ſynods ſhould define and decree nothing till they have had the advice and approbation of particular churches. This is the paſſage in Latin: Alibi diximus, pulcherrimum & ſaluberrimum eſſe earum eccleſiarum inſtitutum, quae concillorum decreta ad res magni moment • , qualia ſunt dogmata fidet, pertinentia rata eſſe noluerint, niſi prius conſultis ſynodis & eccleſiis particular • bus, quarum quaeque ſymbolam ſuam ad veritatis cluc'dationem conferat.

Salmaſius followeth the ſteps of Amyraldus, or rather Amyraldus of him, for Amyraldus wrote laſt. He is very large in his apparatus ad libros de primatu: and I ſhould be tedious to the reader, to ſet down here all that he hath handſomely ſtated about the nature of a church. I will only quote two pages, which are 265. and 266. The ſubſtance of his diſcourſe is comprehended under theſe 4 or 5 heads. 1. That all churches by right are equall in power and dignity, and are independent. 2. That the conſociation under the heathen Emperours was voluntary and by conſent. 3. That under Chriſtian Emperours a conſociation was introduced by humane right; ſo that what was at firſt by free and mutuall conſent, came afterwards under the Chriſtian Emperours to be of humane inſtitution and conſtitution. 4. That the unity of churches conſiſted not in an united collection of private churches, but in an agreement in faith and doctrine; for ſuch an union there is betwixt the Helvetian, Belgick and French churches, who agreeing in the ſame faith and doctrine, do notwithſtanding differ in diſcipline; ſo that theſe churches may be called independent each on the other, & yet they keep an union and communion among themſelves. No other communion and independency do the reverend diſſenting brethren admit and practiſe, either among themſelves, or with the presbyterian churches both at home and abroad. 5. The fifth head is, that a conſociation of many particular churches joyned with the ſame band of diſcipline, and under the direction, counſell, advice, not the command or judiciall power of any ſynod or presbytery, doth much conduce to the keeping the unity of faith, the band of charity, and the communion of ſaints. In the ſame place, and many others throughout his apparatus, he ſaith, that the communication betwixt particular churches was voluntary, and by way of counſell, every church reſerving to themſelves full right and power as to thoſe acts of their diſcipline, and the acts of binding and looſing; ſo that every church had power to take cognizance of any fact and crime committed in their body, to cenſure and excommunicate them, or reconcile them again, without any appeal to other churches or ſynods, except it were to beg their friendly interceſſion; for ſo they were wont to conſult and entreat Biſhops, and namely him of Rome, to review the ſentence, repairing to him as to an umpire, not a judge, to diſannull or evacuate the judgement: which makes the Romaniſts take thoſe applications to the Biſhop of ROme, as an acknowledgement of ſupremacy over all the churches.

To theſe authorities Iwill adde that of learned and moderate Spanhemius, who did not uſe invectives as others, but arguments and reaſons as good as he could; yet in my opinion the good man miſtaketh much in his Epiſtle to David Buchanan, not ſo much through ignorance of the right, as of the fact: yet in the 55. page he hath theſe words, which are much to the advantage of the brethren. A particular church hath no power at all over another, but they are all collateral, and of equall right and authority.

Let us now hear other advocates of the brethren, before the word independency came to be given to Proteſtants in the world. The firſt is learned Ameſius, in his firſt book of the marrow of Divinity chapt. • 0. where after he hath in the 17, 18, 19, 20. and 26 ſections, ſpoken of the parity and equality of particular churches in right and power, in the 27. ſection he tells us what conſociation of particular churches may be admitted: theſe be his words; Particular churches may, yea ought to have a mutuall confederation and conſociation amongſt them in claſſes and ſynods, that by a common conſent they may be helpfull one to another with as much commodity as may be, chiefly in things of greater concernment: but this combination doth not conſtitute a new frame of church, neither ought it in any ſort to take away that liberty and power which Chriſt hath left to his churches, ſince this form is only uſefull by way of direction.

John Meſtrezat, a very learned orthodox Divine, lately deceaſed miniſter of Paris, goeth upon the ſame grounds with Ameſius in his book of the church written in French; and his teſtimony is moſt conſiderable, becauſe being a French-man, he could not know or foreſee, as Ameſius perchance might, any ſuch plea in England about right or power of churches aggregated. It would be too long here to ſet down his own words at large. For thoſe that underſtand French, they may ſee ſpecially the 1 chap. of the 3. book, where he ſaith that all power to do any church acts is placed in the particular church; that all church-priviledges and promiſes were made and granted unto, and in conſideration of a particular church aſſembled in one place. As for aggregation and conſociation of churches, he holds it not to be grounded upon any pattern or command from Scripture, or even from a judiciall power given by Chriſt to claſſes, ſynods & presbyteries over particular churches, but meerly aſſumed prudentially for mutuall preſervation 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , houſes of prayer and of learning: of which you have mention 2 Kings 6. v. 1. where the ſons of the prophets multiplying, and their houſe, temple or auditory being too little, they enlarged it; and chap. 22. v. 14. Huldah the prepheteſſe is ſaid to dwell in Bamiſchnah, in a colledge or ſchool of learning. So from 1 Samuel 19. v. 18. and 20. one may gather, that Samuel, being the chief Rabbi and Prophet, having many diſciples under him, had his houſe of oration, ſchool or Colledge at Naioth in Ramah, where he did not only teach publickly upon ſabbath • ayes, but alſo inſtructed upon other days his diſciples or young prophets, called his ſons, as appeareth by the 20. verſe; except by prophecying be meant uttering marvellous things of Gods greatneſſe, goodneſſe, providence: for the ordinary gift and charge of the prophets was, not ſo much to declare hidden and foretell future things, as to expound the law, and to exhort the people, and pray with them; in which ſenſe John Baptiſt is called by Jeſus Chriſt a propher, who yet never wrote nor uttered any prophecies; and Exod. 7. v. 4. Aaron is called the prophet of Moſes, becauſe he was his interpreter to the people. And the great number of thoſe prophets ſheweth manifeſtly, that their ordinary employment was to do what the prophets of the new Teſtament do, to exhort, teach, comfort-rebuke; no leſſe number being required for that work under the old then under the new. In the 1 Kings ch. 18. when Jezabel did ſeek to deſtroy the Prophets, Obadiah hid 100. in a cave; and in the 2. book chap. 2. v. 16 the ſons of the Prophets ſead of their own body 50. men to ſeek after El jah. Sure there was no need of ſo many to foretell future things, when one of a 1000. Prophets might undergo that charge well enough, to ſatisfy all the people of the mind of God concerning future things, wherewith but few of the people need to be acquainted; but all the people had need of teachers and inſtructers in the law of Moſes, and that in a conſiderable number, for 1000. had not been enough to inſtruct the fourth part of the people in the ordinary way of prophecying, that is teaching and exhorting; for the Rabbins ſay that there were 480. ſuch houſes of convocation or prayer, otherwiſe called ſynagogues, in Jeruſalem. There is mention made of two houſes which were famous, one at Bethel, the other at Jericho, whither the ſons of the Prophets repaired to Eliſha. They were frequented not only every ſabbath-day and new moon, for praying with the people of the neighbourhood, as appeareth by 2 Kings v. 22. but alſo for teaching their diſciples, and reſolving any that ſhould come to them upon any doubt: whither it is likely David did go Pſal. 73. v. 16. when being inwardly perplexed with diſtractions, he could find no ſettlement, till he went to the ſanctuary of God, to be inſtructed better then he was; where by the ſanctuary doubtleſs is meant ſuch a houſe of convocation or ſchool. And in the 27. Pſalme, that one thing that David deſired of the Lord was, no doubt, to have communion with God and with the faithfull people in the Temple or houſe of prayer, whereto he reſorted every ſabbath; for it is not likely he underſtood this of being partaker of the legall rites & ſacrifices in the Temple at Jeruſalem, which was not yet built.

What was the form and matter of the exerciſes in thoſe houſes the Scripture mentioneth not: only we gather by what the Prophets of Baal did 1 Kings 18. v. 26. that likewiſe the Prophets of God in thoſe ſynagogues or houſes of convocation did pray from morning untill noon, and then till evening taught by catechiſing and expounding; for in the 29. verſe the word propheſving is equivalent to teaching and inſtructing. And Samuel 1. book c. 12. v 23. maketh two parts of his propheticall office, viz. to pray, and teach: God forbid that I ſhould ſin against God, in ceaſing to pray for you; but I will teach you.

Now as thoſe prophets had no dependence on the Prieſts and Levites, no more then the houſes of convocation where they taught; ſo neither do we read that there was any conſociation of all theſe convocations into one nationall church, under ſome church-judicatory made up of Prieſts and Levites, or that they had any dependence on the Sanedrim or ſtate-court, preſcribing them any orders how to govern themſelves; only they were not to teach and expound ought but the law, whereof the magiſtrate was the keeper and guardian, nor to thwart the duties of the publick worſhip commanded, ſuch as were the killing of the paſſeover at ſet times, the appearing of the males three times in the year at the place that God was to chuſe, and performing all the ſacrifices, oblations and rites enjoyned: and ſo far were the convocations depending on the magiſtrate. For in the firſt inſtitution we do not read that theſe convocations or ſynagogues, or thoſe that were over them, were or needed to be inveſted with any juriſdiction, but were like ſchools of learning, whoſe maſters and teachers were alſo like Plato, Zeno, Ariſtotle, over the ſchools in Greece, who had ſcholars men of ripe years and diſcretion, that with a withing fulmiſſion embraced their ſayings and precepts; ſo that the Prince or Dr. of the ſchool needed not any reſtraining or coercive diſcipline to order them. And indeed it is very likely that thoſe heatheniſh ſchools of Philoſophans had their firſt riſe and ouginall from thoſe 〈◊〉 wiſh ſchools. But that each of thoſe convocations where Prophets taught and expounded were independent from other convocations, ſaving only ſo far as they were all members of the ſame Commonwealth, will appear anone, when we enquire into the nature of theſe convocations, when they went currently under the name of ſynagogues, and all jointly were not one Commonwealth in one countrey, but lived diſperſed: for then every lynagogue was ſui Iuris, and governed it ſelf; though ſome R • maniſts would perſwade us that many ſynagogues were aggregated under one Archiſynagogue or chief 〈◊〉 ; which is a great miſtake, for ſome ſynagogues had ſometimes many Archiſynagogues. It is true, we read in the Theodoſian code of Patriarchs of the J • wes, lib. 8. tit. 18. de Iudae • s coelicolis, or Samaritanis; but thoſe Patriarchs were not over any matter concerning law or religion, but were only publick treaſurers of mony levied for the poor, for building of ſynagogues, & the like. 'Tis true alſo that the nature of thoſe ſynagogues being changed, as long as the Senat at Jeruſalem had any repute, other ſynagogues did defer very much to it, requeſting letters of advice from them; but ſubmitted not to any command, as from a ſuperiour to an inferiour, as we gather by Act. 9. v. 2. and 3. and ch. 28. v. 21.

But to follow the hiſtory of theſe convocations a little farther: their independency is clearly to be ſeen when the faithfull people lived under idolatious Kings, as under Jeroboam and his ſucceſſours; for they could not depend on the Sanedum at Jeruſalem, ſince it was a capitall 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 ſy • 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 • e • 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 infl • ct ſome kind of penalty, they took up admon • 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.

THat eccleſiaſticall power of depoſing, excommunicating, and making lawes authoritatively, as it is aſſumed by the Pope and the Romiſh clergy, is not only more conſonant to reaſon, and the literall ſenſe of the Scripture, but alſo very agreeable with their corrupt principles in doctrine and practiſe: whereas quite contrary, the eccleſiaſticall power with all its appurtenances as it is aſſumed and held by the preſbyterians, is altogether diſſonant from the holineſſe of their life and doctrine, and is more repugnant to reaſon & the letter of the Scripture.

1. Neither the papiſts nor the presbyterians have any expreſſe place of Scripture for a double juriſdiction, except they both make uſe of that of St. Luc. 22. v. 38. alledged by Bonifacius the 8. behold, here are two ſwords.

2. Though the Popes ſpeak big of their juriſdiction as diſtinct from the magi •… trates juriſdiction, yet de facto they make of two but one, in that they ſubordinate the temporall juriſdiction to the ſpirituall, conceiving it altogether inconvenient to conſtitute two coordinate powers, ſince one muſt be ſupreme, and the ſupreme muſt include the inferiour; and that the end of the temporall being ſubordinate to the end of the ſpirituall, thoſe that have the managing of the temporall juriſdiction muſt likewiſe be ſubordinate and ſubject to the ſpirituall juriſdiction. Theſe are the arguments of Bonifacius and Bellarmin; and upon theſe grounds all ſtates and magiſtrates, being but miniſters of God in managing the temporall power, muſt be obedient to all acts and ſentences of the ſpirituall juriſdiction, which the miniſters of God in the Goſpell are entruſted with: ſo that the magiſtrates power being ſubordinate to the eccleſiaſticall, all appeals from civil judicatories muſt be valid, and ſo all ſentences of excommunications of what perſons ſoever. But the ſame eccleſiaſticall power, as it is challenged by the presbyterians to be coordinate to the power of the magiſtrate, rendreth all acts of excommunication altogether unreaſonable and unwarrantable.

For it is but reaſonable that a man ſhould ſubmit to a power that is either ſubordinate to another, or that hath no ſupreme or collateral: but it would trouble one to be ſentenced by a power that is neither ſoveraign nor ſubordinate, as is the eccleſiaſticall. Neither is it leſſe unreaſonable, that the ſame man, ſubject both to the eccleſiaſticall and the civil power, being condemned by one of the powers, cannot ſo much as ſeek for remedy in the court of that power that ought to give him defence and protection. The Pope well foreſaw he could not depoſe a King, except the power of the King were ſubordinate to that of the Pope. But Zanchius and ſome others though they do not make the temporall power ſubordinate to the ſpirituall, yet they hold that Kings and magiſtrates are no leſſe ſubject to the cenſure of excommunication then the meaneſt member of a church.

3. The denoſing of a King or other magiſtrate is a reſult 〈…〉 flowing from excommunication: for if by excommunication a man is made a member of Satan, whoſe addreſſe, converſation & company is to be avoided by all good men, it comes much to one paſs either to depoſe him, or to put him into ſuch a condition, in which he hath but the name of a King, which is done by excommunication. And therefore Emanuel Sa well expreſſeth the ſenſe of the Romaniſts, and with it the true conſequence of excommunication; which indeed, if there be ſuch a thing, muſt be as he defines it, aphoriſ verbo excommunicationis: An excommunicated perſon is ſuſpended from his office and benefice, and cannot judge, accuſe or witneſſe, §. 27. But that excommunication held by presbyterians, by which Kings excommunicated may ſtill retain their authority and power as before, is altogether inconſiſtent with reaſon. Can a man delivered to Satan make lawes obliging for conſcience ſake? Can a ſoveraign put to ſhame and confuſion, yea execration, by a ſentence of excommunication, be truſted by his ſubjects? or can a ſubject excommunicated and rejected by ſuch a ſolemn act, as unworthy to have any communion with Chriſtians, be entruſted by his ſoveraign with the managing of the great affairs of ſtate, by which union & communion is maintained among all ranks of people?

4. Excommunication is very agreeable with the headſhip of the Pope under Chriſt in the government of the Catholick church; for he doth but expell a man out of the pale that bounds his juriſdiction. But a miniſter or a preſbytery excommunicating either a King or any other man, cannot ſay that their excommunication extendeth as far as the bounds of their juriſdiction, ſince they have not yet defined how far it extendeth: ſurely, not ſo far as, and no further then the juriſdiction of the magiſtrate under which they live: for the eccleſiaſticall and ſpirituall juriſdiction is not limited by mens bounds; for it is like the place of the Angels; one may ſay they are here, but one cannot ſay that they are not there. If it reacheth all over the world, then a presbytery of Scotland may as well excommunicate a man in Germany, as in Scotland.

ALthough I made this ſubject the greateſt part of my Latin book, yet I had much more to ſay then I did write, purpoſing one time or other to diſcover, that excommunication hath been the principall and main tool in the hands of the man of ſin to build up the Roman Hierarchie, or that dominion which the Pope hath procured himſelf in all ſtates and Empires round about him; which is the very myſtery of iniquity ſpoken of by S. Paul: To avoid prolixity therefore, intending here ſut an extract, I will ſtrive to contract my ſelf, & give but a breviary in few chapters of what I deſigne, if God gives me life, in another tongue.

I muſt firſt ſtate what my oppoſites mean by excommunication, that by the deſcription they make of it, I may with leſſe difficulty make good, that it is repugnant to reaſon, Scripture, and the practiſe of all nations, heathens, Iewes, yea of many Chriſtians in all ages; for except they give it me themſelves, it is as impoſſible for me to delineate it, as to give the true definition of purgatory, or of limbus patrum; for all parties are not yet agreed what the excluſion is from and by whom, and what men are excommunicable. For ſome hold that excommunication, at leaſt the leſſe, is from the Euchariſt, as the greater is from the aſſembly of Chriſtians: others not only from the externall communion, but alſo from the internall. Some hold that only Biſhops, yea that one only Biſhop may excommunicate, as Ambroſe did Theod • ſius: ſome think that p • es • yters and miniſters may do it; and of theſe, ſome ſay that one may do it, others ſay there muſt be three at leaſt. Ca • vin and ſome others hold excommunication is v •… d • except it be the act of a whoſe p •… v •… church. Many are of opinion tha • th • p •… b, t •… y without the concurrence of the people may excourmunicate. As for the ſubject or object o • • xcommunication, ſome think that Kings and ma •… rates, as well as any other 〈◊〉 ch • members, may • e ex • ommunicated: othe • s e • e •… t them Thoſe that make three communions, according to the three ſeverall acceptions of Church in Scripture, ſay that excommunication is only an excluſion or a putting out of the communion which is amongſt members of a 〈◊〉 church: others that it is an • xcluſion •… t of the communion of the whole Catholick 〈◊〉 • hu • ch; whereby they warrant th • power of the Pope in excomm • n cating Emperours and Kings, who, ſince they are members of the Cath •… k church, may be put out of the communion by the pallor within that communion. But ſome hold, that the vertue of excommunication • x •… s no further th • n the juriſdiction of the ma •… ate where the excommunication is pronounced.

There being ſuch diverſity of opinions amongſt our oppoſites about the true notion of excommunication, it is not poſſible for any of them to give a good account and deſcription of excommunication to ſatisfy all, much •… ſſe can I do it: yet muſt I give ſome deſcription of it, allowable, as I conceive, • y moſt of them.

It is a judiciall act or ſentence of excluding ſcand • lous perſons and offenders from ſome church-priviledges, by church-men or churchmembers inveſted with a power of juriſdiction diſtinct from the power of the magiſtrate; which ſentence ought not to be reviowed or voided, but either by the ſame power that firſt gave the ſentence, or by a ſuperiour judicatory in ead • m ſerie (as they call it) of the ſame kind and nature, if any is to be had.

This deſcription, I trow, will go near to be received by all the patrons of excommunication, even by thoſe that make excommunication no leſſe a ſaving ordinance then the preaching of the word and the adminiſtration of the Sacraments; as the • ever. Divines have defined and determined in their aſſembly at Weſtminſter. Now of this excommunication I • hall here give this ſhort account.

1. That for four thouſand years no ſuch excommunication was in uſe, either among the heathens or the Jewes.

2. That at that time when ſome think it had a beginning, even when the Jewes were carried into captivity, it did not begin.

3. That there is no ground for ſuch an excommunication communication nor practiſe in the new Teſtaſtament.

4. That ſoon after Chriſt and the Apoſtles time excommunication begun, and was mainly ſubſervient to the working of the myſtery of iniquity.

5. Excommunication being retained by the reformers, did occaſionally ſtrengthen the myſtery of iniquity.

For the firſt, it is eaſy to ſhew that there was no ſuch excommunication among the heathens as we have deſcribed. It is true, that many learned Grammarians and Lawyers, as Polydore Virgil, Tiraquellus, Fortatulus and ſome others, hold that excommunication was in uſe among the heathens before it was practiſed among the Jewes: but it had nothing of the excommunication agreed on by all parties. The example of Alcibiades, condemned for keeping holy conventicies in Cornelius Nepos, doth not concern excommunication, ſince it was a judiciall act of the people of Athens: neither was that an excommunication whereof Caeſar ſpeaketh in his Commentaries, being a forinſecall ſentence pronounced by the Druides, who were judges of the land, and medled with any ſuch kind of matters as are uſually judged at Weſtminſter Hall in term time: for there was not then any diviſion of power. Draco, ſaith Demoſthenes, amongſt other penalties impoſed, ranketh excluſion from courts, pleading, temples, and performing their idol-worſhip. Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus in the year from the building of Rome 254 ſaith, that the Senat made a decree to expiate all thoſe that in the civil wars were neceſſitated to ſhed blood. And Diodorus Siculus hath a notable example lib. 16. ſect. 23. that though amongſt all the nations in Greece there were variety of functions, yet there was an identity of juriſdiction: for the Council of the Amphicty ones did proceed againſt the violators and plunderers of Temples and Altars, & made lawes concerning their publick worſhip. Alſo Lampridius telleth us, that Alexander the Emperour reviewed the ſentences of the colledge of Augurs: alſo Tertullian in his Apologetick cap. 5. ſaith, that it was the prerogative of the ſenate to conſecrate their Gods, and to order the religion that was to be obſerved among the people.

Let us now come to the Jewes; and firſt examine what they have to ſhew for excommunication before the law was given. Beza and others make excommunication as ancient as the creation: they ſay, God did excommunicate Adam and Cain. Others would have thoſe Angels who did not perſiſt in their integrity to have been thruſt out of Heaven by excommunication. But theſe acts being judiciall acts of God, not as Paſtor of his church, but as loveraign judge, cannot ſerve the turn: beſides that excommunication ſuppoſeth a poſſibility of abſolution, and returning to the former condition; and ſuch could not the excommunication of the bad Angels be, nor that of Adam, who was never to return to Paradiſe.

Since the Law, they alledge for excommunication, cerith or cutting off; which Mr. Rutherfurd confeſſeth was done by death or otherwiſe, and ſo can be no plea for excommunication: beſides that it was inflicted by the magiſtrate, and was a corporall puniſhment, which concludeth nothing for presbyterian excommunication.

Zanchius, in an Epiſtle to Frederick the III. Prince Palatine, ſaith, that Marie the ſiſter of Moſes was excommunicated being put out of the camp. But was the camp any more a part of the church then of the commonwealth? or why was this act of exculſion rather an eccleſiaſticall act then a civil? And was this penalty inflicted upon Mary by the Prieſts and Levites ſitting in a judicatory diſtinct from that of Moſes?

No great ſtreſſe or ſtrength is there for excommunication in the judgement that befell Korah, Dathan and Abiram: for this example rather teacheth us, that the nature of excommunication ſtands not in an expelling or removing any one from us by a judiciall ſentence, but rather in excommunicating and withdrawing our ſelves from the communion of the wicked: for ſo are the words Numbers 16. Separate your ſelves from among that congregation, and bid all the people to depart from the tents of theſe wicked men. Such excommunication I ſhall willingly grant, whereby we may avoid and reject hereticks and hereſies; flee from the devil, but not put the devil to flight by excommunication. The beſt way to eſchew the unfruitfull works and workers of darkneſſe, and to have no communion with them, is to withdraw from their communion.

They urge much legall uncleanneſſe, for which they ſay men were ſeparated from the reſt of the congregation. This, Mr. Rutherfurd ſaith p. 285. was a ceremoniall excommunication; thereby ſilently confeſſing that reall excommunication was not in uſe, till all the ceremonies were taken away. Suppoſe that the legall uncleanneſſe had been a type of the morall, it could not be a type of a thing then preſent, but of a future: but we have proved that the legall cleanneſſe was a type of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, & the legall uncleanneſſe a type of thoſe that being not clad with Chriſts righteouſneſs, were ſeparated from Chriſt and his elect, as the goats are from the ſheep. A perfect righteouſneſs, ſuch as was the legall, cannot be a type of the morall righteouſneſſe, which is imperfect: and the want of legall cleanneſſe doth very well prefigure the want of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, but it doth not ſo well ſhadow out the want of morall righteouſneſſe, which doth not as ſuch ſeparate men from Chriſt. Since then, as Mr. Rutherfurd confeſſeth, this ſeparation of lepers and ſuch as were polluted with legall uncleanneſſe was but a ceremoniall excommunication, I long to hear from him but one only example in all the old Teſtament of a reall excommunication, which was typified by the ceremoniall excommunication, or that ever any man was kept from the paſſeover or the ſacrifices for a morall uncleanneſſe: which he will never be able to ſhew. Beſides, this ſequeſtring or ſeparating of a leprous or legally unclean perſon was no judiciall act of the Prieſts and Levites, more then of the elders of the people; and ſo by that, excommunication ſhould not be a ſentence agreeing with the deſcription we have given of it, and which is agreed on by all ſides that plead for excommunication.

It is obſervable, that not all the Levites, but only Aaron and his ſons could judge of the leper, therein prefiguring Chriſt, who only knoweth his own, and diſcerneth his elect from others, and the ſheep from the goats: ſo that this legall rite cannot be applyed to excommunication, which they ſay is a judiciall act that may be performed by every miniſter of the Goſpell. And therefore the Papiſts have very good reaſon on their ſide, who being not willing to looſe their power of excommunicating, nor to forgo the uſuall plea taken from the Prieſts judging of the leper, ſaw, that ſince only Aaron & his ſons were inveſted with the power of judging the leper, it was therefore fitting that the power of excommunication, prefigured by that power of diſcerning leproſie, ſhould belong only to the Biſhops, who ſucceed the ſons of Aaron, and are in the Chriſtian church what the ſons of Aaron were in the Jewiſh. Now I have ſhewed elſewhere, that Goſpell-Prophets or miniſters did not ſucceed the Prieſts or Levites, but the Prophets of the old Teſtament, who had nothing to do with judging of the leproſy: and that therefore the Prieſts judging of the leproſy apart from other men, is no plea either for excommunication or for eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction: beſides that the Prieſts did judge of the leproſy not ſo much by their office, as by the skill annexed to their office; and ſo they did but as phyſitians, who are beſt able to judge of the peſtilence, yet are only to give their judgement, but not to ſeparate any one from the reſt of men by their juriſdiction, no more then the Prieſts did.

SOme are of opinion that excommunication had its beginning in Ezra's (chap. 7. v. 27.) and Nehemiahs times, Nehem. 10. v. 29. and ch. 13. v. 25. where Aben Ezra expoundeth I curſed them, of the two kinds of excommunication, Niddui and Cherem: though others queſtion it, and ſay that theſe three kinds of excommunication, Niddui, Cherem and Scha • natha, were not invented of two hundred years after. However it is certain, as ſome Rabbins obſerve, that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ſomething like excommunication begun; for the people being led captive, and wanting their wonted magiſtrate, and uſuall legall proceedings, and having no power within themſelves to keep up their religion without mixing with the heathen, or to reſtrain thoſe that would run after Idols; the beſt-minded people, yea moſt of the nation who as yet had not conſulted with themſelves how far they were to perſevere in the religion they were born and brought up in, did body themſelves into ſeverall ſynagogues, where they bound themſelves mutually by a ſacred oath (ſome ſay they broke bread upon it) to keep the law of Moſes, and not to join themſelves by marriages to the heathens, and to hold cloſe to the cuſtoms and conſtitutions of their elders and anceſtours, even of thoſe that were the keepers of ſuch a confederate diſcipline, and were to ſee all things performed according to oath or covenant, and to take order that whoſoever did break it ſhould ſuffer the penalty impoſed by the diſcipline.

Theſe ſynagogues ſupplyed the defect both of magiſtracy, and of all thoſe godly meetings which were kept every ſabbath-day in the houſes of Prophets: for in them not only the law of Moſes was read and expounded, and prayers made; but alſo all thoſe cauſes and matters which uſually were handled and determined in higher and lower courts or Sanedrims, were adjudged, ſo far as the Princes under whom they lived gave them liberty, and enlarged or ſhortned their priviledges: for ſometimes they were not permitted to put any man to death; ſometimes they were allowed, even out of Judea, to have their Ethnarcha or Prince of the people, who did not ſo much govern the countrey as the nation. Hence we are ſatisfied how the chief Prieſts came to give Paul power to lay hold on the Jewes living out of Judea, and bring them captive to Jeruſalem, for they could not have given ſuch a commiſſion to apprehend a Gentile.

Amongſt other penalties that the ſeverall ſynagogues, diſperſed in Judea, Aegypt, Greece, Pontus and Galatia, inflicted, caſting out of the ſynagogue was one. The Rabbins ſay, for the Scripture is ſilent in it, that this caſting out comprehended many degrees of excommunication; ſo that when they were permitted to put to death, to be put in Cherem was thought as much as to dye. But what ever were the degrees or ſpecies of excommunication, and by what title ſo ever called and diſtinguiſhed among the Jewes, it is certain that none of theſe cenſures inflicted by the ſynagogues, or by the keepers of their liberties, were of the nature of the excommunication we have deſcribed in the precedent chapter. For

1. Theſe ſynagogues were a mixt aſſembly of men, betwixt a corporation and a church, and had not within their body a juriſdiction of Prieſts and Levites diſtinct from the reſt of the ſynagogue, for the high Prieſt was a long time the chief magiſtrate.

2. There being other cenſures inflicted beſides caſting out of the ſynagogue, (which they make excommunication) as ſtoning, burning, whipping, cutting of limmes, as learned Mr. Deſpagne tells us in his judicious piece of the Harmony of times; there is no reaſon at all to make one cenſure more eccleſiaſticall then any of the reſt, as if caſting out was a cenſure inflicted by churchmen, and whipping and cutting of limmes were civil cenſures inflicted by others. Sure a magiſtrate, by the ſame power that he cauſeth a cutpurſe to be whipt, alſo baniſheth a ſeditious man: ſo were all penalties in thoſe ſynagogues acts of the ſame power and the ſame men, and equally uſing force upon the body; for as yet they knew no ſuch diſtinction of powers and cenſures, nor were the diſtinctions of eccleſiaſticall and civil, ſpirituall and temporall, found out.

3. Thoſe that were caſt out of the ſynagogue, were alike reſtrained from church and from Commonwealth-priviledges; the church and the Commonwealth being not yet taken for two diſtinct bodies.

4. We do not read that thoſe that were put out of the ſynagogue were kept off from the Temple, and from being partakers of the ſame myſteries that others not put out of the ſynagogue enjoyed: which ſheweth that excommunication was not anſwerable to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or caſting out of the ſynagogue; for thoſe that in the ſynagogue had power to put one out of it, had not power to bar him either from killing the paſſeover in the temple, or from eating of it at his own home, or from being partaker of all other ſacrifices and ceremonies in the Temple. Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught daily in the Temple, though excommunicated and put out of the Jewes ſynagogues.

5. Neither do we find to the contrary, but that a man put out of one ſynagogue might in the ſame town or countrey be entertained by another ſynagogue: for Gemara Babvionica ſaith, that he that was excommunicated in one town, was not thought excommunicated in another.

6. Many Rabbins ſay, that one private man uſed to excommunicate and abſolve another: and hereupon ſome are ready to ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt related to that Matth. 18. when he ſaid, Let him be to thee, &c. as if he had ſaid, Since he will not hearken to thy good advice, nor that of two or three, nor yet to the church, thy laſt refuge is to excommunicate him in thy private name, and as to thy ſelf only, having nothing farther to do with him. And in that manner will they have the 40. men, who had conſpired to kill Paul, to have excommunicated one another, in caſe any one had been ſlack in the enterpriſe.

Now let us ſee what plea there is for excommunication in the new Teſtament. We have ſhewed, that the Chriſtians ſucceeding the Jewes, retained by the ſame confederation of diſcipline, under a magiſtrate no friend to them, the ſame power of magiſtracy as they, though not in that high meaſure of juriſdiction; becauſe the Chriſtians were alwayes more perſecuted, and never had ſo large priviledges and liberties granted them as the Jewes had: but yet as little as they had, they could do that which 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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 magiſtrate. Since then an irreconcilable brother ought to be eſteemed as an heathen, is it any whit againſt Chriſtian charity for the party offended to ſue him before an heathen magiſtrate? This expoſition is very naturall, having nothing ſtrained, but moſt like to be the ſenſe of Jeſus Chriſt.

As for the 18. verſe, concerning binding and looſing, we have examined what ſtrength can be in it for excommunication: not diſcuſſing whether it may not be as well applyed, as Chryſoſtome, Auſtin, Theophy lact thought, to every private man, as to the operation of the word in the miniſtry; or whether this verſe hath any coherence with the precedent diſcourſe of Chriſt.

Neither will I enter into the controverſy, whether Iudas was partaker of the Euchariſt, for it is not much materiall to know it; all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or caſting out, and that he did eat of the paſſeover, which eating was equivalent to that of the Lords Supper.

Now, leſt more heads of objection of this Hydra of excommunication ſhould ariſe, if all ſhould not be cut off, we muſt examine what ſtrength the example of the inceſtuous perſon 1 Cor. 5. hath for excommunication. But this extract being already too much lengthened, and the drift of it all along being, to prove that the caſting out of any member of a church, being the ſame with the putting out of the ſynagogue, is no act of miniſtry or of church members as ſuch, but an act of magiſtracy, I need not to ſpeak of it at all: beſides that theſe 3. or 4. obſervations will take off all hold for excommunication. 1. It is granted by Calvin, Beza, Walaeus, Apollonius, Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gilleſpie, that St. Paul mentioneth but one cenſure inflicted upon the inceſtuous perſon, viz. excommunication, and that the delivering of him to Satan was the caſting him out of the congregation. 2. Now it being evident that this delivering to Satan was no excommunication, but a judgement quite of another nature; it is likewiſe equally evident that the putting away of the inceſtuous perſon, being the ſame with delivering him to Satan, was no excommunication. 3. This caſting out of the inceſtuous perſon makes nothing for that excommunication which is only a putting a man by from partaking of the Euchariſt: for though examples may be brought out of the Scriptures, of men caſt out or kept from the temple or ſynagogues, yet there is no one example, nor any reaſon for it, that a man admitted to enter either into the temple or the ſynagogue, ſhould not be partaker of the ſame myſtery or ordinances celebrated with the reſt. 4. Calvin thinks that St. Paul by theſe words, put away the wicked from among you, did not point particularly at the inceſtuous perſon, but rather at the devil or the wicked one indefinitely, as the plotter and contriver of all evil, which St. Paul ſaith was put away from them by that delivery of the inceſtuous perſon to Satan. 5. Wendelinus in his common places of excommunication ſaith, that the putting away of the inceſtuous perſon from among the Cormthians, was not only an excluſion from godly converſe, as praying, hearing and receiving the • uchariſt with him; but alſo from civil commerce, in eating, trading and talking with him. Which expoſition is the moſt naturall I know, and proveth that this putting away was no act of eccleſiaſticall power diſtinct from the civil: for alwayes every court puniſheth according to its kind: a court of Exchequer doth not ſummon men for cauſes that are of the cognizance of a court-Martiall; ſo neither ſhould an eccleſiaſticall court impoſe penalties that are to be inflicted by a civil court, ſuch as is the depriving of a man of civil liberty. 6. Learned Mr. Lightfoot ſaith, that all the power of the church of Corinth in delivering the inceſtuous perſon to Satan was, by the ſtrength of Paul's ſpirit that went along with them; ſo that the people of Corinth acting by no power of their own, no church ought to do as that church then did, except they be ſure of the aſſiſtance of the ſame ſpirit.

Next in order followeth the neceſſity of ſelf-examination, 1 Cor. 11. made an argument to prove that miniſters muſt examine every communicant, and judge of mens worthineſſe. For Beza, Walaeus, Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gilleſpie thus argue: If it be the duty of every man to examine himſelf, much more is it the duty of a minister to examine him. Never was an argument more inconſequent, and leſſe concludent, by which the Papiſts may as well prove auricular confeſſion: If men muſt confeſſe their ſins to God, much more muſt miniſters require every man to confeſſe their ſins to them. For (quite on the contrary) from this Text theſe or the like inferences ſhould be drawn: If all men muſt examine themſelves, much more ought miniſters to examine themſelves: or this; If every church-member ought to examine himſelf, then ought the miniſters to exhort them to that ſelf-examination: or this; If every church-member ought to prepare himſelf for the word and Sacraments, then miniſters are not to prepare them otherwiſe, then by ſhewing them and giving them directions for their due preparation, leaving every one to do the work himſelf.

I Should next ſhew that excommunication was mainly ſubſervient to the working of the myſtery of iniquity; but this I have handled at large in my Paraeneſis. St. Paul ſaith, that in his time the myſtery of iniquity began to work. Satan was then very buſy to infuſe bad principles, which firſt put forth themſelves in the affectation of primacy, and in the corruption of the doctrine of the Euchariſt. The laity had no hand in it: for as Miniſters have alwayes been the principall chanels to conveigh knowledge and grace, when aſſiſted by the ſpirit of God; ſo when God gave them over to the guidance of their own ſpirits, they have been ſtill the only agents and inſtruments to bring in tyranny and hereſy into the church. The corruption then beginning at the head, & amongſt the leaders of flocks, their main care hath been to ſet up themſelves not only over the inheritance of the Lord, but alſo over their own fellow-labourers and collegues: for the attaining of which, and to ſeem great in the eyes of all men, they turned the Euchariſt into an idoll, and this into a ſacrifice, hoping that theſe myſteries taking once Gods place, the paſtors would be ſoon reſpected with a veneration beyond and above that which is due to magiſtrates; having with the dignity of their function, a ſpeciall priviledge and power to diſtribute thoſe myſteries, particularly the Euchariſt, to ſuch as they ſhould count worthy; from whence came excommunication.

But before excommunication could come to be the ſtandard of an eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, the corruption of the Euchariſt muſt precede: which was a work of many hundred years.

1. The Fathers, though they had no intention of contributing to the working of the myſtery of iniquity, have occaſionally given a riſe to it: for either becauſe they lived among the Jewes and heathens, or becauſe they newly came from amongſt thoſe, who thought there could be no religion without ſacrifices and altars, condeſcending to the capacity & weakneſſe both of Jewes and Gentils, they borrowed many rites and ceremonies from them, yea their very diſcipline; they called the Euchariſt by the name of ſacrifice, and gave the name of altar to the communion-table, to the bread, the name of the body of Jeſus Chriſt, and to the wine, the name of his blood. All which made way for Tranſubſtantiation; which hath taken ſo deep root, that the very reformers, amongſt the reſt Luther, thought it too great a leap to recede too far from Tranſubſtantiation, but ſtuck in the mid-way, and kept to Conſubſtantiation: yea the beſt of ours, though they took away both Tranſubſtantiation and Conſubſtantiation, and have allowed no reall preſence of Chriſt but in the believer, yet, to the diſlike of ſome of their brethren, they have retained the very out-ſide & phraſes which clothed Tranſubſtantiation, borrowed from the 6. chapter of St. John, of eating the fleſh of Chriſt and drinking of his blood, and feeding on the ſubſtance of his body; which expreſſions Bullinger wholly diſalloweth, as he openly profeſſeth in an Epiſtle to Beza, and finds fault, that in a ſynod at Rochell, where Beza was preſident, in the year 1571. a canon was made, which condemned all ſuch as would not grant that the faithfull in the Euchariſt were fed with the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt: all which we are beholden for to the Fathers. Tertullian lib. de oratione cap. 6. ſaith, that the body of Chriſt is in the bread. Ambroſe upon the 17. of St. Luke, beſides the body that ſuffered, ſaith that there is alſo a body whereof it is ſaid, my fleſh is meat indeed. The Fathers uſually make three bodies of Chriſt; a body naturall, myſticall and Sacramentall: yea Juſtin Martyr and Hilary make a myſticall union of the divinity of Chriſt with the bread in the Sacrament.

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 1 • 41. relates what troubles and ado there was to bring it in, & that many alledged the examples of the neighbour-churches (meaning Zurich, Bern, &c.) among which excommunication was not in uſe: ſome ſaying that b •… t the Popiſh tyranny was recalled. But all theſe difficulties (ſaith Beza) Calvin ſurmounted; yet he did not cenſure other churches as unchriſtian, that had not proceeded ſo far, nor thoſe pastors who did not conceive their flocks needed to be restrained by ſuch a bit or bridle. And indeed Calvin himſelf, though very eager to bring in excommunication, inſomuch that ſometimes he calls it the yoke of Chriſt, & the diſcipline of Chriſt, & profeſſeth to be ready to endure either death or baniſhment, rather then to ſuffer that the towns ſenat ſhould take upon them the right of excommunicating, as he ſaith in an Epiſtle to Viret; yet he cannot but ſpeak very reſpectfully of his neighbour miniſters, who acknowledged no ſuch neceſſity upon excommunication, as that it ſhould be accounted amongſt the ordinances of Chriſt. Theſe be his words, in an Epiſtle to the paſtors of Zurich, in the year 1553. All men are not of the ſame opinion concerning excommunication: neither am I ignorant that there be many godly and learned men, who think not excommunication neceſſary under Chriſtian Princes. I ſhould not care much to erre in that point of excommunication with Bullinger and Muſculus, upon condition that I were as godly and learned as they.

But however the opinions of the neighbour churches and miniſters about excommunication ſtood, Calvins great authority prevailed to ſet up excommunication. In an Epiſtle to a perſon not named, pag. 409. and 410. in folio, he declareth at large which way he went about it; and there he hath theſe words, which carry as much authority, as if his will had been a ſufficient rule for Geneva, and ſo for other churches to be governed by: Volui, ut aequum eſt, ſpiritualem poteſtatem à civili judicio diſtingui; ita in uſum rediit excommunicatio: It was my will that, as it is fitting, the ſpirituall power ſhould be diſtinguiſhed from the civil judgement; and ſo excommunication came again to be in uſe. But however his will was, he was never able to make good his eccleſiaſticall or ſpirituall juriſdiction diſtinct and independent from that of the magiſtrate.

1. Becauſe the ſame ſpirituall ſenat was made and conſtituted by the ſenat of the town, as Calvin acknowledgeth in an Epiſtle to Bullinger in the year 1553. and therefore it was ſubordinate to the juriſdiction of the civil magiſtrate, not only in its firſt making, but alſo all the time after: juſt as when Conſtantine the great inſtituted for a Epiſcopalia, Biſhops courts, he looked upon them as depending on his juriſdiction, not only in their firſt conſtitution, but alſo in their duration, in the reviewing, and ratifying their lawes and ſentences, or diſannulling them.

2. It is true, Beza ſaith in the life of Calvin an. 1541. that at the firſt conſtitution of that eccleſiaſticall ſenat and its lawes by the magiſtrate and the people, there was a ſoveraign law made, that no ſort of men, miniſters, magiſtrates or people, ſhould hereafter preſume and attempt to diſannull what therein was eſtabliſhed by the law-makers of Geneva. This indeed would have been a very fooliſh & abſurd law, like that of Clodius, whereof Cicero ſpeaketh, that could not be repealed or abrogated either by the ſenat or people; for when ever the law is abrogated, that clauſe alſo that the law cannot be abrogated is likewiſe abrogated. Who would think that either the magiſtrate and people of Geneva ſhould ſo enſlave themſelves, and tye their hands, as not to be able to repeal, review or reforme lawes formerly made by them; or that they ſhould believe their lawes were compoſed and given by them with ſuch an unerring judgement, that they needed no further recognition?

3. This juriſdiction, called by Calvin eccleſiaſticall, could not be exerciſed and managed without a coercive reſtraining power, or a power of magiſtracy, either ſeated in the miniſters and conſiſtory, or delegated from the magiſtrate. For among the lawes of diſcipline of Geneva this is one, If any one, in contempt of the eccleſiaſticall ſentence or judgement, is ſo bold as to attempt to come to the Sacrament, let him be repelled and driven back by the miniſter. Here then there is a power of magiſtracy, or a coercive power aſſumed by the miniſters, without which he confeſſeth that all eccleſiaſticall cenſures are null and of no effect. So in an Epiſtle to Viret an. 1547. ſpeaking of a woman within the conſiſtory who declined the presbyteriall court and judgement, and beſides did tire them out with her too much prating, ſhe (ſaith he) would have overwhelmed us with her thundering language, if ſhe had not been put out by force. I ask here, by what power was this woman thruſt out? was it eccleſiaſticall and ſpirituall, and a power of binding and looſing, or a civil coercive power? and of the two keyes they ſay they have, which of them was taken in hand, and by which end of the key was the woman driven out?

4. But the nullity of that ſpirituall juriſdiction is evidently demonſtrated, by the perpetuall conflict and claſhing, in Calvins time, betwixt the ſentences and judgements of the conſiſtory of Geneva and thoſe of the magiſtrate, whereof I have given many examples out the life and Epiſtles of Calvin. Among others of one Bartolier, who being excommunicated by the conſiſtory, did appeal from that ſentence to the magiſtrate, who once did confirm the judgement of the conſiſtory, and another time did evacuate and diſannull it. Whereupon there being a great conteſt betwixt the magiſtrate and the conſiſtory, to whom the judgement and right of excommunicating did belong, Calvin with much earneſtneſſe obtained, that ere any thing were concluded, the opinion of four cities of the Switzers ſhould be deſired. Bullinger maketh mention only of one city, namely Zurich, in an Epiſtle of the Senat of Geneva to that of Zurich; wherein among other quere's this was one, Whether there is no other way to excommunicate a man, but by the conſiſtory? In that Epiſtle Bullinger, though very fearfull to offend Calvin, yet manifeſtly ſheweth his diſlike of the whole buſineſſe, and exhorteth him to moderation and mildneſſe. Whatever was the iſſue of the conteſt, we do not read that the magiſtrate of Geneva did ever repeal this decree of the court, that the laſt judgement about excommunication falls under the cognizance of the Senat of Geneva.

THe reformed churches of France took their pattern of diſcipline, and therewithall excommunication, rather from Geneva then from the Proteſtant Cantons: for being to live under a croſs magiſtrate, they could not exerciſe their diſcipline as a law commanded by the magiſtrate, nor execute their cenſures of excommunication as acts of the magiſtrate: and therefore the reformed churches of France have upon much better grounds retained excommunication, then the churches of Geneva, who living under a magiſtrate that was himſelf part of the church, were not neceſſitated to divide juriſdictions; ſince the ſame men who were members of churches, were alſo members of the city and magiſtracy: and ſince the diſcipline, yea excommunication was a law of the magiſtrate, there was little need to divide powers and juriſdictions; which when they ſhould have done all they could, muſt needs ſtream from the ſame ſpring-head. But in France they could not be ſo happy; and therefore ſince they could not have a juriſdiction immediatly derived from their • agiſtrate, it was requiſite they ſhould take up one • y mu • uall conſent, and by a confederate diſcipline. For when the magiſtrate (as it was among the Jewes in their captivity) is no countenancer of the true religion, nor a keeper of the two tables, nor a nurſing father of the churches that live under him; they muſ • , if they can obtain his leave, be a magiſtrate and a law unto themſelves, and ſet up a kind of magiſtracy by mutuall conſent, not only in their private churches, but alſo in their conſiſtories and ſynods, by which religion and piety may be aſſerted, and errours in liſe and doctrine be reſtrained. So that when a private church excludeth a man either out of its communion, or aſſembly, this it doth by no other power, then a magiſtrate, a town, a co • poration, or a hall ſhould act by, in baniſhing or expelling a member of their own body.

I confeſſe few of the miniſters in France will acknowledge that their diſcipline is taken up upon ſuch grounds, but rather that it is according to the pattern in the mount, and the diſcipline of Chriſt; as if it were a ſpirituall cenſure, and a ſword committed only to the miniſters by a Scripture warrant, and from the power of the keyes, and of binding and looſing.

But I much wonder that wiſe men, having a good foundation upon which they may firmly ground their diſcipline, ſhould rather chuſe to build it upon the ſand and upon the ſea ſhore, where it may be ſoon waſht away. What man, poſſeſſing an inheritance by a good title, would renounce that, and rather feign a falſe will and teſtament, and upon that ground his title, which proving invalid will put him by the inheritance he had a good title to? Yet this they do, who will acknowledge no diſcipline but from Chriſt, and will not put a man out of their aſſemblies but by a power derived to them from Chriſt. But it being proved to their faces, 1. that Jeſus Chriſt never chalked out any form of diſcipline, but left it to the prudence and diſcretion of Chriſtian magiſtrates, paſtors and people, who in generall are commanded to ſee that all things be done orderly, 2. that excommunication is no otherwiſe a law of Chriſt, then is the act of putting away a hurtfull member from any ſociety; theſe two things, I ſay, being made out to them to be Scriptu e, reaſon and common ſenſe, and yet they perſ • ſting to have no other grounds for their diſcipline, then thoſe feigned ones, who ſeeth not that their diſcipline muſt be groundleſſe, ſince they caſt away that which might ſtrongly ſupport it? Thus they are like a man that cuts off his good leggs, and buyes himſelf wooden crutches to walk upon.

This is that doctrine that my Paraeneſis was ſo much blamed for by my countrey-men, yea neareſt kindred, as if I went about to take away all diſcipline, and to bring in ſtead of it diſorder and confuſion; yea further, to lay the reformed churches open to the perſecution of their adverſaries. But my conſcience tells me, I never had any ſuch deſigne; and my reaſon prompts me, that no ſuch thing can be concluded from what I have written of that ſubject. For it is with the diſcipline of the reformed churches in France under their magiſtrate, as it was with that of the Jewes under the Babylonians, Perſians and Romans: for whereas before their captivity they had no diſtinction betwixt church and ſtate, no other diſcipline then the law of the land, no juriſdiction diſtinct from that of their magiſtrate; afterwards, when they lived under magiſtrates who were no friends to their lawes and religion, they were fain, as far as they were permitted, to ſet up a diſcipline by conſent, which was in lieu of the magiſtrate, whereof one law was to be caſting out of the ſynagogue, which we may call excommunication. So that their juriſdiction was no otherwiſe diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, then as the power of a ſon, in ordering his own affairs and religion contrary to the unjuſt commands of his father, is diſtinct from the paternall power. When a man cannot go to the charge of lead, he muſt thatch his houſe with ſtraw; if he wants means to keep a ſervant, he muſt ſerve himſelf; and if he wants one to govern him, he muſt be his own governour: and yet that power whereby he governeth himſelf, and is maſter of his own actions, is not diſtinct from that which a governour was to have over him.

The very ſame thing the reformed churches in France may ſay, who make uſe of what magiſtracy they can contrive and ſet up among themſelves, in lieu of their own magiſtrate, who cares not for their religion. If they be perſecuted, while they hold that their diſcipline is taken up by conſent, as the Jewes was under ſtrange magiſtrates; I do not ſee how they will be leſſe expoſed to perſecution, when ever they hold that their diſcipline is not of mans deviſing, but of Chriſts own appointment. For the magiſtrate doth not give them the liberty 〈◊〉 their diſcipline under any ſuch notion, either as it is confederate and arbitrary, or punctually ſet down in Scripture: for either way he counteth their diſcipline to be but a departing from the true church, and their reformation to be a meer deformation. So that it matters not much as to their ſafety, what foundation they make their diſcipline to ſtand upon.

Sure, it is not like, that thoſe that were the authors of the diſcipline of the reformed churches in France, did look upon it as a modell left by Chriſt to his churches, but rather as a collection of rules well digeſted by humane wiſedome and prudence, alterable according to time and place. For ſo much ſaith the laſt article of their diſcipline: Theſe articles contained in this book concerning diſcipline, are not ſo determined and ratified amongst us, but that they may be altered as the emolument and benefit of the church ſhall require.

I hope, when all prejudice ſhall be laid aſides no rationall man will deny my principles. I have alledged John Meſtrezat, a very learned man, late miniſter at Paris, both in my Paraeneſis and in my Corollarie, in a letter of his written but a few weeks before he died; where his judgement is wholly conſonant to my opinion, that all church-government is prudentiall, arbitrary, and taken up by conſent, for neceſſity of order, and not for conſcience. Beſides, I have the teſtimony of a very reverend preacher in a famous church in Normandy, in a letter of his to me, wherein after he hath delivered his own judgement concerning the book, he addeth that of one of his fellow-miniſters in that church, in theſe words: One of my collegues, who hath read your firſt book hath given this teſtimony of it, That he is much ſatisfied upon the reading of it; and that your opinion is ſo far from weakning our diſcipline, that on the contrary it doth rather ſtreng then it, and places it upon its true and naturall bottom.

The ſecond kind is of thoſe that, though in generall they profeſs to be for a church-government diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, yet if one take notice of all the poſitions concerning that argument which each of them admit and grant, will be found jointly, though not every one of them conſidered a part, to ſay as much as I; juſt as the Proteſtants doctrine will be found in all (though not in each of) the Romiſh authors, overcome by the evidence of truth in the handling of ſome points controverted betwixt them and us: as Scotus confeſſeth that Tranſubſtantiation hath no ground in Scripture; Cajetan denyeth the Popiſh indulgences; Bellarmin after he hath much heightned the merit of works, concludeth with a • utiſſimum eſt, and flieth to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt apprehended by faith, as the ſafeſt anchor to ſtay a ſtaggering Chriſtian; Janſenius is right in the doctrine of grace; all the reſt in ſome poſitions or other hold with us. And of this kind are Bucer, Martyr, Jewell, Zanchius, Reynolds, Camero, Rivet, and many more; who beſides by yielding an inch, have given us a whole handfull to believe, that what we have diſcourſed of the nature of power, lawes, judgement, the right of churches, and the magiſtrates power in matters of religion, is both reaſon and Scripture. For whoever admits (as moſt of theſe authors do) that the judgements of Paſtors in presbyteries & ſynods are ſubordinate to that of the ſoveraign Chriſtian magiſtrate, and that appeals from church-judicatories to the magiſtrate are grounded upon Scripture, reaſon, and the practiſe of all nations, and beſides ſaith, that the magiſtrate is the ſupreme governour and head of the church over all cauſes and perſons; whoever, I ſay, grants theſe to be truths, muſt needs overthrow eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction and power of excommunication, except it be in ſubordination to (and dependently on) the magiſtrate.

But among all the reformed Divines who appear in the throng of thoſe that hold an eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, and a government diſtinct from that of the magiſtrate, none hath delivered poſitions in print ſo near the language of Mr. Coleman, as Ludovicus Cappellus, paſtor and Profeſſor at Saumur, yet living, hath done; which paſſing currant for truth from the mouth of Cappellus, if they had fallen from Mr. Coleman, would have been taken by our brethren the Scots for pernicious and dangerous tenets, and mere Eraſtianiſme.

In the firſt part of his Theſes Salmurienſes, de poteſtate & regimine Eccleſiae theſ. 12. he ſaith, that paſtors have properly no other juriſdiction, then that which ſubdueth the affections of the world and the fleſh, when the ſpirit of Chriſt in the word reſtraineth the aſſaults of Satan; that there is no other authority of governing the church, then what is ſeated in Chriſt the head, when by the efficacy of his ſpirit he enlighteneth the mind, and convinceth the conſcience.

In his 40. theſis, he ſaith, that the conſtitutions of the church have authority no further, then as they agree with reaſon.

In his 41. and 42. he puts equall ſtreſſe of duty upon the magiſtrate in governing and ordering the church & the commonwealth, as being keeper of one table as well as the other. Theſe are his words in Latin: Porro, his de rebus diſpiciendi atque ſtatuendi ita penes eccleſiam (hoc eſt, eccleſiasticos quos v • cant viros) est poteſtas, ut ſi magiſtratus pius & Chriſtianus ſit, fier • id non debeat non modo ſine ejus conſilio & conſcientia, verum etiam ſine ejus authoritate, qua ea quae videbuntur in hoc genere conducibilia confirmentur, vimque legis obtineant. Is nempe eſt utriuſque divinae legis Tabulae vindex atque cuſtos, ad quem propterea pertinet, etiam paſtores, ſi ceſſent, vel peccent in officium, movere, objurgare, &, ubi opus fuerit, caſtigare; denique proſpicere atque providere, ut omnia, tum in eccleſia, tum in republica ſeu politia, recte & ordinate fiant, utque ordinis legitime conſtituti turbatores & violatores pro merito puniantur. This he ſeemeth to ſpeak after Pareus in his Miſcellanea Catechetica art. 11. aphoriſ. 18. where he layeth upon the magiſtrate a greater duty in governing the church then the commonwealth, and more in keeping the firſt table then the ſecond. Hoc vero jus gubernandi eccleſias ſacra Scriptura diſertim magiſtratui attribuit: ut ei, quemadmodum tenetur procurare ut bonum civile in foro & judiciis legitime adminiſtretur, ita non minor, imo longe major ejus cura eſſe debeat, ut jus Divinum, bonum illud animarum, hoc eſt, vera religio & pietas, ſubditis ſuis in eccleſia & ſcholis, ad aeternam eorum ſalutem, proponatur, juxta legem & teſtimonium: idem docent exempla laudatiſſimorum regum, Davidis, &c. Sic Paulus affatur Chriſtianos Romanos, Miniſter eſt Dei tuo bono: ubi intelligit omne bonum, tam civile & terrenum, quam eccleſiaſticum ſeu ſpirituale; ſecus namque magiſtratus homini Christiano non plus commodaret quam infideli. Ac ſane dolendum est, rectius in hoc capite ſenſiſſe olim ethnicos, qui unanimi conſenſu regi ſuo demandarunt, &c.

In his diſputation de ſummo controverſiarum judice theſ. 52. he ſaith, the power of the church and miniſters in delivering their judgements about controverſies is meerly declarative, having no authority further then their reaſons are perſwaſive and convincing.

In his theſes de diverſis ministrorum evangel. gradibus & ordinibus theſ. 2. he alloweth miniſters a function, but no juriſdiction, and urgeth 2 Cor. 1. v. 24. not that we have dominion over your faith, &c. and 1 Cor. 3. v. 9. we are labourers together with God.

In his 2. theſis he ſaith, that Jeſus Chriſt Matth. 20. v. 28. takes off all juriſdiction from the miniſtery.

In his third theſis he ſaith, that the power of excommunication does no more argue a juriſdidiction over the flock, then preſcribing a diet to a patient argueth the phyſitians power, juriſdiction, command and dominion over the patient; making the juriſdiction in both alike in theſe reſpects. 1. As a phyſitian may ſuſpend his own act in adminiſtring phyſick; ſo the miniſter in giving the Euchariſt. 2. As a phyſitian inflicteth no cenſure upon the patient for refuſing to take his phyſick, only warneth him of the hazza • d he runs, upon the neglect of taking it; ſo doth the miniſter: he that receiveth not and obeyeth not the commandement of God delivered by the miniſter, cannot be puniſhed for his neglect of the tender of grace, any more then a ſick man for refeſing to take phyſick.

In his diſputation de clericorum immunitate & privilegiis theſis 10. he ſaith, that Princes have power to inflict puniſhment upon tranſgreſſors of the lawes that concern the worſhip of God, the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and the doctrine of faith; and beſides, that theſe lawes have no force except they be confirmed and ratified by them.

In his 12. theſis he ſaith, that the lawes about faith, the Sacraments, divine worſhip, diſcipline, and eccleſiaſticall order, cannot be defined or decreed in a ſynod, nor any controverſies therein decided, without the knowledge and conſent of the magiſtrate, if he be godly and Chriſtian, as being the keeper of both tables; who ought to confirm and ratify the lawes agreed on, if they be juſt, elſe to amend and correct them, ſeeing he is the ſervant of God both for the ſpirituall and temporall good. The Latin is much more pregnant: Sane aequum & juilum est, leges & canones de fide, Sacramentis, diſciplina & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tota eccleſiaſtica, primum conſtitui, deque illis deliberari à viris eccleſiaſticis legitime in concilio & ſynodo congregatis, liteſque & controverſias de illis ortas in foro eccleſiae, hoc eſt ſynodis, agitari & definiri; at non tamen ſine cognitione, conſcientia & conſenſu Principis & magiſtratus politici, ſi pius & Christianus est, (eſt enim ille cuſtos utriuſque legis divinae tabula:) à quo, ſi bene conſtitutae ſunt leges, & lites definitae, confirmari, & ipſius authoritate ſanc • ri debent, & ratae haberi; ſi minus, corrigi ab eo & emendari eas oportet, ſiquidem ſervus eſt Dei in ſubditorum ſuorum bonum tum temporale tum ſpirituale, cujus curam & procurationem pro ſibi à Deo, demandato munere debet ſuſcipere, ac Deo de illa cura rationem reddere. De clericis lib. 1. cap. 28. propoſ. 1.

In his 13. theſ. he confirmeth the ſame by the example of the commonwealth of Iſrael, when the Kings, even againſt the will of the Prieſts, did ſet up and order the true worſhip of God. But in his 14. theſ. he would not have this ſo to be taken, as if the faithfull were to receive decrees and orders, becauſe decreed or ordered by the councill or magiſtrate, in caſe they be not agreeable with the word; but only that nothing can be decreed, bearing the name and force of law, obliging and requiring externall obedience, without the conſent and the ſanction of the magiſtrate.

I might adde a third ſort of authorities, of ſome in England, France, Scotland and the Low-Countreys, who not only differ little or nothing from me, but alſo give their approbation to what I have lately put forth on the ſubject I am writing of: which may be more wondred at in the F • ench, who are i •… ured to a diſcipline of their own modelling, and exerciſe a power uncontrolled by the magiſtrate, who inſtead of inſpection, giveth only a toleration. Yet ſome of theſe later have given me a large teſtimony, to have delivered nothing but truth; and acknowledged themſelves to be now convinced (which they were not before) that excommunication is meerly of mans deviſing, and not an ordinance of Chriſt.

I could name many, but that ſome of them are like Joſeph of Arimathea, acknowledging fully that truth which we maintain, but ſecretly, for fear of their fellow-miniſters, that are ſo ſtrongly poſſeſſed with prejudice againſt it. Others being like thoſe that have told a tale ſo long, that at length they believe either that it is truth, or at leaſt that there is ſome truth in it: for having, ſince Calvins time, every communion-day pronounced this clauſe in their Liturgy, I excommunicate ſuch and ſuch ſinners in the name and authority of Chriſt; they are rather prone to believe there is ſome truth and ground for this commination, then to ſearch too far into it: beſides, their collegues ſtrongly believing that excommunication is an ordinance of Chriſt, if they ſhould never ſo little queſtion it, they might be in danger of ſuſpenſion from their offices and benefices.

But all (God be thanked) are not afraid to countenance this truth; as will appear by the judgement which the rever. Miniſters of Diepe in France have given of my Paraeneſis and Corollarium, here annexed, as related by one of them, whoſe gravity, piety and learning is ſo eminent, that he not only deſerves to be believed when he ſpeaketh in the name of himſelf and his brethren; but alſo were it his own ſingle teſtimony, it might wel over-balance hundreds of thoſe that diſſent from him, but have not penetrated to the bottom of the controverſy, as he hath done.

The Gentleman being unknown to me, but by report, I ſent him my Paraeneſis, and deſired him not to ſpare me, in delivering his cenſure and judgement freely both of the book and argument, and to do me rather juſtice, then ſhew me favour. He ſome weeks after returned me this anſwer, in this excellent well-penned letter in Latin.

The Gentleman ſpeaking more in commendation of my book then I deſerve, modeſty makes me forbear to Engliſh it: only I think it not amiſſe to Engliſh here the judgement he gave of the ſame to a friend of his in London, to whom he wrote with mo • e confidence and freedom.